The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1881-04-30 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

The HOUSE OF COMMONS reassembled after the Easter
Recess, on Monday, April 25, and in anticipation of the
Important and interesting business fixed for the day, there
was a full attendance la members.

In the absence of Mr. Gladstone, Lord R. Grosvenor gave
notice that on Monday week he would move an address to
the Crown praying Her Majesty to cause a monument to be
erected in Westminster Abbey at the public expense to the
memory of Lord Beaconsfield.

jr. C. Lewis gave notice of his intention to move the
rejeotion of the Bankruptcy Bill; and Mr. J. Cowen gave
notice of his intention to ask the Under-Secretary for
Foreign Affairs whether he had any further information to
give the House respecting his statement in the Candahar
debate that General Skobeleff had been recalled.

Mr. Ritchie having asked whether there was to be a Met-
opolitan Water Bill this Session,
- -

_
Sir W. Harcourt said, amid some laughter, that he would
prefer to answer the question after the Land Bill had made
progress.

- _
The second reading of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill having
been moved by Lord R. Grosvenor,
Mr. Gibson, after some remarks on the clauses for the
reclamation of waste lands and the creation of peasant
proprietors, of which he expressed a general approval,
proceeded to canvass in detail the provisions relating
to tenure and occupation of land. Of this portion
of the Bill he remarked that it was the strongest ever
submitted to Parliament, and surpassed even Mr. Butt's
proposal, which had always been resisted by the
members of the present Government. He condemned
It also as retrograde, contrary to logic and political
economy, and diametrically opposed to Mr. Gladstone's
speeches of 1870. Virtually it conceded the "three F's"
without compensation to the landlords for what was taken
teem them or security for what was left, and without any
guarantee against everlasting litigation. Dealing with the
question of fair rents, he pointed out that the Bill de-
prived the landlord of the advantages of the open market,
and asked for some further information as to
the standard by which the Courts were to be guided
In settling a fair rent. As he understood it, the proviso
that the Judge should have reference to the tenant's Ulster
tenant-right and to the scale of disturbance would take off,
he maintained, in some cases two-thirds and in others one-
third of the rent, and the general resuat would be to take
away millions from the landlords. Why, he asked, was the
Court to be closed to the landlords? He insisted on the
Injustice done to the landlord in preventing him raising his
rent fairly except by means of a notice to quit and the risk
of the penalties attaching to it. The right of pre-emption
given to the landlord was a mockery, and there was no
security that the tenant might not sell without going
through the required formalities. He asked also for some
further explanation of Clause 45, which he characterized
as the most unintelligible of the Bill, and declared that, as
he read it, there was nothing to prevent the tenant pulling
down all the offices and hedges on the farm, or using all the
minerals, and that the landlord had no power to enforce the
statutory conditions. Among other pointed questions, he
asked what was to be the effect of 'free sale" when a
notice to quit was pending, and why all limits as to the
operation of the Bill were to be dropped out of it. Of the
measure itself he said it would convert the landlord into a
mere rent-charger, and he had a right either to a fair com-
pensation for what was taken from him or the option of
selling his property to the State on fair and reasonable
terms. The Bill was neither candid nor honest, and it would
have been wiser to enact absolutely at once what it proposed
to hand over to the Court to decide.

Mr. Richardson warmly supported the Bill as certain to
put an end to the feeling of insecurity which paralysed the
Industry of the tenant.
After this, no member rising to continue the debate, the
Speaker was proceeding to put the question that the Bill be
read a second time, when Mr. Warton moved an adjourn-
ntent, in order, as he said, to give the Government time to
consider the answer they should make to Mr. Gibson's
speech.
Mr. G-erst and Mr. Chaplin also urged that, before the
debate proceeded further, answers should be returned to Mr.
Gibson's questions, that the House might understand what
was the meaning and purpose of the Bill.
Mr. Gladstone objected to the adjournment, and explained
that the Government had, subsequent to Mr. Gibson's speech,
- been engaged in considering with the law officers the points
nhich that right hon. gentleman had raised, and taking the
best means in their power for facilitating the debate in a con-
venient manner.

•
Sir S. Northcote pointed out that but for Mr. Warton's
Interposition the division would have been taken without
any answer being given. These points had all been raised
by the newspapers during the Recess, and if the Govern-
ment were not prepared to answer them, they were guilty
of an insult to the House.

Mr. F.orster, Lord J. Manners, Sir William Harcourt, and
Sir R. Cross spoke, after which
Mr. Warton's motion was withdrawn; but the Speaker
having again put the question, and no member presenting
himself to continue the debate, Mr. C. Lewis made a second
motion for adjournment, insisting that it was quite impos-
sible to understand the Bill until the information had been
given which Mr. Gibson had asked for.

On this an animated conversation arose, in which Mr. M.
Henry, Mr. Chaplin, Mr. Brodrick, and Mr. Plunket took
the same view, while Mr. Litton and Mr. A. Sullivan thought
the Government ought not to be called on to reply until
they Lad heard the whole case against them.

Ultimately the modion was withdrawn, and the debate was
continued by Mr. Villiers Stuart, who spoke on the deficien-
cies of the Bill in regard to the farm labourers, and moved
an amendment, which was seconded by Mr. Blake, declaring
that no measure can be deemed satisfactory which dues not
contain provisions for ameliorating their condition.
The discussion was continued by Mr. Arnold, Lord Lyming-
ton, and Mr. Foster, who, after remarking on the fact that
Mr. Gibson had not concluded his speech with a motion,
pointed out that the Bill had three objects—the improve-
ment of tenure, the increase in the number of yeomen
farmers, and the relief of overcrowded districts. On
the last two points he assumed that there would be
very little difference of opinion, and with regard
to the first, he said it contained three points—fair
rents, security of tenure under them, and the right of
free sale. The Pivot of the Bill was the creation of a tri-
bunal to fix fair rents, and in arguing this point he main-
tained that all the authorities were in favour of it, and that
it was impossible in Ireland to leave rents to be fixed by the
law of demand and supply. Replying to Mr. Gibson, he denied
that in fixing fair rents the tenant's interest would be carved
out of the landlord's property, and pointed out that the Court
might raise the rent as well as lower it. In fact, the low.
rented tenants would as a rule prefer to leave well alone,
and would not go into court, while the rack-renting land-
lords would avoid the risk of being carried into court by
lowering their rents. Eecurity of tenure and free sale lie
regarded as necessary consequences of fair rents. As
to closing the Court to the landlord, it was not necessary
for him, as he had power to deal with rents with-
out the assistance of the Court. Replying to Mr.
Parnell and the Irish party, he maintained that it was im-
possible to abolish landlordism by legislation, and after
vindicating the proposals with regard to emigration, he con-
cluded by expressing a confident belief that, though the Bill
might be amended in Committee on some points, it would be
carried in its main features.

The debate was then adjourned on the motion of Lord
Facho.

On the motion that the Married Women's Property (Scot-
land) Bill as amended be considered,
Sir G. Campbell protested against a measure of so much
Importance being pressed forward at that hour of the
morning (12.35).
Mr. Anderson said that the Bill had received general
approval in Scotland and had been under consideration for a
considerable time.
The House divided on the question that the Bill be now
considered with the following result :—Ayes, (19; Noes, 19.
—Majority, 60.
The Bill was then ordered to be set down for third reading.
On the motion of Lord Hartingdon, it was agreed that the
House meet on Tuesday at nine p.m., and the House ad-
journed at ten minutes to one o'clock.

The HOUSE OF COMMONS met on Tuesday night, April 26,
at nine o'clock. After the questions and other preliminary
business had been disposed of, Mr. Bradlaugh presented
himself to take the oath on his re-election for Northampton.
He was introduced by Mr. Labouchere and Mr. Burt, and
having reached the table, the Clerk was proceeding to
administer the oath, when Sir S. Northcote rose, and
the Speaker assuming that he intended to submit
a motion on the matter, said that, though under
ordinary circumstances a member presenting himself to
comply with the legal formalities was entitled to do so with-
out interruption, yet having regard to the former resolution
of the House and the Reports of the two Select Committees,
he did not think himself justified in withholding from the
House an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the new
conditions. He then directed the hon. member to withdraw
pending-the consideration of the question.
Mr. Bradlaugh said, "In complying, Sir, with your
direction, I most respectfully desire to ask through you that
before the House comes to any judgment upon my claim to
fulfil the duty imposed upon me by law noisy accord me the
privilege of being beard.'
The hon. member then withdrew.
sir S. Northcote then rose, and said: I am desirous, Sir, to
call the attention of the House to the position in which we
stand, and of submitting a motion for the judgment of the
House with reference to the intention of the hon. member
for Northampton to take the oath in the manner in which it
is usually taken by members on taking their seats in this
. House. lam anxious to say as little as possible and to
keep the question as free as possible from any extraneous
matter which might be imported into it. It seems to me
that the issue which the House has to decide is one of a
very simple character, and one which admits of being
very briefly stated. I waited before taking any exception
to see whether the hon. member proposed to take the oath,
or whether he proposed, in pursuance of the Standing Order
Which exists in such a case, to do that which he did on the
occasion when he took his seat last Session-viz., to claim
his right to affirm. The hon. member proposed to take the
oath, and I, therefore, felt it necessary to rise in order that
I might remind the House of the resolution at which the
House itself airived last Session with regard to the hon.
member. On thev23rd of June last a resolution was arrived
. at by the House to this effect, that, "having regard to the
reports and proceedings of two Select Committees appointed
by this House, Mr. Bradlaugh be not permitted to
take the oath or make the affirmation mentioned in the
statutes 29 of Victoria, chap. 19, and 31 and 32 of Victoria,
chap. 72' I need not trouble the House—for the matter,
no doubt, is fresh in its memory—by going into the
circumstances which led to the passing of that resolution.
Suffice it to say that the 'resolution was adopted, and that
on the following day Mr. Bradlaugh presented himself with
a view to take the oath, and you, Sir, informed hirit that
the resolution which had been so passed precluded him
from 'doing so. The hon. member was, therefore, not
abowed to take the oath; he was called upon to withdraw,
and ultimately steps were taken to compel obedience to the
order ef the House Now, so much of that resolution as
stated that Mr. Bradlaugh should not be permitted to take
th 3 oath, stands, I apprehend, upon the journals of the
House unrescinded. (Hear, hear.) The second part of the
re, olution, which forbade the hon. member making an
affirmation, was, no doubt, subsequently rescinded, and a
resolution was passtd and a Standing Order made that any
member including the hon. member himself, who should
claim thie right to affirm should be allowed to affirm, so far
as this house was concerned, but without prejudice to any
proceedings in a court of law. Mr. Bradlaugh took that
eourse, and did so subject to legal proceedings, which were
adopted, and which resulted in a decision that he was not
a person entitled to affirm." In the result the seat became
vacant, a new writ was issued, and the hon. member now
- presents himself on re-election to take the oath and his
•! seat. I ask the House, however, to consider that the lion.
member is not in the position of a member who seeks
to take the oath and his seat in the ordinary course.
This gentleman is not a stranger; of whose opinions and
antecedents we know nothing, but he is a gentleman whose
opinions have been declared, and regarding which this House
passed a resolution on the 23rd of last June, and a cem-
mittee was appointed, whose report was to the effect that in
their opinion the taking of the oath by Mr. Bradlaugh
would not be a compliance with the true meaning of the
statute, and that, therefore, in the opinion of the com.
mittee, the House would be justified in preventing Mr.
'Bradlaugh from going through the form of taking the oath.
(Hear hear.) The,decision of the committee being such as
I
it is, think that we, who regard the oath as a most solemn
invocation of the Supreme Power, ought not to make our-
selves parties to the use of the oath by one who has openly
and freely expressed his opinion that to him the oath is a
Mere meaningless form. We cannot, therefore, sit by and
assent to what I think would be a profanation. (Cheers.)
It has been clearly shown that Mr. Bradlaugh does not
regard the oath as having any binding effect on his con-
science, and, in the circumstances, I think it would be abso-
, .lutely impossible for the House, with proper respect to its
own dignity, to permit the hon. gentleman to take the oath,
and I therefore move that, having regard to the resolution of
this House on the 23rd of Juneilast, and the report 01..4he
Proceedings of the Select Committee therein referred to, Isfr.
Bradlaugh be not allowed to go through the form of taking
the oath prescribed by the statute.
melirmix bravey moved as an Amendment, that in the case of a
duly elected the House would not merely, on the
ground of information extraneous to the transaction. offer
any impediment to the intention of such member to take his
seat.
Mr. Labouchere, in a pungent speech, seconded the amend-
ment, and was followed by 3lr. E. Clarke, who was in turn
succeeded by Mr. Bright, who contended that the words of

the oath were binding on Mr. Bradlaugh's conscience, and
the House had no right to assume the contrary. Iv o law
had decided against him, and the only argument against him
was derived from the old objection of religious disability.
Mr. Bradlaugh, he pointed out, had conducted himstlf
while in the House in a manner entitling him to considera-
tion, and to attempt to bar his entrance into the House
would be an act of bigotry.

Mr. Gorst having spoken in support of the motion,
Mr. Bradlaugh then presented himself at the Bar, and the
Speaker having taken the pleasure of the House, he was
allowed to address it. He asserted that the essential part
of the oath was binding on him in the fullest manner, and
maintained that, as he was under no legal disqualification,
the House had no right to prevent him taking the oath. His
election of the 9th of April gave him a new title, and the
House had no right to go behind it to inflict a legal dis-
qualification on him on account of what he had said or
done before that date. Mr. Bradlaugh concluded an im-
passioned address by saying—" He wished to say a word
or two on the attempt which had been made day after day
to put on the Government complicity in his views and com-
plicity in his return. The Liberal party had never aided
him in his way to that House. He had to fight for
himself and for his own hand. He had been hindered in
every way in which it was possible to hinder him, and it
was only by the help of the people that he had been
enabled to tight this fight, and that he was there to-day
after five struggles and the efforts of thirteen years. Hon.
members had a right to stand between him and that table,
but it was the right of force, and not of law. At present
he was under the protection of the return which sent
him there. Wken he was seated lie should be under the
jurisdiction of the House, and the House might unseat him.
He did not want tb quote what happened in the House
before, but if there were one lesson which the House had
recorded more solemnly than another, it was that there
ought to be no interference with the judgment of a con-
stituency in sending to the House a man against whom
there was no statutory disqualification. He would appeal
to the generosity of the House as well as to its strength. It
had traditions of liberty on both sides. He did not com-
plain that members on the Opposition benches tried to
keep him out. They acted according to their lights, and
thought his poor services in the House might be injurious
to them if they allowed him to take his seat. (Cries of
"No, no.") Then why not let him in? (Hear.) If it were
not a personal question, it was a religious question' for it
must be either the one or the other. He apologised to the
House for trespassing on its patience. He apologised
because he knew how generous it had been to him from
the first time of his speech in it until then, and he
asked the House not to plunge with him into a struggle
which he would shun. The law gave him no remedy if the
House should decide against him. Let them not mock at
the constituencies If they shut him outside the law they
would only leave him lawless agitation. There was no
tribunal before which he could plead. They had the strength
of their votes at the moment. They thought that he was an
obnoxious man, and that he had no one on his side. If that
were so there was the more reason why that House, grand in
the strength of centuries of immortality for liberty should
have now generosity in dealing with one who to-morrow
might be forced into a struggle with public opinion against
It.' (Cheers from below the gangway on the Ministerial
side.)
Mr. Gladstone, after remarking on the absence from the
Opposition ranks of Sir J. Holker and Mr. 'Walpole, argued
that the question was not whether Mr. Bradlaugh was right
in coming to the table to take the oath, but whether the House
had a right to Interfere._ The duty of the House was strictly
limited by the terms orthe Statute, and by declining to inter-
fere the House would not in any way become a party to the pro-
priety of Mr. Bradlaugh's proceeding. When the resolutiop of
last year was passed the knowledge of Mr. Bradlaugh 's
opinions was part of the res gestce ; but he agreed with him
that the House on the present occasion had no right to go
beyond the 9th of April, the date of his re-election. The
resolution, which laid down no limit of time whatever, in-
ferred that whenever sufficient evidence was forthcoming
that a man was unsound as to a fundamental portion of the
oath, the House might refuse to allow him to take it, and
this amounted to something like a religious inquisition.

Sir H. Giffard asserted-that the House would not be com-
plying with the requirements of the Statute if it sat by and
allowed a gentleman to take the oath who had proclaimed
that the essential conditions of it were absent from his mind.
Mr. Bradlaugh had never proclaimed that the oath would be
binding as an oath but only as a declaration of honour' and
by simply repeating the words of the oath he would not hays
taken it within the meaning of the Statute.
The Attorney-General, on the other hand, asserted that as
Mr. Bradlaugh now professed himself ready to comply with
all the requirements of the Statute the House had no alter-
native but to permit him to take the oath.
Mr. Newdegate spoke in favour of the motion, and, after
a few words in reply from Sir S. Northcote, his resolution
was carried on a division by a majority of 33-208 to
-176. After the cheers with which the announce-
ment of the numbers was received had subsided, Mr.
Bradlaugh again presented himself at the table, but
was directed by the Speaker to withdraw. This he de-
clined to do alleging that the order was illegal, and the
Speaker asked the House for directions. There were loud
cries from the Opposition for Mr. Gladstone, met by counter-
cries of " No, no," from the Ministerialists ; and, after a
pause, Sir Stafford Northcote rose amid loud cheers, and
asked the P:ime Minister whether he intended to take any
steps as leader of the House to carry out the resolution just
agreed to. Mr. Gladstone replied that, having voted with
the minority, he should leave it to the majority
to carry out its resolution. Sir S. Northeoto
at once rne,ved that Mr. Bradlaugh be ordered to
withdraw; and this was carried without a division,
though Mr. Labouchere offered some opposition, and warned
the majority that, to carry out their resolution, it would be
necessary to keep Mr. Bradlaugh in prison during the
remainder of the Parliament. On the advice of Mr. Bright,
he did not press his opposition to a divison, and, the motion
having been carried, Mr. Bradlaugh was again directed
to withdraw and again refused to obey an illegal
order. The Serjeant-at-Arms was then called in and
ordered to remove him, and he went with him to the bar,
but returned at once to the table. The messengers were
then called in, and, surrounding Mr. Bradlaugh, forced him
back to the bar, the lion, member protesting all the time
against the employment of physical force. Again, however,
lie showed a disposition to return and was withheld by the
messengers, who held him back, and the Speaker throwing
himself on the House for further authority, Sir S. Northcote
said he would not shrink from the responsibility of moving
to commit Mr. Bradlaugh to custody, but for the evi-
dent fact that the proceedings were countenanced by Her
Majesty's Ministers. This Mr. Gladstone warmly denied,
but repeated that he would not take any steps until he
thought it could be done with advantage. Ultimately, after
this line of recrimination had been pursued for some time,
the scene was brought to a close by Mr. Cowen moving that
this House do now adjourn, in order, as he said, to give time
for cool reflection.

The motion was agreed to with only a few dissentients,
and the House adjourned at a quarter-past two o'clock.