PARLIAMENTARY OATH (MR. BRADLAUGH).

HC Deb 11 February 1884 vol 284 cc449-86

Mr. BRADLAUGH

, returned as one of the Members for the Borough of Northampton, without being called upon by Mr. Speaker, advanced to the Table. Mr. Speaker thereupon called him to. Order; but he nevertheless proceeded to read from a paper, in his hand, the words of the Oath, and having kissed a book which he had brought with him, signed the said paper, and left the same on the Table.

Mr. SPEAKER

, having again called Mr. Bradlaugh to Order, addressed him as follows:—"Mr. Bradlaugh, you have come to the Table without being called by me, according to the Rules and Orders of the House, and have gone through the form of taking and subscribing the Oath, in your own way, without any of the prescribed formalities; and I must call upon you to withdraw until the House has considered your conduct, and the position you have assumed."

And Mr. BRADLAUGH withdrew accordingly, below the Bar.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

I need hardly say, Mr. Speaker, that if the Prime Minister, the Leader of this House, desires to rise I will give him the opportunity; but, assuming that he does not, I intend to do so, and I see no indication of his intention to do so, I shall call the attention of the House to the position in which we stand. It appears to me that the proceeding which we have just witnessed on the part of Mr. Bradlaugh is not in the nature of taking the Oath in accordance with what the Statute law prescribes. Of course, it is necessary that the Oath should be taken when you, Mr. Speaker, are in the Chair; and at the moment when the Oath, or the form of taking the Oath, was gone through you were not in the Chair—you were standing on the step, and you were calling the hon. Gentleman to Order. Under these circumstances, I understand that the matter is entirely open to us. I, therefore, propose this Resolution, which is the same as that moved and carried in this House in several previous Sessions of Parliament— 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 of the 4th May 1883, and to the Reports and Proceedings of two Select Committees therein referred to, Mr. Bradlaugh he 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. 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 of the 4th May 1883, 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, I think it may be convenient that I should follow immediately the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman has acted with perfect courtesy—there was no indication of an intention on my part to address the House or occupy its attention. It was a serious question—when first the Government found that they were unhappily placed in a state of difficulty with the House—it was a serious question, on which there were differences of opinion, whether the Government ought, or ought not, to have made themselves so far the instruments and servants of the House as to take the initiative in giving effect to a Resolution of which they deeply and pro- foundly disapproved. But the decision was taken by us, and we adhered to it for several years; and the House, I think, will feel that to recede from it now would be a proceeding totally without dignity on our part, and quite hopeless of giving satisfaction to anybody. It is much better that the right hon. Gentleman, who represents on this occasion the judgment of the majority of the House, should indicate to the House what he thinks the proper course to take, and that then we should listen to what he states in an equitable and candid spirit. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has given us his construction—he has put his own construction—upon the act which has just been performed by Mr. Bradlaugh, the Member for Northampton, and I will give my reasons why I do not follow him in placing any construction whatever upon it. It has been discovered in the course of these proceedings that if Mr. Bradlaugh should sit and vote in this House, so as to raise the question of penalty, that question could not be effectively raised at the issue of a private individual. That being so, the question occurred to us whether it would not be our duty, on the part of the Crown, to raise that question competently in a Court of Justice, should the case arise. Now, Sir, our impression is that it would be our duty so to raise the question, and it might then become the office of the Court to declare whether Mr. Bradlaugh had taken the Oath or not. On that account, I think it is the much better way that I should avoid giving any opinion whatever on that subject. There is another view of the case with which we have to deal. The right hon. Gentleman has made a Motion, with regard to which now I say, as I have admitted on former occasions, that it is fair and legitimate and consequential on the previous decisions of the House. My own opinion on that decision remains exactly as it was. I believe that almost the vast majority of those who sit on this side of the House regard the decision as unconstitutional. For my own part, as an individual, and speaking with due submission and deference, I do not see in what way it is to be divested of the character of being contrary to law. But, Sir, that is not the question. It is not the function, or the duty, or the usage of an Executive Government, dif- fering from the House of Commons on a particular point again and again to dispute the decision a which the House has arrived. Our view is known—there is no doubt or question about it. I recognize that the right hon. Gentleman, having induced the House to come to a decision, is bound in consistency to take certain consequential proceedings which are, or may be, necessary to prevent the order of the House from being disturbed by acts that are in themselves irregular and contrary to our established usage. On that account, although I may not be friendly to any part of these proceedings, I shall certainly not be the person to take the initiative in any opposition to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. Last year we had a Division upon the subject, which I deprecated, but in which I felt compelled to take part, agreeing with the proposition for which I voted, and feeling that for Members of the Executive Government, who represent the Crown in this House, to avoid the difficulty of a Division by retiring from the House, is not a mode of proceeding that can be considered satisfactory. But unless there is reason to suppose that some great change has taken place in the judgment of the House, I certainly would venture to express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman may be permitted to work out his way without a Division. ["No, no!"] It may be so; but I am only respectfully expressing the opinion which seems to me most, upon the whole, to tend to peace among us on a question of pure Order, which ought not to be mixed up with any other consideration. I think the Division that took place last year was somewhat injurious, because it did not afford a real expression of the opinion of the House on the original question. A much smaller number of persons opposed the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman last year than had opposed it when the question of principle was fairly raised. On that account, I see no advantage to the case in repeating a Division of that kind; and I venture respectfully to express the hope—though it is not a very sanguine hope—that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) may be inclined to spare the House a Division. That is the only consideration that I think it my duty to lay before the House; and I think the House will feel that the right hon. Gen- tleman is right in working out the consequential principle that he has, unfortunately, induced the House to adopt, and that we are in our right in respecting the decision of the House, in so far as to avoid being parties to the expenditure of valuable public time.

MR. O'DONNELL

I rise to a point of Order. I understood you, Sir, to state to the House that a serious breach of the Rules of the House had been committed. Mr. Bradlaugh, without any authority from you, Sir, or any pretence that he was acting in conformity with the Rules of the House, has performed an Oath in his own fashion; and, under the circumstances, I want to know if it is competent to raise any fresh matter, or antiquarian matter, while that question of the breach of the Orders of the House remains unsettled, and which, I must say, I can only regard as a piece of blasphemous buffoonery?

MR. SPEAKER

With respect to the Motion of the right hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), I am of opinion that that Motion bears upon the matter before the House, and is in Order.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I am sorry to say I have not quite so much confidence in the Leader of the Opposition as the Prime Minister has. As I understand his Motion, it covers the whole Session, and that is a fair reason why I should object to it; because, even supposing there may be a decision by a Court of Law in favour of Mr. Bradlaugh, yet, if this Motion were carried, Mr. Bradlaugh would not be allowed to appear and take his seat in the House. That is the reason why I oppose it, and ask the House to vote against it. If that is not the case, and if the right hon. Gentleman will agree that his Motion shall only hold good until a decision is taken, we can take a Division immediately. ["No, no!"] I understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not assent to that, and that I am right in my views of the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman. On Saturday last Mr. Justice Stephen expressed the following views from the Judicial Bench:— The right of the burgesses of Northampton, I think, to be represented in Parliament, and the right of their duly-elected Representative to sit and vote in Parliament, and to enjoy the rights incidental to his position, in the terms provided by law, are, in the most emphatic sense, legal rights—legal rights of the highest importance, and in the strictest sense of the word. Then, after dividing those rights into rights of which the Court might take cognizance, and rights which must be left to the judgment of the House, he says, with regard to the latter, that hon. Members Are bound, by the most solemn obligations that can bind men to any course of conduct whatever, to guide their conduct by the law as they understand it. If they misunderstand it, or—I apologize for the supposition—if they wilfully disregard it, they resemble mistaken or unjust Judges. Now, as it appears to mo that hon. Members on the opposite side of the House have never taken the trouble to find out what the law is, with their permission I will tell them. I can tell them in a very few words what the law is if they do not know. There is no question about it; it is written law—Statute law. This is the law. The Statute says— The Oath hereby appointed shall in every Parliament be solemnly and publicly made and subscribed by every Member of the …. House of Commons at the Table, in the middle of the said House, and whilst a full House is there duly sitting, with the Speaker in the Chair, according to such Regulations as each House by its Standing Orders shall order. Hon. Gentlemen seem to think that the Standing Orders cover the course they have taken. This is the only Standing Order on the subject— That Members may take and subscribe the Oath required by law, at any time during the sitting of the House, before the Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion have been entered on, or after they have been disposed of; but no debate or business shall be interrupted for that purpose."—(Rules and Orders, No. 23.) Now, where do hon. Gentlemen find that the Oath has to be administered, or that the Member has to be called on by the Speaker? We assert, rightly or wrongly, that a Member derives his right to go to the Table by his election, and that neither Mr. Speaker nor the House has the slightest right to prevent him. I will quote the language of Mr. Justice Stephen. ["Oh, oh!"] Do hon. Gentlemen object? [An hon. MEMBER: Yes.] He said— If a man is to give evidence before a Court of Justice, he cannot take an oath unless it is administered to him, unless he is called on to come forward as a witness, and unless the officer of the Court, by some appropriate action—for instance, repeating the words of the oath, and handing him the book, or by whatever other method—does call on him to take an oath, and administer it. This Act"—the Act I have read—"says nothing about administering it, but simply that the Member of the House may take and subscribe it, which he may do himself, as far as I can see. I have read from the Act of Parliament, from the Standing Orders, and from the opinion of Mr. Justice Stephen; and will any Gentleman with any species of legal knowledge venture to get up in this House and assert that the Act and the Standing Orders are not as I have stated them, or that Mr. Justice Stephen is wrong in his interpretation of the Act? I challenge anyone to do it, and I am perfectly convinced that no one with any knowledge of the law would think of doing so for a moment. I might with perfect right go through the whole case of Mr. Bradlaugh's contention with this House; but I can perfectly understand the desire of my own Friends even that I should not do so. and I will not do so. I will only point out to the House that the real point of contention between Mr. Bradlaugh and the House was this—Mr. Bradlaugh asserted that the declaration of allegiance, coupled with the Oath, was binding upon him, but that the words of the Oath which follow the declaration were to him an unmeaning form. That, I think, was perfectly well admitted, and I need not prove it. Well, I confess that, for my part, I do regard those words of the Oath as an utterly unmeaning form—utterly and absolutely an unmeaning form. To me they are just the same superstitious incantation as the trash of any Mumbo-Jumbo among African savages. ["Oh, oh!"] Why do hon. Gentlemen say "Oh, oh?" Are they aware that there are many in this House who regard those words as a blasphemous form? I say I regard them as an unmeaning form. Will anyone who says "Oh, oh!" get up and say what they do mean? I say distinctly and clearly that I do not myself know what they mean. I deny that there can be in any sort of way two measures of truth. When you ask a man to assert a thing, and then ask him to swear to it, practically you say that you do not believe his assertion unless he is willing to swear to it afterwards. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) makes an Affirmation. When you say that this Oath strengthens the Affirmation, you say that you are not to believe my right hon. Friend—["No, no!"]—yes; and that is what I complain of; you say that you cannot believe my right hon. Friend in the same sense as you would believe anyone who had coupled the affirmation with an oath. There is no other sense in the thing. I shall he glad if anyone will tell mo what the words mean; I do not know. I do not understand the meaning of the Oath, and I object entirely to it. I say that when Mr. Bradlaugh asserted that the Oath was an unmeaning form, he spoke in strict accordance with the fact. The last time a discussion took place on the subject the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock favoured us with the opinions of several Fathers of the Church.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

I bog the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I did not quote a single Father of the Church.

MR. LABOUCHERE

Well some people connected with the Church. For my part, I confess that it is a matter of perfect indifference to me what any Father of the Church thinks on this subject; but for the benefit of hon. Members opposite I will cite what the father of English philosophical jurisprudence (Jeremy Bentham) thinks upon the whole subject. [The hon. Member read a quotation to the effect that to attempt to exclude Atheists by Oaths would only exclude those who objected to take an Oath, while those who would swallow the Oath could not be excluded by such means, and thus the Oath afforded no guarantee for the exclusion of immorality or irreligion. It could not be pretended that clergymen would stick at perjury, for they took it in with their mother's milk, and it was their meat and drink.]

MR. O'DONNELL

I rise to Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether it is in accordance with the Rules of the House that the succession of coarse and gratuitous insults which the hon. Gentleman has offered down to the present moment, in the course of his speech, to the religion of almost every Member of the House—whether the tissue of coarse and gratuitous insults which the hon. Member has just offered, in a perfectly deliberate manner, to the religion of every Member of the House, is to be permitted as being in accordance with the Orders of the House? Is there no Rule to impose decency upon the hon. Member?

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) is making these observations upon his own responsibility, and I have not thought it any part of my duty to interfere with the hon. Member.

MR. LABOUCHERE

Of course, the hon. Gentleman is himself a great judge of what is right and proper in this matter; but, Sir, I do think that the public are really beginning to thoroughly understand this question, When Mr. Bradlaugh first came forward in this House, it did not occur to the Conservatives as a body to oppose him. It was the bright idea of the Fourth Party in this House, and from a Party view they ought to be congratulated. The Fourth Party—I presume they held some sort of consultation together—determined to oppose Mr. Bradlaugh. ["Question!"] It is the Question. It was only when the Fourth Party had taken that decision that they were followed by the Conservative Party. Otherwise the Conservative Party would have sat quietly by and let Mr. Bradlaugh take his seat. Why did they do that? Everybody in the country knows why they did it. They did it simply because they wanted to waste time. [Opposition cries of "Oh" and "Order!"] They did it because they wanted to throw impediments in the way of Liberal legislation. They did it—[Interruptions]—I am quite willing to stand here all night—[interruptions]—I am not going to have Mr. Bradlaugh put down by the cries and yells of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Mr. Bradlaugh has a perfect right to state his case; and I do not think anybody in this House can say that, considering the manner the House has treated Mr. Bradlaugh, the House has a right to complain of the courteous and decent manner in which, I think, hon. Gentlemen opposite will admit Mr. Bradlaugh has treated this House. He has stood by his rights—what he believes to be his rights. I do not think he has done any more. I believe the country understands the matter, and that hon. Gentlemen opposite do wish to waste the time of the House.

MR. T. COLLINS

I rise to Order. I wish to know if the hon. Gentleman is in Order when he says that hon. Members on this side of the House wish to waste the time of the House?

MR. SPEAKER

made no reply.

MR. LABOUCHERE

Perhaps I had better put it in this way—["Order!"]

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

I rise to Order. You have ruled, Sir, that it is the highest offence known to Parliament for hon. Members to take up any particular subject, not for the purpose of having it debated, but to obstruct the proceedings and waste the time of the House. I wish to know if it is in Order for the hon. Member for Northampton to bring a charge of that nature either against an individual or against a Party as a whole?

MR. SPEAKER

The observation which I think fell from the hon. Member for Northampton was that he charged Members opposite to him with wasting time. I cannot say that such an observation is altogether out of Order. It is an observation which has been frequently made in this House, and it has not been confined to one side of the House or the other. I really do not think that I am called upon to interfere.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I heard an hon. Member shout out on the other side—I think the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett)—that I did more than charge hon. Members with wasting the time of the House—namely, that I charged them with wasting it deliberately. Well, I believe that if they did waste it they would waste it deliberately. But I will put it in this way-["Order!"]

MR. SPEAKER

I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the Question before the House.

MR. LABOUCHERE

Then the question is whether Mr. Bradlaugh should be allowed to take his seat, and what objections there are to it. I would point out to hon. Members opposite that the objections which they have frequently urged I am perfectly convinced they will urge no longer. Those objections, as I understand, are that they consider that, in the interests of Deism, they ought to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh from taking any oath, because he has stated that the declaration "So help me, God," had no meaning to him. Let us see what occurred last Session, and we shall see whether that was clearly the view taken by hon. Members opposite. Last Session the Prime Minister brought in an Affirmation Bill. What was the object of that Bill? It was to meet any objections that might be entertained, and I per- fectly understood these objections, to Mr. Bradlaugh, or any other Atheist, being obliged to go up to that Table and take the name of God when he says be does not believe in the existence of a Deity. What did hon. Gentlemen opposite do? I do not know what they call wasting the time of the House; I know the debate went on several days, and when it came to the vote hon. Members opposite deliberately voted that that Bill should not become law. Now, we may assume that Mr. Bradlaugh very possibly will be elected at the next General Election. If Mr. Bradlaugh is elected, there is nothing that can prevent him coming up to the Table among the first 40 Members and taking the Oath. If, then, he is able to do that, because you have refused to alter the law and pass an Affirmation Act, surely you cannot say that you are actuated by any desire or feeling in the cause of religion to prevent irreverence; because by your act you have obliged Mr. Bradlaugh, and every other person who entertains his views with regard to religion, to take the Oath before sitting in this House; whereas the Prime Minister and Members of the Government were anxious that he should be allowed to fulfil his Constitutional duties by making an Affirmation. That is the reason why I say that what I may really call the sanctimonious sophistry of this hypocrisy has been clearly understood by the country. I have not the slightest doubt that Mr. Bradlaugh will find himself in a minority on this occasion; but you may depend upon it that in the end he will beat the House of Commons, because the House of Commons is in the wrong. The House of Commons is merely the creature, and behind Mr. Bradlaugh stands the people of England. We shall see who wins in the end. You will find the people of England, I do not say this from any feeling of affection or regard for Mr. Bradlaugh as an individual, will support him. Assume, if you like, that Mr. Bradlaugh is the vilest of men—[Mr. WARTON: Hear, hear!]—as was stated by Mr. Wilkes— In attacking the rights of the vilest of men you have attacked the rights of the most noble of mankind. It, is not a question of Mr. Bradlaugh individually. I am not raising the question of Mr. Bradlaugh's personality for a moment; but I say the constitu- encies are fully determined, when they elect anyone who is a duly qualified person, to see that he shall not be prevented from taking his seat in this House and from fulfilling his duties.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

I do not rise, Sir, for the purpose of replying to the remarks of the hon. Member for Northampton; for, whether as argument or fact, they appear to me to be utterly unworthy of the notice of any rational human being; but I rise upon a point of Order. Mr. Bradlaugh, as far as I could see, went through certain proceedings at the Table, and he laid certain documents on the Table. Now, it is perfectly clear, from what has fallen from the Prime Minister, that these proceedings are, with the cognizance of the Government, to become the subject of proceedings in a Court of Law, and a great deal will, of course, turn upon evidence as to what actually took place. I, therefore, wish to ask you, Sir, to direct the Clerk at the Table, who has carried off those papers, to replace them there, so that they may be inspected by any Member of the House; because I am under the impression—and should be prepared to give evidence on the point in any Court of Law—that, no Oath was taken and no Testament kissed. ["Oh!"] I am only stating my own opinion upon the subject.

MR. SPEAKER

In answer to the inquiry of the noble Lord, I have to say that the papers he desires should be preserved are now in the custody of the Clerk of the House, and that they are accessible to any Member of the House.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I have never taken part in the debates on this question, and I should not have spoken at all now if it had not been for the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton. I shall vote for his Motion in spite of his speech. But I could not do so without saying that I very much regret the tone of that speech. Of course, the hon. Member is perfectly at liberty to hold what views he thinks fit about an Oath; but I think he ought to consider, before he says that the Oath is an unmeaning form, that to a large portion of those whom he was addressing it was words of very great and sacred meaning. I could not hear that speech without separating myself from the tone of the hon. Member's remarks. I will just simply say that I cannot take the line suggested by my right hon. Friend, because I think this is a case which, when it comes to a Division, we ought to vote upon, upon this simple ground—that I think the electors of Northampton have a right to elect Mr. Bradlaugh, and that the House of Commons has no right to refuse to admit him. I was never more convinced of anything than that hon. Members—without so intending it, but certainly with that result—who have opposed the wishes of Mr. Bradlaugh to take his seat are striking one of the greatest blows against the cause of religion which have been struck for many years. They put upon the side of a man who, I regret to say, is opposed to religion, to Christianity, and even to Deism—they put upon his side the rights of the free electors of this country.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, the hon. Member for Northampton had referred to the dictum of Mr. Justice Stephen; but he would ask the hon. Gentleman whether it was not the fact that that learned Judge, while repudiating, on the part of the Court, all right of intervention on all matters of internal regulation in this House, did not state that the House had authority to regulate its own matters, similar to that possessed by the Court and by the Judges? The House would have observed that, on the advance of Mr. Bradlaugh, the Speaker rose from his seat, and remained standing during the whole time Mr. Bradlaugh was at the Table; that was a standing remonstrance against the violation of the Orders of the House, which had the force of law, and were superior to all law. He trusted hon. Members would manifest their respect for the House, without reference to any other consideration, by insisting upon the exercise of the authority of the House with reference to Mr. Bradlaugh, and that if he violated the Orders of the House, they would vote for his exclusion, until he recognized that this was not a casual assembly, but a Body conducting the Business of the country according to Rules laid down by itself, the violation of which must be followed by penalties.

MR. HEALY

I rise to a point of Order, and I wish to put a Question, Sir, to you. You have ordered Mr. Bradlaugh to withdraw, and as far as I can perceive Mr. Bradlaugh has not withdrawn. I have been in this House when other hon. Members have been ordered to withdraw, and they were not confined to a select region below the Bar, but were required to retire beyond the portals of the House altogether. I wish to know, Sir, whether Mr. Bradlaugh enjoys your leave and licence to violate your order, or if he is not subject to the orders of Mr. Speaker in the same way as any other hon. Member? Secondly, Sir, I wish to call your attention to a fact which will probably be in your recollection—namely, that a former highly respected Member of this House, Mr. John Dillon, was suspended by you for remaining on his feet at the same time as yourself. I should like to know whether Mr. Bradlaugh is beyond the pale of suspension for having committed the like offence; and whether, for a first offence, he could be suspended for a week, for a month for a second offence, and for the whole of the Session for a third offence? If that were so, I think we might soon be able to get rid of the hon. Member for Northampton altogether. It was by such machinery, Sir, that you put your authority in motion in the case of the Irish Members; and I should like to know what particular privilege Mr. Bradlaugh enjoys as an English Member which puts him beyond the pale of the authority of Mr. Speaker? I have myself been suspended three times, and it may be my lot to be suspended three times more—not, I trust, during your tenure of Office in this House. I should like, however, to have an opinion from you, Sir, for the guidance of your Successor, so that I and my Friends, if we happen to find ourselves suspended again, may know that we may retire to that quiet and enjoyable nook in which Mr. Bradlaugh is, now sitting. What I want to know is whether an order to a Member to withdraw simply extends to the Bar of the House?

[Mr. SPEAKER did not rise for a few moments, and there were loud and continuous cries of "Chair" from the Irish Members.]

MR. SPEAKER

The question raised by the hon. Member is really not a point of Order for me to decide. The hon. Member's speech has been made under a total misconception. He supposes that certain hon. Members were suspended by me; whereas, as a matter of fact, Members are suspended by a vote of the House.

MR. HEALY

May I ask, Sir, if you could not "name" Mr. Bradlaugh, and then a Motion might be made?

MR. SPEAKER

I am not prepared to say that the hon. Member for Northampton has taken his seat in the House, and therefore can be "named."

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

As there has been some variation in the form of our proceedings at this time, as compared with former times, it is probable there may be some misconception. I understand the hon. Member for Northampton intends to divide the House against the proposal I have made. Formerly, the Motion was met by the Previous Question; and some hon. Gentlemen, as the Previous Question has not now been moved, seem to have imagined that there would be no Division. As I understand, the hon. Member divides against my proposition. I do not wish to take up time, certainly not in following the hon. Member for Northampton; but I wish to point out what is the meaning of the Motion I have made, and what are the grounds upon which it is made. The meaning of that Motion is the same as that which was the opinion of the Committee which sat in 1880. That Committee, after stating the case, came to the conclusion that, under the circumstances, that compliance by Mr. Bradlaugh with the form used when the Oath was taken Would not be a taking of the Oath within the true meaning of the Statute; and, in consequence, the House can, and, in the opinion of your Committee, ought, to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh going through the form. That was the foundation of all the proceedings which had taken place since the Committee reported in 1880, and upon which the repeated challenges of the opinion of the House had been taken. It is a wholly different question which is raised as to what would be the view taken by a Court of Law of Mr. Bradlaugh administering the Oath to himself. That is not the point before us. We object to Mr. Bradlaugh going through the Forms of this House, whether the Oath be administered by the Clerk or by himself, because we believe it to be a profanation. This objection we raise equally, whatever may be the form he takes. The Resolution, if the House adopts it, equally precludes the administration of the Oath by the Clerk or the taking of the Oath by Mr. Bradlaugh. On that point we challenge the opinion of the House; and I really hope it may not be thought necessary to go into a very lengthened debate, because there is no reason to suppose that anything new can be raised.

MR. MOLLOY

Before we go to a Division, Sir, I wish to put a question to you. I wish to ask you whether, among the papers which have been impounded, is to be found any book which Mr. Bradlaugh pretended to kiss?

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

He did not kiss any book.

MR. LABOUCHERE

Yes; he did.

MR. SPEAKER

was again about to put the Question by reading the Resolution, when——

MR. O'DONNELL

I rise to Order. Mr. Bradlaugh still persists in disobeying your ruling, Sir. He has not withdrawn, and I am informed that he intends to carry still further his disregard of your ruling, and to take advantage of his disobedience of your directions in order to go through the form of giving a vote in the Division Lobby of this House. I, therefore, ask you, Sir, if Mr. Bradlaugh is to be required to withdraw from the House, as you have already ordered him?

MR. SPEAKER

Mr. Bradlaugh is now below the Bar.

MR. O'DONNELL

Then, Mr. Speaker, on the point of Order, you rule that an order to a Member to withdraw is satisfied by going below the Bar. If so, I would ask why it was that you ordered me out of the House?

MR. HARRINGTON

I wish, Sir, to have your ruling, whether it is competent for Mr. Bradlaugh to take part in a Division?—because, if it is, I propose to move an Amendment that he be excluded from the House.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

After the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), it seems we are really asked to go through a Division on precisely the same points the House has had before it in the three previous Sessions; and I ask whether, in that case, it would not place the Prime Minister in a different position to what he has taken, if he should hesitate as to the course he is to take on the present occasion?

MR. GLADSTONE

My hon. Friend could not have heard distinctly what I have already said. I stated that I should be glad if no Division were taken; but if the House is called upon to divide, I shall, in that case, divide against the Resolution of the right hon. Member for North Devon.

MR. O'DONNELL

Mr. Speaker, upon the point of Order—I beg to remind you of a precedent. My conduct was proposed to be taken into consideration in this House, and you ordered me to withdraw. No act of suspension or expulsion had been passed by the House against me; but you simply ordered me to withdraw; and you interpreted your own order to withdraw to mean that I was to withdraw absolutely from the House, and not simply to retire below the Bar. Therefore, I ask you to order Mr. Bradlaugh to withdraw from the House in exactly the same sense that you ordered me to withdraw from the House.

MR. SPEAKER

When the hon. Member for Dungarvan was ordered to withdraw he had taken the Oath at the Table, and was fully a Member of this House. With respect to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), as I have already stated, I am not prepared to admit that he has taken the Oath, and I have no authority to take the same course with him which I took with regard to the hon. Member for Dungarvan.

MR. HEALY

You have now ruled, Sir, that the hon. Member for Northampton does not come within the ruling applied to the hon. Member for Dungarvan, because the hon. Member for Dungarvan had taken the Oath. Does he, then, come within your ruling when you order Strangers to withdraw? I wish to know if Mr. Bradlaugh comes within either of those designations?

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

Upon the point of Order I should like to ask you, Sir, whether your ruling does not amount to this—that half a Member, or an incomplete Member, has superior rights to a whole Member?

MR. SPEAKER

again rose to put the Question, when——

MR. O'DONNELL

interposed amid cries of "Order." He said: I ask you to rule, Sir, whether Mr. Bradlaugh, who has not taken the Oath, and who, to a certain extent, is a stranger, is to be authorized to remain in the House and to vote after you have ordered him to withdraw? When you order him to withdraw, does that leave him at liberty to go into the Division Lobby of the House after the House has been cleared for a Division?

MR. SPEAKER

I have already answered that point of Order.

MR. SEXTON

I rise to move an Amendment to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon, which has just been read from the Chair. It appears that the question of the rights of Members in reference to withdrawing is left in an extremely uncertain position. I think that it ought to be settled; and I will therefore move— That before the House proceeds to a Division on the Motion of the right hon. Member for North Devon, and during the time the House is occupied in that Division, Mr. Bradlaugh be ordered to withdraw beyond the precincts of the House.

EARL PERCY

I should like to know whether Mr. Speaker has not already put the Question?

MR. SPEAKER

Does the hon. Member for Sligo move that as an Amendment?

MR. SEXTON

Yes.

MR. SPEAKER

Then will the hon. Member put it in writing?

MR. SEXTON

did so, and carried it up to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER

The original Question was— 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 of the 4th May 1883, 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 Vie. c. 72. Since which an Amendment has been proposed— At the end of the Question, to add the words "and that Mr. Speaker do order Mr. Bradlaugh to withdraw beyond the precincts of the House during the Division on this Question. Does the hon. Member propose his Amendment as an addition to the original Resolution?

MR. SEXTON

Yes.

MR. SPEAKER

Then the Question I have to propose is, "That those words be there added."

MR. O'DONNELL

I rise to Order. Upon the point of Order I wish to ask, Sir, whether you have directed the officials of the House to record any vote which Mr. Bradlaugh may give; or whether any official of this House will take upon himself to record the vote of a man with regard to whose status in this House there is, at least, uncertainty? I wish, Sir, to put that question to you.

MR. SPEAKER

I am astonished that the hon. Member should put a question of that kind. I have given no special directions whatever.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

Upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), I wish to point out that the object the hon. Member has in view is a very rational one, as far as I can make it out. It is perfectly clear, from the proceedings which have already taken place, that the junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Brad-laugh) intends to vote in the Division about to take place. Hon. Members opposite will quite understand that hon. Members on this side of the House, and perhaps a majority of the House, would object to a stranger, who is certainly not a Member, taking part in a Division of this House, and having his vote recorded by the officials of the House. Therefore, the point which hon. Members behind me have raised, with some persistence, does, I think, require some more luminous decision from the Chair—["Order!"]—than that which we have yet been able to gather on this matter. The point is, Sir, whether, before the Division is taken, you will not, as Speaker of the House of Commons, order Mr. Bradlaugh to withdraw from the House? In that event, the House would be able to proceed to a Division without any Amendment such as that which has been proposed by the hon. Member for Sligo. But until that point has been settled, the House will be in a state of complete confusion. I venture to submit that the Amendment which has been moved cannot be put, because it would turn the whole Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon into absolute nonsense.

MR. GLADSTONE

You will correct me, Sir, if I am wrong; but I understand you to say from the Chair that your power, as Speaker, with respect to a Member who has not taken the Oath is exhausted when you have given him an order to withdraw below the Bar.

MR. SEXTON

The order was not to "withdraw below the Bar;" but to "withdraw."

MR. GLADSTONE

I think the Speaker will correct mo if I am wrong. I understood you to say, Sir, that your power, as Speaker, was exhausted when you directed Mr. Bradlaugh to withdraw below the Bar. If that be so, and the power of the Speaker is exhausted the moment the order is given to withdraw below the Bar, I submit that this Amendment is purposeless; because it is quite evident that if it be the object of Mr. Bradlaugh—in respect of which I know nothing whatever—to raise the question of his right to vote in a Court of Law, he will be just as well able to raise that question by voting upon the Amendment as upon the original Motion. On that ground, I confess that I do not see the purpose of the Amendment. But I am bound to say that it appears to me to be open to objection upon general principles. It appears to reach beyond the case of Mr. Bradlaugh, and it constitutes a precedent under which new methods of procedure might be adopted with regard to those Members of the House who have not taken the Oath. They have always had in their hands, as I understand, the power of sitting and voting in the House at their own risk, the law having provided a specific penalty if a Member sits and votes without having fulfilled the forms of the Statute previous to taking his seat. I am most reluctant, and I must positively decline, to adopt the Amendment which has been proposed, which, besides being, as it appears to me, wholly without purpose in the view of those who proposed it, would tend to the constitution of a new law affecting a class of Members to whom the possession of that power or privilege of sitting and voting at their own risk might be of inestimable importance.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I will not follow the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister into the false issue he has endeavoured to raise; but I wish to submit a question to you, Sir, on a point of Order. I wish to know if it would be in Order for an hon. Member to propose, as an Amendment to the Question you have already put from the Chair, a Resolution to the effect that you should direct the officials of the House not to record any vote given by Mr. Bradlaugh until his status as a Member of this House has been recognized?

MR. SPEAKER

I have already intimated that in my opinion I should be exceeding my authority if I were to give such an order.

MR. SEXTON

The object of my Amendment was to prevent Mr. Brad-laugh from voting on the merits of the Question. But unless you, Sir, exercise your prerogative, and oblige him to withdraw beyond the precincts of the House, I should gain nothing by the Amendment. I will not, therefore, put the House to the trouble of dividing upon it, but will withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER

having put the Question, "Is it your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn? "

MR. HEALY

Before the Amendment is withdrawn, I wish to put a question to Mr. Speaker. The House of Commons appears to be reduced to this position—that Mr. Speaker, having given a direction to an hon. Member who has not taken the Oath to withdraw, is quite powerless to enforce it. You, Sir, have given a direction, and it appears that you have stultified yourself—[Loud cries of "Order! "]—by giving an order which you have no power whatever to enforce. Indeed, you have given to Mr. Bradlaugh this hint—that if he were now, in the course of our present proceedings, to march up to the Chair, flanked or not by his Colleague and another Member, and if you were to order him to withdraw, no matter what he might do on the floor of this House, or what antics he might proceed with, you, Sir, have no power whatever over that hon. Gentleman. If that be the case in the concluding days of your holding the Office of Speaker of this House—if, with all your great and wide experience, you find yourself powerless to enforce your own orders, you will have reduced the position of Speaker to this—that after your 10 or 15 years' experience in that Chair, you have given an order to an hon. Gentleman, and you have declared yourself that you have no power whatever to enforce it. [Cries of "Order!" and "Divide!"]

MR. M'COAN

I would venture to ask you, Mr. Speaker, this question—whether, if it is brought to your knowledge, Sir, that a person incompetent to vote—a person who has not taken the Oath which would alone qualify him to vote—nevertheless intends to vote—you would feel yourself called upon to take such measures as would prevent him from voting? I ask if you would consider it incumbent on you to take that course?

MR. SPEAKER

I have already stated that I should exceed my authority by doing so.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put.

MR. HEALY (remaining seated and covered)

Sir, I observe a Stranger in this House, and I have heard you order Strangers to withdraw. I wish to know whether that order applies to Mr. Bradlaugh?

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

I wish to ask whether the Speaker has ordered Strangers to withdraw?

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) knows that when an hon. Member has been elected to this House, although he has not been duly sworn, he has been allowed to take his seat below the Bar, and he does not withdraw when Strangers are ordered to withdraw. I consider that that is the position which Mr. Bradlaugh occupies at the present moment.

MR. O'DONNELL

May I ask you, Sir, if a person who has been elected to this House, but who has not taken his seat, is allowed to enter the Division Lobby while a Division is in progress?

MR. SPEAKER

That does not appear to me to have any bearing upon the case.

The House proceeded to a Division.

When the Tellers had come to the Table,

MR. HEALY

Sir, I rise to a point of Order. Before the numbers are announced, I wish to know whether, if the Tellers report that an hon. Gentleman, who has not taken the Oath, has nevertheless voted in one of the Lobbies, it will be open to any hon. Member to move that the name of that Gentleman be expunged from the Votes?

MR. SPEAKER

Yes; at the proper time. The hon. Member will be in Order in making that Motion, and the vote will be disallowed if the House should so decide.

VISCOUNT CRICHTON (one of the Tellers for the Ayes in the No Lobby)

Mr. Speaker, I have to inform the House that Mr. Bradlaugh, one of the Members for Northampton, has voted in the "No" Lobby.

MR. HEALY

I wish to know, Mr. Speaker, whether the Motion for expunging the vote should be made now, on the report of the Tellers, or after the numbers have been announced?

MR. SPEAKER

The report of the Tellers has been taken down by the Clerk at the Table, and the hon. Member will be in Order in making the Motion he refers to now, and if the vote should be disallowed the numbers will be corrected accordingly.

MR. HEALY

I beg to move now, Mr. Speaker, that the name of Mr. Bradlaugh, the Member for Northampton, be expunged from the list of Members voting in the "No" Lobby; and I do so on this ground—to put the matter in plain language—that this performance on the part of Mr. Bradlaugh is evidently a "plant" on the part of the Government. As I understand the action of the Government, what they propose to do is this—to bring a mock action against Mr. Bradlaugh through their Attorney General; and unless the name of Mr. Bradlaugh is expunged from the list of Members voting, this House will give them an opportunity, on its Records, of showing that Mr. Bradlaugh did vote. I propose that we should give the Courts of Law no data to work upon. In other words, that we should give the Government, Bradlaugh, and Company no base of operation. I will, therefore, bring up a Motion that the name of Mr. Bradlaugh be expunged from the list of Members voting in the "No" Lobby.

An hon. MEMBER: Make the Motion now.

MR. HEALY

I do so.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the vote of Mr. Bradlaugh, Member for Northampton, be disallowed."—(Mr. Healy.)

MR. STOREY

Upon that Question, Sir, I beg to suggest that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) should, at his own request, be heard at the Bar.

MR. BRADLAUGH (standing at the Bar)

I claim the right to do so.

MR. SPEAKER

, without acknowledging the interruption, was proceeding to put the Question, when——

MR. LABOUCHERE

, who had been standing at the Table as one of the Tellers, returned to his seat, and said: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a few words.

LORD CLAUD HAMILTON

I rise to Order. I wish to know whether the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), who is acting as a Teller in a Division which has not yet been announced, can return to his place, and attempt to address the House?

MR. SPEAKER

I am not prepared to say that the hon. Member is irregular in the course he is proposing to take.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I have not the slightest wish to give the House the trouble of dividing upon this question; but I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General if it can in any way alter the legal position of Mr. Bradlaugh in this matter, whether his name be expunged or not?

MR. SPEAKER

The time for that has not arrived. The immediate Question before the House is, whether the vote of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) shall be disallowed; and the hon. Member must confine his observations to that Question.

MR. LABOUCHERE

Then, Sir, I shall take a Division on the Motion.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) has put a question to me, and therefore I should wish to give my opinion for what it is worth, upon the legal question.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

I rise to Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether the opinion of the Attorney General, given in answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), has anything whatever to do with the matter now before the House? I must also ask you, Sir, to protect the majority of the House from the conspiracy which is being waged against them.

MR. SPEAKER

I stopped the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) from putting a question which appeared to mo not to bear strictly on the Question before the House, and under these circumstances I do not think it would be right that the Attorney General should answer it.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

As a point of Order, I would ask, Sir, if I am not entitled to speak on the Question that the name of Mr. Bradlaugh be expunged from the list of Members who voted in the Division?

MR. SPEAKER

The hen. and learned Gentleman would be in Order in speaking upon the Motion.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) cannot suppose for a moment that I would be guilty of discourtesy towards him; but, although I am sure the House will not wish me to notice the statement of the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government have entered into a conspiracy with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), I think it is only respectful to the House, as the House is about to give a vote upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), that I should not remain altogether silent as to the legal effect of the matter. The Motion is to expunge the vote of Mr. Bradlaugh, and I understood the hon. Member to say that his object in making it was to prevent any legal question being raised.

MR. HEALY

What I said was, that I wished to prevent a mock action, or a collusive action, being brought by Mr. Bradlaugh.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

Again I ask leave of the House to pass by that observation. I believe that this question is without precedent; because, although hon. Members have voted in this House without having taken the Oath, as Baron Rothschild did, the question of the disallowance of their votes has never been raised. Therefore, in my opinion, the fact that this vote is disallowed will make no difference in the legal question.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

I rise to Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, Sir, is directly disobeying your ruling. You, Sir, ruled, in the hearing of the House, that the question put to the Attorney General by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was one which had no bearing upon the Question before the House; and, that being so, the hon. and learned Attorney General had no right to reply to the question. The hon. and learned Gentleman is now en- deavouring to reply to it, and in so doing he is disregarding the authority of the Chair.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

You, Sir, ruled on the point of Order that I had a right to speak upon the Motion before the House, and my remarks are directed to that Motion. I am speaking directly to the Motion. I desire respectfully to point out to the House that if it proceeds with the Motion before it, and that Motion is carried, the legal position of Mr. Bradlaugh will not be altered.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

I rise again to Order. That, Sir, is directly in opposition to your ruling.

MR. SPEAKER (interposing)

The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General is in possession of the House; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman, in the course of the observations he may make, should say anything which appears to me irregular and not in Order, it will be my duty to call him to Order.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

I think the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) has misunderstood the position I desire to take up.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

Not at all.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

I am endeavouring to point out that if this Motion is agreed to it will not, in any way, relieve Mr. Bradlaugh from liability to an action. I am speaking in the presence of the hon. Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) and others, who are, perhaps, better able to speak upon that question than I am. But if Mr. Bradlaugh—assuming for a moment that he has not taken the Oath—has voted in a Division, he has incurred a penalty of £500 for so doing, and he cannot be relieved of that penalty by any vote the House may pass now. The penalty is incurred by the fact of voting. If you disallow the vote, you must admit the fact that Mr. Bradlaugh has voted, or you cannot disallow it. This being a penalty imposed by Statute for voting without having first taken the Oath, a Resolution of the House cannot get rid of it, or relieve a Member who, has violated the Statute from that penalty. This Motion, therefore, would have no effect upon any action that might be brought. Mr. Bradlaugh cannot be relieved from the penalty if the Resolution is passed. That is the view which I wished respectfully to point out to the House.

MR. O'DONNELL

I do not think there is much necessity for the House to contemplate the possibility of an action being brought. In fact, in regard to Mr. Bradlaugh's claims, the highest tribunal in the land has already decided that it will not hear a collusive action brought by a pretended enemy who is a real friend. It has already been decided that such an action is not deserving of the consideration of a Court of Law. Therefore, there can be no doubt of the result of a pretended hostile action being brought by Her Majesty's Government against Mr. Bradlaugh. Everyone would know that it would be an utterly collusive action for the purpose of foisting an Atheistical political supporter upon the conscience and honour of this House. Therefore, I think it would be best for this House to look at this matter according to its merits, as those merits appear to the House, and not to trust to the merits as they may be presented before a tribunal of the land by the confederates of Mr. Bradlaugh.

MR. LYULPH STANLEY

, who spoke amid great interruption, said, he regarded this question of the right to sit and vote in the House as the natural result of the Opposition allowing itself to be led by hon. Members below the Gangway. They had permitted themselves to be led by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), and now they were in danger of being led by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). He urged that to expunge the name of Mr. Bradlaugh from the Division List would have no effect in ignoring the important fact that Mr. Bradlaugh had voted.

Question put.

The House divided:—

When the Tellers had come to the Table,

MR. LABOUCHERE (one of the Tellers for the Noes)

said: Mr. Speaker, I have to report that——

MR. SPEAKER

Before that matter is mentioned, it will be more convenient for the numbers to be announced.

The numbers were then announced: Ayes 258; Noes 161: Majority 97.—(Div. List, No. 3.)

MR. SPEAKER

then called on the Tellers to report the numbers of the Division on the Main Question.

DR. CAMERON

I have a question of Order to raise.

MR. SPEAKER

I have called upon the Tellers to report the numbers of the Division on the Main Question.

DR. CAMERON

The point of Order I desire to raise has reference to the opening of the doors of the House.

MR. SPEAKER

Does the point of Order proposed to be raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) boar upon the Division? If so, he is entitled to be heard, and I will hear him.

DR. CAMERON (speaking seated and covered)

Yes, Sir; it does. It is the custom to keep the doors of the House locked until the numbers in a Division have been announced. I believe the object of that is that in the event of a discrepancy as to the numbers, the true number might be chocked by taking another Division. On the present occasion the Rule has been departed from, and the doors were unlocked and remained open during the two Divisions. We are unable, therefore, to say that Members may not have gone away, and other Members have entered the House. I wish to know whether the departure, on the present occasion, from the invariable practice of keeping the doors locked until the result of the Division is announced by Mr. Speaker, will have any effect in vitiating the Division?

MR. SPEAKER

I do not think the point alluded to by the hon. Member affects the question at all. I now call on the Tellers to report the numbers of the Division on the Main Question, making the correction which has been ordered by the House.

The numbers of the Division upon the Main Question were then announced: Ayes 280; Noes 167: Majority 113.

AYES.
Alexander, Major-Gen.	Bailey, Sir J. R.
Allsopp, C.	Balfour, A. J.
Amherst, W. A. T.	Baring, T. C.
Archdale, W. H.	Barne, F. St. J. N.
Ashmead-Bartlett, E.	Barry, J.

Barttelot, Sir W. B.	Elcho, Lord
Bateson, Sir T.	Elliot, G. W.
Beach, right hon. Sir M. E. Hicks-	Emlyn, Viscount
	Ennis, Sir J.
Beach, W. W. B.	Estcourt, G. S.
Bellingham, A. H.	Ewart, W.
Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.	Ewing, A. O.
Beresford, G. De la P.	Feilden, Lieut.-General R. J.
Biddell, W.
Biggar, J. G.	Fellowes, W. H.
Birkbeck, E.	Finch, G. H
Blackburne, Col. J. I.	Fitzwilliam, hon. C. W.
Blake, J. A.	Fitzwilliam, hon. W. J.
Blennerhassett, Sir R.	Fletcher, Sir H.
Boord, T. W.	Floyer, J.
Bourke, right hon. R.	Folkestone, Viscount
Broadley, W. H. H.	Forester, C. T. W.
Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. E.	Foster, W. H.
	Fowler, R. N.
Brooke, Lord	Fremantle, hon. T. F.
Brooks, W. C.	Gabbett, D. F.
Bruce, rt. hon. Lord C.	Galway, Viscount
Bruce, Sir H. H.	Gardner, R. Richardson-
Bruce, hon. T. C.	Garnier, J. C.
Brymer, W. E.	Gibson, right hon. E.
Burghley, Lord	Giffard, Sir H. S.
Buxton, Sir R. J.	Giles, A.
Cameron, D.	Glyn, hon. S. C.
Campbell, J. A.	Goldney, Sir G.
Carden, Sir R. W.	Gooch, Sir D.
Castlereagh, Viscount	Gore-Langton, W. S.
Cecil, Lord E. H. G. B.	Grantham, W.
Chaine, J.	Gray, E. D.
Chaplin, H.	Greene, E.
Christie, W. L.	Greer, T.
Churchill, Lord R.	Gregory, G. B.
Clarke, E.	Guest, M. J.
Clive, Col. hon. G. W.	Halsey, T. F.
Coddington, W.	Hamilton, Lord C. J.
Cole, Viscount	Hamilton, I. T.
Collins, E.	Hamilton, right hon. Lord G.
Collins, T.
Colthurst, Colonel	Harrington, T.
Compton, F.	Harvey, Sir R. B.
Coope, O. E.	Hay, rt. hon. Admiral Sir J. C. D.
Corbet, W. J.
Corry, J. P.	Healy, T. M.
Cotton, W. J. R.	Herbert, hon. S.
Courtauld, G.	Hicks, E.
Cross, rt. hon. Sir R. A.	Hildyard, T. B. T.
Cubitt, right hon. G.	Hill, Lord A. W.
Curzon, Major hon. M.	Hill, A. S.
Dalrymple, C.	Hinchingbrook, Visc.
Davenport, H. T.	Holland, Sir H. T.
Davenport, W. B.	Home, Lt.-Col. D. M.
Dawnay, Col. hon. L. P.	Hope, right hon. A. J. B. B.
Dawnay, hon. G. C.
Dawson, C.	Houldsworth, W. H.
De Worms, Baron H.	Hubbard, right hon. J. G.
Dickson, Major A. G
Dickson, T. A.	Jackson, W. L.
Digby, Colonel hon. E.	Jenkins, D. J.
Dixon Hartland, F. D.	Kennard, Col. E. H.
Donaldson-Hudson, C.	Kennard, C. J.
Douglas, A. Akers-	Kennaway, Sir J. H.
Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H	Kenny, M. J.
Eaton, H. W.	King-Harman, Colonel E. R.
Ebrington, Viscount
Eckersley, N.	Knigscote, Colonel
Ecroyd, W. F.	Knight, F. W.
Egerton, hon. A. de T.	Knightley, Sir R.
Egerton, hon. A. F.	Lawrence, Sir T.

Leahy, J.	Pemberton, E. L.
Leamy, E.	Percy, right hon. Earl
Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.	Percy, Lord A.
Legh, W. J.	Phipps, C. N. P.
Leigh, R.	Phipps, P.
Leighton, Sir B.	Plunket, rt. hon. D.R.
Leighton, S.	Power, R.
Lever, J. O.	Price, Captain G. E.
Levett, T. J.	Puleston, J. H.
Lewis, C. E.	Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.
Lewisham, Viscount	Rankin, J.
Loder, R.	Rendlesham, Lord
Long, W. H.	Repton, G. W.
Lopes, Sir M.	Ridley, Sir M. W.
Lowther, rt. hon. J.	Ritchie, C. T.
Lowther, hon. W.	Rolls, J. A.
Lowther, J. W.	Ross, A. H.
Lynch, N.	Ross, C. C.
Lyons, R. D.	Round, J.
Macartney, J. W. E.	St. Aubyn, W. M.
Macfarlane, D. H.	Salt, T.
Mac Iver, D.	Sclater-Booth, rt. hn.G.
Mackintosh, C. F.	Scott, Lord H.
Macnaghten, E.	Scott, M. D.
M. Carthy, J.	Selwin - Ibbetson, Sir H. J.
M'Coan, J. C.
M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J.	Severne, J. E.
M'Kenna, Sir J. N.	Sexton, T.
M'Mahon. E.	Shaw, W.
Makins, Colonel W. T.	Sheil, E.
Manners, rt. hon. Lord J. J. R.	Small, J. F.
	Smith, A.
March, Earl of	Smith, rt. hon. W. H.
Marum, E. M.	Stafford, Marquess of
Master, T. W. C.	Stanhope, hon. E.
Maxwell, Sir H. E.	Stanley, rt. hon. Col. F.
Mayne, T.	Stanley, E. J.
Miles, C. W.	Storer, G.
Miles, Sir P. J. W.	Strutt, hon. C. H.
Mills, Sir C. H	Stuart, H. V.
Milner, Sir F.	Sullivan, T. D.
Molloy, B. C.	Sykes, C.
Monckton, F.	Synan, E. H.
Moore, A.	Talbot, J. G.
Morgan, hon. F.	Thomson, H.
Moss, R.	Thornhill, T.
Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R.	Thynne, Lord H. F.
	Tollemache, hn. W. F.
Newdegate, C. N.	Tollemache, H. J.
Newport, Viscount	Tomlinson, W. E. M.
Nicholson, W.	Torrens, W. T. M.
Nicholson, W. N.	Tottenham, A. L.
North, Colonel J. S.	Tyler, Sir H. W.
Northcote, rt. hon. Sir S. H	Wallace, Sir R.
	Walrond, Col. W. H.
Northcote, H S.	Walter, J.
Norwood, C. M.	Warburton, P. E.
O'Brien, Sir P.	Warton, C. N.
O'Brien, W.	Watney, J.
O'Connor, A.	Whitley, E.
O'Connor, T. P.	Whitworth, B.
O'Donnell, F. H.	Wilmot, Sir. H.
O'Donoghue, The	Wolff, Sir H. D.
Onslow, D. R.	Wortley, C. B. Stuart-
O'Shea, W. H.	Wroughton, P.
O'Sullivan, W. H.	Yorke, J. R.
Paget, R. H.
Parker, C. S.
Parnell, C. S.	TELLERS.
Patrick, R. W. Cochran-	Winn, R.
Peek, Sir H. W.	Crichton, Viscount
Pell, A.

NOES.
Agnew, W.	Grey, A. H. G.
Ainsworth, D.	Grosvenor, right hon. Lord R.
Anderson, G.
Armitage, B.	Gurdon, R. T.
Armitstead, G.	Harcourt, rt. hn. Sir W. G. V. V.
Arnold, A.
Ashley, hon. E. M.	Hardcastle, J. A.
Balfour, Sir G.	Hayter, Sir A. D.
Balfour, rt. hon. J. B.	Henderson, F.
Barran, J.	Heneage, E.
Bass, Sir A.	Herschell, Sir F.
Baxter, rt. hon. W. E.	Hibbert, J. T.
Bolton, J. C.	Hill, T. R.
Borlase, W. C.	Holden, I.
Brand, H. R.	Hollond, J. R.
Brett, R. B.	Holms, J.
Briggs, W. E.	Hopwood, C. H.
Bright, right hon. J.	Howard, G. J.
Bright, J.	Illingworth, A.
Brinton, J.	Ince, H. B.
Broadhurst, H.	James, Sir H.
Brogden, A.	James, C.
Brown, A. H.	James, W. H.
Bryce, J.	Jenkins, Sir J. J.
Buszard, M. C.	Johnson, E.
Buxton, S. C.	Kensington, rt hn. Lord
Caine, W. S.	Lawson, Sir W.
Cameron, C.	Leake, R.
Campbell, Sir G.	Lee, H.
Campbell - Bannerman, H.	Lefevre, rt. hn. G. J. S
	Lymington, Viscount
Causton, R. K.	Mackie, R. B.
Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.	Macliver, P. S.
Cheetham, J. F.	M'Arthur, A.
Childers, rt. hn. H. C. E.	M'Arthur, Sir W.
Clarke, J. C.	M'Laren, C. B. B.
Clifford, C. C.	Mappin, F. T.
Cohen, A.	Martin, R. B.
Collings, J.	Maskelyne, M. N. H Story-
Coleman, J. J.
Cotes, C. C.	Milbank, Sir F. A.
Courtney, L. H.	Monk, C. J.
Cowen, J.	Moreton, Lord
Cross, J. K.	Morgan, rt. hon. G. O
Crum, A.	Morley, A.
Dilke, rt. hn. Sir C. W.	Morley, J.
Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.	Mundella, rt. hn. A. J
Duff, R. W.	Paget, T. T.
Earp, T.	Palmer, G.
Edwards, P.	Palmer, J. H.
Elliot, hon. A. R. D.	Peddie, J. D.
Farquharson, Dr. R.	Pennington, F.
Fawcett, rt. hon. H.	Phillips, R. N.
Ferguson, R.	Playfair, rt. hn. Sir L
Firth, J. F. B.	Powell, W. R. H.
Fitzmaurice, Lord E.	Pulley, J.
Foljambe, C. G. S.	Ralli, P.
Forster, Sir G.	Ramsden, Sir J.
Forster, rt. hn. W. E.	Reed, Sir E. J.
Fort, R.	Reid, R. T.
Fowler, H. H.	Richard, H.
Fowler, W.	Richardson, T.
Fry, L.	Roberts, J.
Fry, T.	Roe, T.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.	Rogers, J. E. T.
Gladstone, H J.	Roundell, C. S.
Gladstone, W. H.	Russell, G. W. E.
Gourley, E. T.	Russell, Lord A.
Gower, hon. E. F. L.	Rylands, P.
Grant, A.	Samuelson, B.
Grant, D.	Samuelson, H.

Seely, C.	Tillett, J. H.
Sellar, A. C.	Trevelyan, rt. hn. G. O.
Shaw, T.	Villiers, rt. hon. C. P
Shield, H.	Webster, J.
Sinclair, Sir J. G. T.	Williams, S. C. E.
Slagg, J.	Williamson, S.
Spencer, hon. C. R.	Willis, W.
Stanley, hon. E. L.	Wills, W. H.
Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.	Willyams, E. W. B.
Stevenson, J. C.	Wilson, Sir M.
Storey, S.	Wodehouse, E. R.
Summers, W.	Woodall, W.
Talbot, C. R. M.
Taylor, P. A.	TELLERS.
Thomasson, J. P.	Burt, T.
Thompson, T. C.	Labouchere, H.

Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

After the declaration of the numbers Mr. LABOUCHERE, one of the Tellers for the Noes, stated, at the Table, that Mr. Bradlaugh had voted with the Noes in the second Division. Resolved, That, having regard to the Resolutions of this House of the 22nd June 18S0, of the 26th April 1881, and of the 7th February and 6th March 1882, of the 4th May 1S83, 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

It is obvious, Sir, that the time of the House ought not to be any further taken up with this matter; and I hope the House will agree with me that the proper course for us now to take is to move and adopt a Resolution similar to that which we have adopted on former occasions. I propose it for the sake of preventing' future interruptions during the Session with the Business of the House. I beg to move— That the Serjeant-at-Arms do exclude Mr. Bradlaugh from the precincts of this House until he shall engage not further to disturb the proceedings of the House. Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Serjeant-at-Arms do exclude Mr. Bradlaugh from the precincts of the House, until he shall engage not further to disturb the proceedings of the House."—(Sir Stafford Northcote.)

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he thought there was no necessity for this Motion, and that there must be some misunderstanding. He did not understand that Mr. Bradlaugh would interfere improperly with the proceedings of the House. Whether he might vote or not was, as had been pointed out by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, a question of law; and if he voted and the law said that he had no right to vote, he simply added penalty on penalty, for the Court might decide that he must pay £500 for each vote. He (Mr. Labouchere) would suggest that, instead of going on with this Motion, they should pass quietly to the debate on the Address without any further trouble. Mr. Bradlaugh had voted already—for a specific purpose, as hon. Members knew; and he (Mr. Labouchere) would engage—["Oh, oh!"]—that if the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) would withdraw his Motion, the proceedings would be no more disturbed by Mr. Bradlaugh—that was to say, until a decision had been taken, as he understood the hon. and learned Attorney General intended to prosecute Mr. Bradlaugh. He would engage that, until that decision, Mr. Bradlaugh would not vote again, or in any way interfere with the proceedings of the House, but would remain quiet as he had always remained, fairly and honestly, when he had said he would do so.

MR. NEWDEGATE

(who spoke amidst cries of "Divide!") expressed his opinion that it was necessary for the dignity of the House that the Resolution should be carried.

MR. JOHN BEIGHT

I rise for the purpose of asking the right Hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) what he intends or means by his Resolution—that is, how far the exclusion will go. I understand, of course, that Mr. Bradlaugh will not again come into the House, notwithstanding that he has voted; but is it intended that he should not attend in the Library, or have the opportunity of writing a letter, or receive Parliamentary Reports, or attend in the Lobby, or go anywhere he has been accustomed to go? Although he has not been accustomed to come into the House as an ordinary Member of Parliament, he has, as we know, been allowed to sit under the Gallery. I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman can consider it necessary to carry his Resolution so far as that. He has now the express declaration of Mr. Bradlaugh's Colleague, who, in past times, has made the same declaration, which has been strictly adhered to, and which the House has accepted; and therefore, seeing that, I think there is no occasion to carry proceedings further now. As the question may possibly be carried to another tribunal, and as there is some degree of uncertainty about it, I think the right hon. Gentleman might consult and follow his general habit of looking at matters of this kind, oven Party matters, with a good deal of fairness, and that he will not press his Motion to a Division. I agree with him, of course, in saying that Mr. Bradlaugh will be expected not to disturb the House, or to give us, I shall not say the amusement, but the excitement of this evening on any future occasion. We have the express declaration of his Colleague, who speaks for him, and whose word may be entirely relied on. Therefore, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will persist in his Motion? I think it would be an indignity to every Member of the House of Commons if, in the case of a Member in the position of Mr. Bradlaugh. having been three times elected by a free constituency, having been prevented from taking his seat by the opinion held by the majority of the House, that majority proceeds further than what is absolutely necessary in the case. To deal in any other way with Mr. Bradlaugh is, in a certain degree, an indignity, and it might be, some day or other, put in force against other Members. I appeal, therefore, to the right hon. Gentleman not to allow the matter to proceed further, knowing that a majority of the House would support him, and that the House would do what is necessary at any time.

MR. GLADSTONE

I feel bound, in the interests of justice, to support what has been stated by my right hon. Friend (Mr. John Bright). The principle upon which we have endeavoured to act has been, throughout these matters, to hold ourselves distinct from the responsibility of the original decision, which we conceive to be the greatest possible error; but, at the same time, to support and uphold the executive authority of the House, in regard to any orders which that authority might give in pursuance of that decision. And now the question is, has Mr. Bradlaugh, by his recent action in passing through the Lobby and voting, disobeyed the order of the Speaker and the House or not? [An hon. MEMBER: Passing through the House.] Now that appears to me to raise a very nice question, one of the greatest nicety, and I, for one, am not well able to give an opinion upon it on my own authority. If I saw my way clearly that this was an act of contumacy against the authority of the Speaker, I would not hesitate for one moment to vote against it; but it appears to me to be doubtful and difficult so far as I at present understand the question. Then I come to say—"Am I bound to enter upon this doubtful and difficult question?" I think not. Were there not taunts or signs of ridicule when the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), who had spoken of his representing the sentiments of his Colleague, spoke; but surely it is the most obvious and absolute duty of that very other Member for Northampton to express himself, and make himself, as far as he can, the channel of communication of anything that he thinks is material to the House, and anything Mr. Bradlaugh has to say. There is no other mode of communication open to Mr. Bradlaugh. Mr. Brad-laugh cannot speak for himself, and the constituency of Northampton has a right to expect it from the sitting Member for Northampton, and he is only in his right and in his duty in doing what he has done. He has offered, being evidently intrusted with power to make the offer, that there shall be no further trouble given to the House, or that Mr. Bradlaugh will not disturb its proceedings, provided this Motion is not passed. Now, is there any object, in these circumstances, in persevering with this Motion; and I must further ask, is the Motion according to precedent? I believe I am correct in saying, though I have not had the opportunity of reference to original sources, that Mr. Alderman Salomons was directed to withdraw from the House, and, after being so directed, did vote—that is to say, did exactly what Mr. Bradlaugh has done. Now, Sir, if that is so, I do contend that it is unjust and unwise in the highest degree to lay down for Mr. Bradlaugh a law of proceeding different from that which was made to apply to Mr. Alderman Salomons, when the act done by both has been apparently the same act. We have no right, in my opinion, to import into the treatment of a particular action of Mr. Bradlaugh the consideration of what has taken place here before. We must give to him, in respect to what he has done, the same justice and the same equity as we would apply to anyone else. Therefore, Sir, on the ground that I see no practical object to be gained by this Motion, and upon the ground that it seems to establish a different measure of justice for Mr. Bradlaugh from that which was meted out to another Gentleman who had performed precisely the same acts—["No, no!"]—precisely the same acts. ["No, no!"] If so, show me that I am wrong. I maintain that the matter I am speaking of is a matter of fact, which cannot, of course, be settled by mere assertion. If I am wrong, then let me be shown that I am wrong; but I believe I am correct in asserting that Mr. Alderman Salomons was directed to withdraw, that he did subsequently vote, and his doing so was not treated as an offence by the House. I maintain that Mr. Bradlaugh ought to have exactly the same justice.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

Sir. I must remind the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that Mr. Bradlaugh has been in a state of mutiny, as I may say, or of opposition to the orders of the House from the beginning of this transaction. Now, the House will not have forgotten the way in which the proceedings this evening commenced. The proceedings commenced by Mr. Bradlaugh walking up to the Table, in opposition to the directions of the Chair, while the Speaker was on his feet, calling upon him to stop; and then the act of Mr. Bradlaugh, going through the form which he did, was done in defiance of the authority of the Chair. In these circumstances, I conceive that the House could hardly be expected to be satisfied with a simple declaration on the part of Mr. Bradlaugh that he will not take his seat. I think some notice ought to be taken of the proceedings, which undoubtedly are of an irregular character, and which may be perfectly well repeated at a future time. Now, the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) says he is ready to engage, if I withdraw this Motion, that Mr. Bradlaugh will not disturb the proceedings of the House. All I have to say in reply is, with the greatest possible respect for the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Northampton, that if the House agrees to the form of my Motion, it will be only necessary for Mr. Bradlaugh himself to do the very thing which his Colleague proposes to do for him. The form of my Motion is simply this—that the Serjeant-at-Arms be directed to exclude him from the precincts of the House until he shall engage not to disturb its proceedings. We have a right to protect our proceedings; and, after all that has passed, I think it is but reasonable and proper that we should put upon record our decision; otherwise, by withdrawing my Motion, I seem to imply that there is no case against Mr. Bradlaugh. I wish to point out that Mr. Bradlaugh may, and probably does, perfectly, honestly, and legitimately, on his part, believe that he has taken all the necessary steps for qualifying himself for the House; and, believing that, it is impossible to say when he may think it right to exercise his privilege as a Member; and if he does, then opposition will arise, there will be further scenes, and I may say that the House does not desire to get into a similar position again. I, therefore, think that what I am proposing is the simplest, and mildest, and most effective form of protecting the House against the repetition of such scenes as we have witnessed this evening. I may say, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), that I am obliged to make the Motion in this way, because if our theory be true—which I myself believe—that Mr. Bradlaugh is not a Member of the House, and that he is committing an offence against the Statute by voting just now, not only has he subjected himself to a penalty of £500, but his seat has become vacant by that act. [MR. LABOUCHERE: Move it then.] If that theory is reasonable, the House is bound to take the measure I propose for its own protection. At that point I am prepared to stop, and further than that I am not prepared to go; and I am perfectly satisfied that the House will be acting wisely in taking that as a solution of the matter.

MR. BURT

I have been requested by Mr. Bradlaugh to say that he is quite prepared to come to the Bar of the House and enter into an engagement not to disturb its proceedings. ["No, no!"] I do not know, Sir, whether the right hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House would wish him to bind himself by oath to such engagement.

EARL PERCY

I rise, Sir, for the purpose of expressing the hope that the submission which is contemplated in the Resolution now proposed to the House will be understood to go further than that proposed by Mr. Bradlaugh, which simply states that he will refrain from disturbing the proceedings of the House until his case has been considered by a Court of Law.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 228; Noes 120: Majority 108.—(Div. List, No. 5.) Ordered, That the Serjeant-at-Arms do exclude Mr. Bradlaugh from the precincts of the House, until he shall engage not further to disturb the proceedings of the House. Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,