The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1880-05-06
pslIrIou, Test. IA Politics.

ltwss reported at one time that Presi-
den, Hayes had made up his mind to ap-
point Bob Ingersoll to the German mis-.
.ion, then vacant by the death Of Bayard
Taylor, but that under the pressure brought
to bear on him by number Of clergymen
be had given up the idea. This report has
never been verified. Ipgersoll himself
hss never alluded to II in his lectures, and
It Is now generally discredited by the
press. While most people would have
thought It the natural, II not the proper,
thing to do, yet very large and influen.
tiL class would have said that it smacked
Of intOlerance-indeed Of persecution for
opinions sake. II is well known that
Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin FRANKLIN
held opinions as Objectionable as those OF
llgenoIl, although, unlike him, they did
not make merchandise OF their opinions,
nor flunt them in the face OF the world,)
aud they both filled foreign missions, and
Nr. Jefferson, when President, sent ma
tionAl vessel to bring Tom Paine to Amer
ia from France.
In our national politics We have no oath
oi office that applies religious test Of any
sort. We swear in alike the orthodox
.ud heterodox as law makers and rulers.
Ia England, however, it is altogether dif-
lerent There they have an oath that
presumes some sort OF religious belief.
Amember OF Parliament must believe in
aGOd-at least he must pretend to. No
doubt men have been sworn in who were
Oi doubtful orthodoxy, even on so broad
platform as Deism. 0aths are said to
catch the conscientious, the very people
who do not need to swear in order to bind
their acts, and to let in the unscrupulous.
In this view Of them 1t seemed strange to
see Bradlaugh. the Radical, decline to
take the oath as a member OF Parliament,
because it required him to acknowledge
the existence Of a God. He is well known
Han Atheist, and his theological opinions
were well known when he was elected.
The question is whether the oath will be
% modified that he can take his seat. The
House Of Commons Is liberal in this re-
sPect as compared with the Peers. The
Scotch Peers, when they came to choose
lSot their number to represent the peer
age Of Scotland in the House Of Lords
threw out the Marquis Of Queensbury To-
recently publishing a compendious con
reaiOn Of disbelief, in which current re
ligious doctrine and the doctrine Of q per
sonal God were alike denied.
Technically, IS the fact Of union re
Quires, the IS Scotch peers who sit in tn
House Of Lords are rsehosen by thei
noble brethren at each general election
but by long usage vacancies only are ollie
Us they occur, and peer once electe
holds over irom Parliament to Parliamen
The Scotch press aud the Scotch publii
however, have been calling on their peer
70 throw out tho Marquis for his bold II
fidelity, aud the Conservative Assembl
which meta Holyrood nothing could we
be more conservative in matters religion
than an assembly Of the peers Of scotlanC
was agalnst him. He cited precedent, b
begged his fellow peers not to yield I
popular clamor, and when he had bee
slubbed by the Lord Register presidir
and the assembly was plainly against hir
he said at the close with much eloqusnc'
Ny lords, am at a loss TO understsi
how my profession OF faith can be co
suued into demonstration Of undtpt
Ter holding seat In the House OF LoI
As representative OF the nobility ot u
great country. That any human creatu