New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-04-28

with the understanding that he had overcome
his scriples and was ready to take II. Inc
majority of the Commons, under the leader
ship Of Sir Stafford NOrthcote, will not allow
him to be sworn in. They deny him his Par
liamentary rights and disfranchise the borough
not because he il unwilling to comply with
the law, nor because his constituents have
acted illegally, but solely because his state of
mind. as evinced 10y his former opinions and
declarations, precludes his taking an oath
which las just enough religion to make it an
oathl
1t is Mr.. B1adlaugh's misfortune to have
either too much or too little conscience to sat
isfy the Conservatives and the Liberal minor
itv who for a second time have joined them
in excluding him from the Commons. When
he asked to be allowed to affirm as n matter
Of preference as the words of the oath meant
nothing to him, they rejected the recommended
tons of the special committee, and finally or
dcred his arrest. They secuted his cOnscien-
tious scruples, aud would not allow him to al
firm at his own risk until Mr.. Gladstone had
shown them how indefensible their position
was and had slowly and reluctantly settled
the question in favor of a man whose princi-
ples he detestcd. In that instance the Conser-
vatiyes did not hesitate to appeal to religious
prejudice and to make a party issue ont of an
intricate question of law, on which the courts
finally ruled adversely to Mr.. Bradllugh Tx
pcrience has taught them little. With in
decent haste they again range themselves III
opposition for partisan purposes, and seek to re-
tard the debates on the Land bill and other
important measures 10y making a party issue
out of a question Of caSuStry. This time they
object 10 Mr.. Brsldlaugh's taking the oath be-
cause they assume that ne cannot put enough
conscience i'm it. When he declared that he
would take the oath, although il meant nothing
to him, the special committee decided that lac
must I've allowed to affirm rather than bc sworn
in. Now that he Processes that the oath will
be- binding upon his conscience. they viii not
take him at his word. They take il for granted
that the last state of hi, mind is no better II
not positively worse, than The first.
This has not even the merit of hcing an in
tricate question of law. 1t i, we repeat
question Of casui,try, which ought not to oc-
cupy single sitting The fdc; that Mr. Brad
LAUGH can take the oath with what he COnSid-
els good conscience should Ice enough to sal
isfy every member of the Commons. IL Is not
for his colleagues Ia determine whether he hls
too many or too few scIuplcs or whether his
state of mind. present, past or Ia come, Il 4
proper one for the administration of an oath.
The debates a year ago on this question were
badly managed ON both sides. and the incl
dent served no useful purposc. To- reopen the
discussion when there is . great remedial
measure like the Land I'LL lciore the Com
mons would bc criminal waste of time.
The broad principle is this: that the form of
the pledge of loyalty to the Queen. which
every member Of the Commons Is required Ia
make, should not exclude anyone from the
seat to which he has been legally elected.