New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-07-04

fish the letter IN which he SAID the cath TO him
las an oath-a meaningless formalty. lie added
that the promise involved III IT was TO him perfectly
valid and binding which did not prevent the
Tories from seizng the other point, and protest
ing against allowing man 10 take an oath OF
which he had spoken lightly in advance. o. that
advantage they made the most. But for that, II is
probable that Mr.. Bradlaugh, after tie report Of
the first committee against his legal right to afrms
would have been allowed to swear in peace and
auietness II his object simply TO take his seat
his letter is therefore a mistake BIT he has be-
baved throughout as a man who cOrned all reserya-
ton and conceament. and who was resolved. not
merely to take his seat but TO take it, If at all in the
light of day. and after the fullest exposition Of his
claim and the most open declaration of everything
that most obnoxious in his opinions.
The position the House has now attained is that
of body outside the law. Mr.. Bradlaughs claim
to take the oath Is claim under statute. If his
claim be a wrong one. it for the courts to say
it was wrong: the statute itself providing means
for determining this and penalty for the offender
who should violate the statute. Nobody disputes
the plenary power of the House. either to modify
its own rules or to eXpel one of its own members
with without cause. But statute is not "A rule
of the House. The House did not make II,
and cannot unmake 1t; nor has II any authority
whatever to judicial capacity and interpret
a statute. If Mr. Bradlaugh was wrong u suppos-
Ing he had right to take the oath, or to affirm, he
would have affirmed at his peril. An
action could have been brought against him, and
penalty of $500 was recoverable for every act
done by him as member, should the courts have
determined that he not legally member. His
seat in such case, would have been declared
vacant. But the House. instead of awaiting
this regular legal process and judicial decision. has
preferred TO take the law into its own hands. It
has denied to Mr.. Bradlaugh the right either to
swear or affirm. When he refused 10 recognize this
usurpaton of authority and insisted on remaining
in the House and his right to complete the
formaliies Of membership. the House ordered him
into custody. 1t did all this against the
advice of the man who is at once leader
of the House. Prime Minister, and the most
experienced member in it, Mr. Gladstone, rigidly
conscientious. did not choose to make the
question party question. He would constrain no
mans Judgment nor put limits to any prejudice.
The Liberals free 10 vote as they liked on Mr..
LabOuchcres motion that Mr. Bradlaugh be allowed
10 affirm. Enough of them voted with the Tories
to reject the motion, whereupon Mr.. Gladstone
washed his hands of the whole affair. The House
having declined to take his advice, he left the
House to get out of the scrape best IL could with
poor Sir Stafford Northcote for guide and we all
know what happens when the blind lead the blind.
Thus 1t happens that Mr.. Bradlaugh stands at
this moment as the champion of a great constltu-
tiona principle No more than John Wilkes was
is Mr.. Bradlaugh the man whom the average
Briton would choose the exponent OF cherished
liberties. But champions of imperilled liberties are
not elected by universal suffrage. They are there
because a crisis brings them to the front Mr..
BraGlaugh is the legal representative of great
constituency illegally excluded from the House.
and as such he has the sympathes and
will hay the support of every lover of constitutional
freedom whose sight is not clouded by religious fury
Beyond doubt the House meant to vote on Tuesday
that an avowed atheist should not SIT there To
Mr. Gladstone's warnings they paid no heed. They
know perfectly well that all the old barriers have
been succe ssvely broken down; that the House was
not able to maintain itself as q Church OF England
House. or as Protestant House, or rs a Christian
House. Against its own rule in obedience to public
opinion, 1t had to admit first Dssenters, then
Roman Catholics then Jews. 1t takes its last stand
on pure Theism and the stand is Just as sure as
the others TO fail An atheist cannotbe excluded be-
cause he is an atheist. 1t is perfectly true that
atheism is unpopular in England and that avowed
atheists constitute an nconsderabl emlnority of the
people of this kingdom. But there is something
more unpopular and more intoerable to the English
people than atheism itself, and that the
notion of political prescription on account
of religious beliefs Mr. Labouchere put it into an
epigram when he ridicued the theory that man
was not TO take his part in the affairs of this world
because he did not believe in another. Mr. Glad
stone whose faith and piety are almost medieval III
their simplicity, protested through the whole OF an
eloquent speech against the attempt to conduct
the discussion of Mr.. Bradlaughs with
reference to Mr.. Bradlaugh's principles. Again
and again he REQUIRED to the danger
of raising a conflict between the House
aud the constituencies the right of the constitu
encies to send whomsoever they would to represent
them His warning was thrown away. The triumph
of the moment is with the bigots but though Mr..
Bradlaugh is locked up In the Clock Tower he
was so powerful, and never before certain of
taking bis seat. By what process he will
take it nobody can say, any more than
they can say by what device the
House may best escape from its present diff
Guilty Nor does Ii much matter. The House takes
much thought for its " dignity" though generally
sornewh late. 1t will do what it may to that
precious ornament. The people 10 whom the House
is responsible will not regret to see 1T preserved
Bat with or without dignity, the House will sooner
or later have to bow before it's masters, and
abandon once for all the claim to say who shall OF
who shall not represent the constituency of
Northampton, or any other constituency.