New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-07-25
TALK WITH BRADLAUGH.
LETTER FROM MISS KATE FIELD.

AGAINST uM-uIs GREAT SPEECH AT THE BAR
OF THE HOUSE OF OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
GLADSTONE AND BIsMARCK-A LECTURE ON
JOHN WILKES
To the Editor OF TIE Tribune.
SIR: / had finished my dinner and was toying
with a useful but ungraceful British spoon "hho
listening TO Mr. John McCulloughis criticisms on
English acting 1t was half-past O'clock and the
front door bell rang violently. "Who do you sup
pose that is 7" I asked. II have not the remotest
idea,n replied the popular American tragedian'
Guess" II am not good at guessing" Try.
Who il the most talked about man in EngiandI
"The Prince OF Wales9" shook my head. wen,
if not the Prince Of Wales, it must be Bradlaugh'
Right While the American tragedian had been
guessing the bell had been ringing more ana more
ferociously. Selling his hat, which the ideal hahd-
maiden of the period had carefully placed upon
wet table the gladiator strobe from the room' clearer
the stair at bound and opened the inhospitaDlo
door. "Wny." exclaimed Mr.. Bradlaugh. as MS
great Beecher-.e face and figure entered lts
more difficult getting into your lodgings than into
the House of Commons. from which. by the way
can only be absent an hour and ten minutes" There
was no time to be lost, so we Immediately plunged
in meoias res ! had not seen Mr.. Bradlaugh for
several years He had much to tell, and at last
touched upon his election to Parliament and the
actions which have been brought against him.
THE ACTIONS BROUGHT AGAINST MR.. BRADLAUGH
1.-TWO actionsD he said. "have already been
brought against me, and now a thlrd 10
threatened These actions are brought under the
Parliamentary Oaths Act Of 1866, which makes 1t
an offence to sit and vote without having taken
and subscribed the oath of allegiance. Another
section Of the same act provides That every person
for the time being permitted by law to make
solemn declaration or affirmation in lieu of an OATH
f.l of IN n
vided by the act and that in such the declara-
ton OF affirmation shall have the same value as the
oath that is to say, If | am really a person under
the Parliamentary Oaths Act of 1866 entitled to
affirm then the affirmation | took Friday morn
ing July @ Is as good as an oath in law, and am
not liable for any penalty. think the first action
will come to grief. because it was begun too bur-
riedly The rapidity with which the writ was
served upon me makes me believe that it was &C
tualIy issued before had taken my seat in the
House. In the second action the solicitor is likely
to come to grief he having had the impudence to
serve me with tho writ in the lobby OF the House
ave- on the very door-mat of the House ltself-and
has thus committed contempt OF our ancient PRIV
| ieges."
"Pray what do you call ancient privileges"
"Why. for example member OF Parliament Is
practically free from civil, but not from criminal ar
has right to a clear way to the House of Commons.
| Formerly he could not be arrested for debt. Now,
| no one can But to return | SHALL if possible, en-
| deavor to have all proceedings against me sus-
pended until one action is tried or ask tor conso-
idaton of all the actions. The ground of action Is
| that the acts under which have been permitted to
| affirm. in courts of law. only apply to witnesses
These acts are the Evidence Amendment Acts,
passed in 1869 and TO- in consequence of very
| heavy litigation l had with man named De Rim,
who owed me several hundred pounds. Having no
legal defence, no objected to my giving evidence
because was an atheist. Fighting him through
all the courts for three years beat HIM. He then
became bankrupt, and / lost in debt and costs
f15OO. This, with other similar things, made me
poor man."
| "Do these acts only apply to witnessesV
| YES and undoubtedly il never dreamed
| that n member of Parliament would take advan-
| tage of them. My contention that the Parliament
airy Oaths Act gives the right to every person
| entitled to affirm in lien of an oath anywhere, to
| affirm in lieu of an oath in the House Of Commons.
Those who oppose me say, Even admitting your
claim you are not entitled to affirm in Parliament,
| because under tho Evidence Amendment Acts the
presiding Judge has to be satisfied that the oath
| will not be binding on your conscience. Nothing
of this sort has happened in the House of Commons
| "My reply is that supposing the argument to be
correct the Tories have been fools enough to pro-
vide us with good defence. The second select Par
| lameptary committee reported that ought not to
be allowed to take the OATH IN their opinion that
| oath would not be binding on my conscience. Sir
Hardinge Clifford by his motion, which he succeeded
in carrying got the House to order that should
neither be allowed to take the oath nor to affirm.
| A part of Sir Hardnge GifforPs resolution relating
to affirmation has been resclnded in point Of fact,
though not in point Of FORM that at present there
stands unrevoked the order of the House that must
not swear. This order has been intimated to me by
| the Speaker, who has refused to allow me to swear.
| such refusal being based on the judgment
| of the select committee that the oath had no
binding effect on my conscience. BY their own de-
sire to shut me out Of the House of Commons the
| Tories have furnished me with the legal answer to
the legal objection. Are they not considerable
These actions cannot DO tried before November
meanwhile shall keep sitting and voting as
often as can. the penalty being $500 a time.
Judge of the expense of this luxury when tell you
that on this days orders thirty private bills on
each of which there IS one vote, and thirt y-four
ppblc bills on some of which there will be twelve
votes, so that at $500 vote shall have tolera-
bly, expensive days votingi $50. 900"
Here Mr. Bradlaugh laughed heartily, having in
former years been indebted to the Government sew
era millions of pounds for daring TO issue The M
tional Retormer and yet been the worse for IT.
Continuing the conversation. he said " With
view in all probability to embarrass me, one action
is brought In the Queens Bench Division, and the
second Is brought in the Common Pleas Division
hence it is quite possible, though hardly probable
that we may have Lord Chief Justice Cockburn de
Gliding one way and Lord Chief Justice Colerdg,
deciding another. Thus shall be exemplifed th,
glorious uncertainty of the law. If the decision bt
against me. shall carry the to the House OF
Lords BY that time hope to have broken tn,
hearts and purses of one and all Of the Tory plain
tiifs."
But surely, Mr.. Bradlaugh. the House of Lord