The True Story of my Parliamentary Struggle Part 17

1882.

Jan. 9th.--The Earl of Derby, in a speech at the Liverpool Reform Club, says: "For my part I utterly disbelieve in the value of political oaths.... I should hope that if Mr. Bradlaugh again offers to take the oath, as he did last year, there will be no further attempt to prevent him."

Feb. 7th.--Reopening of Parliament. Mr. Bradlaugh again attended at the table to take the oath, and Sir Erskine May, the clerk of the House, was about to administer the same when Sir Stafford Northcote, interposing, moved that Mr. Bradlaugh be not allowed to go through the form. Sir W.

Harcourt, in moving the previous question, said the Government held the view that the House had no right to interpose between a duly-elected member and the oath.

Mr. Bradlaugh, addressing the House from the bar for the third time, begged the House to deal with him with some semblance and show of legality and fairness. He concluded: "I want to obey the law, and I tell you how I might meet the House still further, if the House will pardon me for seeming to advise it. Hon. members had said that an Affirmation Bill would be a Bradlaugh Relief Bill. Bradlaugh is more proud than you are.

Let the Bill pa.s.s without applying to elections that have taken place previously, and I will undertake not to claim my seat, and when the Bill has pa.s.sed I will apply for the Chiltern Hundreds. I have no fear. If I am not fit for my const.i.tuents they shall dismiss me, but you never shall. The grave alone shall make me yield."

When a division was taken there were for the previous question 228, against 286. Mr. Samuel Morley voted with the majority against the Government. Sir Stafford Northcote's motion was then agreed to without a division.

Feb. 8th.--Mr. Labouchere, in committee of the whole House, proposed for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law of Parliamentary Oaths and Affirmations. The Bill was afterwards formally blocked by Mr. Molloy.

Feb. 17th.--Mr. Labouchere asked the Attorney-General whether the resolution of Feb. 7th had not vacated the seat. Sir Henry James answered that it had not.

Feb. 18th.--Mr. Gladstone writes Mr. Bradlaugh that the Government have no measure to propose with respect to his seat.

Feb. 21st.--Mr. Bradlaugh of himself takes and subscribes the oath, and takes his seat.

Feb. 22nd.--Mr Bradlaugh expelled the House of Commons.

Mar. 2nd--Re-elected for Northampton. For Bradlaugh, 3,796; for Corbett, 3,688.

Mar. 6th.--On the motion of Sir Stafford Northcote, the House reaffirms its motion of the 7th Feb., Mr. Gladstone supporting an amendment moved by Mr. Marjoribanks, by which the House would have declared the desirability of legislation, for the purpose of giving members an option between oath and affirmation.

Mar. 7th.--Lord Redesdale introduces in the House of Lords a Bill, requiring every peer and every member of the House of Commons before taking the oath or making the affirmation, to declare and affirm his belief in Almighty G.o.d. The Bill, introduced "from a sense of what was due to Almighty G.o.d," was afterwards withdrawn "in deference to Lord Salisbury."

To this date, 317 pet.i.tions with 62,168 signatures had been presented against Mr. Bradlaugh being allowed to take his seat; while in favor of the same 1,051, with 250,833 signatures, had been presented.

Mr. Labouchere's Affirmation Bill blocked by Earl Percy.

1883

Jan. 11th.--Mr. Justice Field gave judgment that the privileges of the House of Commons prevented Mr. Bradlaugh from obtaining any redress for the a.s.sault upon him on August 3rd, 1881.

Feb. 15th.--Great demonstration in Trafalgar Square; from eighty to one hundred thousand people present. (_Evening Standard_ says 30,000; _Daily News_, 50,000 an hour before the meeting.) Mr. Adams, chairman; Rev. W.

Sharman, Jos. Arch, and Mr. Bradlaugh, speakers.

Opening of Parliament. (Mr. Gladstone at Cannes.) Government give notice for to-morrow for leave to introduce bill to amend the Oaths Act, 1866.

Sir R. Cross gives notice of opposition on second reading of same. Mr.

Bradlaugh consents, with the approval of his const.i.tuents, expressed on the 13th inst., to await the fate of the measure.

Feb. 16th.--Sharp succession of frantic speeches in the House of Commons by Mr. Newdegate, Alderman Fowler, Mr. Warton, Mr. Henry Chaplin, Mr.

Onslow, Mr. Grantham, Mr. Beresford Hope, Lord H. Lennox, Lord C.

Hamilton, Mr. A. Balfour, Mr. Ashmead Bartlett, and Mr. A. O'Connor.

Divisions: from two to three to one for Government. The Marquis of Hartington consents to adjourn the motion for Bill until Monday at twelve.

Feb. 18th.--The _Observer_ says that when Conservatives ask Liberals whether they really mean to alter the law for the purpose of admitting Mr. Bradlaugh, it is fair for Liberals in turn to ask Conservatives whether they really mean to maintain an admitted abuse and injustice for the mere purpose of excluding Mr. Bradlaugh.

Feb. 19th.--First reading of Bill carried on division by 184 votes to 53; second reading formally fixed for that night week.

Feb. 20th.--_Daily News_ says Bill will be carried by large majorities, and will be regarded by the House and the country as the appropriate settlement of an unfortunate controversy.

The _Times_ says the leaders of the opposition will not succeed in finally preventing the Bill from becoming law. Its real concern is that Mr. Bradlaugh has been substantially in the right; that he has been unjustly excluded from taking the seat which belongs to him.

The _Morning Advertiser_ thinks the Government may yet find it difficult to persuade the House to adopt the Bill.

The _Morning Post_ justifies the irregular opposition to the first reading of the Bill, and thinks notice of the measure should have been given in the Queen's Speech. No measure had created more excitement or raised more indignation in the country, which desired to see it rejected by a decisive majority.

March 5th.--Appeal case Bradlaugh _v._ Clarke part heard before the House of Lords.

March 6th.--Case concluded; judgment deferred.

March 9th.--Action for maintenance--Bradlaugh _v._ Newdegate--tried before Lord Coleridge and a special jury. Henry Lewis Clarke, the common informer, swore that he had not the means to pay the costs, and would not have brought the action if he had not been indemnified by Mr. Newdegate.

Case adjourned for argument of legal points.

March 17th.--Maintenance action argued; four counsel appearing for Mr.

Newdegate. Lord Coleridge reserved judgment.

March 20th.--The Solicitors to the Treasury compelled Mr. Bradlaugh to pay the costs of the House of Commons in the action against the deputy Sergeant-at-Arms.