Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-02-24
rHE rxpULs1os OF BRADLAUGH.

House Of Commons marks a fresh stage IN
this singularly confused and ill-coLducted
case. Il would have been difficult fer any
of the parties to it to have committed
more blunders than they have. from TIE |
beginning until now, and Bradlaugh him.
self has made his own position very much
more perplexing than it might have been, by
his vacillation and inconsistency. When
the House first refused to allow him to
take his seat because he would not take
the oath administered to every member,
the fact was forced upon public attention
that this oath had long since ceased to
have any significance, and that if it was
an embarrassment it might as well be
abolished. Had Bradiaugh then adhered
to his original attitude there can be little
doubt that the Government would have
proposed some way out of the difficulty.
But after having refused to take the oath
on the ground that it would not be binding
upon his conscience, he suddenly changed
his views, and discovered that it would be
binding upon his conscience. At that point
the House, had it been wise, would have
availed itself of his concession, permitted
him to take the oath, and dropped
the matter. But unfortunately Bradlaugh's
religious opinions had more influence over
the House than any consideration of what
was due to his constituents, and SO, having
begun by refusing him his seat because he
would not take the oath, it proceeded to
refuse to let him take the oath when be
affirmed his readiness to do SO. Here the
House made very grave mistake, and one
which it has not recovered from by ex-
pelling the member fer northampton on the
pretense that he was disrespectful to Par
lament. 1t has, in fact, expelled him
after he had taken the oath, and in the
teeth of Gladstone's declaration that it had
exceeded its power in preventing him from
taking his seat 1t is clear, therefore, that
the expulsion is really a second act of law
less tyranny on the part of the majority. The
House had no right to prevent him from
taking the oath, and therefore its action ON
that head was unconstitutional and invalid.
Bradlaugh acted upon this assumption, and
took the oath. Whereupon the majority
once more oyerstepped their jurisdiction,
and expelled him for refusing obedience to
their lawless procedure.
1 Tho Hnnoa &c khns r,laoad IN thor
oughly indefensible position. 1t has ex-
PEELED legally elected member, who has
complied with all the constitutional re-.
quirements, and it has done this for no
other reason than because he would not
recognize as lawful decree which the
head of the Government has openly pro-
claimed to be unlawful. How Mr.. Glad
stone reconciles his own part in this cpl
sode to himself we are at loss to
comprehend. 1t was clearly his duty to
stand up for legality, no matter how
offensive Bradlaugh's religious opinions
might be to him. His timidity and pas.
sivity on this occasion lay him open to the
suspicion of having been afraid to incur
the hostility of the bigoted element in the
House which has acted throughout with
out the least regard to the constitutionality
of its course. 1t is, however, necessary to
inquire little into the composition of the
anti Bradlaugh faction, for such an analysis
has some interesting lessons. Singular as
it may appear to those who are not aware
how easily the whilom victims of persecu.
ton become prosecutors in their turn, the
most c!amoroas opponents of Bradla1gh
have been Emancipated Catholics and
Nonconformiats. The Irish Liberals and
the English representatives. of Dissent have
been very much fisrcer in their attacks
upon the member for Northampton than
those who are affiliated with the Estab-
lished Church. The fact that only few
years ago both these parties were them
selves under statutory disabilities has not
tended to make them more tolerant. They
have enjoyed religious and civil liberty but
short time, comparatively, yet they are
already eager to deny those blessings to all
who do not fit their standard.
OF course Brsdlaugh's opinions ought
not to cut any figure in the case, and
that they have done SO shows how neces.
sa1y it is that Church and State should be
separated. and that the civil power should be
unencumbered by any religious tests, oaths,
or other pledges or forms. The only valid
considerations for the House of Commons
were the legal eligibility of the man, and
the question of the lawfulness of his cleo.
tion. If he was eligible, and if he was
fairly elected, then the House could not
refuse him his seat without committing a
fragrant wrong upon his constituency. A
portion OF the English people had chosen
him for their representative, and the House
has no power to sit in Judgment upon the
motives of a constituency, or to reject its
choice for frivolous reasons. Nor can the
House hope to win the fight to which it has
committed itself. By expelling Bradlaugh
unlawfully and despoticaliy il has only
prepared for itself fresh humiliation, for
his reelection by the voters of Northamp-
ton is foregone conclusion. And when he
reappears at the bar of the House prepared
to take the oath, it will be impossible to
offer any further opposition to his entrance,
and his enemies will have to admit that he
has beaten them. This is all that they
have to look forward to in his case, but it
may be regarded as certain that the ulti-
mate issue of the affair will be the abolition
of the oath which has caused SO much
trouble.
The bigots who still think that there
is something really important about that
form of words do not represent the bent Of
modern thought. The democratic spirit,
which is being resisted in Bradlaugh by the
Tories, cannot be kept back by paper barri-
cades of this kind. There is in England
great and steadily augmenting radical ele-
ment which is not perhaps faithfully repre-
sented by Bradlaugh, yet which recognizes
him as belonging to its side This ele-