The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1883-05-13

the particular nuisance OF England l"s' ..
this iuucturc, the commotion be has raiseu
presents one very interesting and gra'',
ing feature. 1t demonstrates very c'ear'y
the safety Of relying upon q cultva'eo'
moral sentiment to accomplish what the
law Is frequently powerless to effect. 4 nc
assumption in this country has oech II =,
large measure that the affirmation pl''
through which BRADLAUGH has recently
been brought into such prominence was
marty measure, and that its defeat neces-
sarily carried with 1t heavy blow 10 MT
GlApsroNE's administration. This view Is
not justified by either the facts In the case
or the debates In Parliament. IL i uu'
that the defeat OF any measure proposed oy
premier weakens him, and II Il equaiiy
true that some few OF Mr.. GLADSTONE
enemies attempted TO pervert his motive
Rut when this Is said. all is said. Iherc
Is no question OF dissolution OF Parl1'
ment or the resignation OF Mr.. GLADSTONE
involved The issue was a personal onc'
Its Significance Is social.
For years BRADLAUGH has rendered hiii,-
self obnoxious in his speeches ana W.T.
tincs, not only TO the Christianity Dut tue
morality OF England, and various efforts
have been made to suppress him by action
for blasphemous libel. In the nature OF
the law. as cxpounded by Lord CoLDnIDGE
in the case OF the Queen Us. Ramsey
Foote. publishers OF the Freethinker, this
could not be effectually done. Lord COL
BRIDGE argued that il was no longer posi-
BILE TO affirm that Christianity was part OF
the law OF the land, and any attack upon it
in however sober or argumentative form
was punishable. The ST -ides England had
taken in rendering Israeltes and others
eligible to the Bench and Parliament made
the old construction Of the law an alb
surdity. This exposition, it will be readily
understood, was almost unavoidable, and
while BRADLAUGH and his disciples her.
aided il as a triumph OF the liberty OF free
speech, society regarded it as the triumph
OF license.
When, however. BRADLAUGH made his
last effort to secure the privileges OF Parlia-
ment to which he had been elected several
times am: refused admission, the cause OF
the people against immortality and the most
dangerous form Of infidelity was virtually
transferred from the courts TO the House OF
Commons. The issue came up to be tried
not by jury instructed under the strict
construction OF the written law, but by the
representatives Of the people, influenced
bv the instincts OF the conservatism OF the
higher unwritten law. There are those
who think they see in the result gross
inconsistency, inasmuch as Mr.. MORLEY
was allowed TO take the oath. But the eases
are by no means analogous. As to MIR.
MORLEY we have the distinct and emphatic
statement that when he sought election to
Parliament and was questioned relative TO
the oath. his answers were satisfactory.
He did not shock public sensibility.
On the contrary, BRADLAUGH, after resort
ing to the various subtelfuges, deliberately
profaned the oath and sought admis-
slDn through lnt dlili hatioh piii 90 '''''
resort. The defeat of the bill therefore
was not because it was obnoxious in Itself
for the oath is now a test Of loyalty, not
OF Christianity. as evidenced in the case OF
JOIN STUART MILL and others-but was the
Indignant expression of outraged morality,
which is calculated to do more to destroy
the influence OF such men as BRADLAUGH
than hundred legal prosecutions.
And this incident is not without GER
tain sort OF parallel in this country, which
is hopeful sign of the times, and "A direct
contradiction to the oft-repeated assertion
that tie public sense OF virtue is becoming
paralyzed. 1t may lie dormant for long
time, but when the occasion comes it will
be aroused to decisive action. In the prin-
ciplc involved and the guarantee given
that a healthy public sentiment may be de
pended upon to eventually meet any crisis,
the cases OF LYMAN DUKES and the Leglsla-
turc Of Pennsylvania and BRADLAUGH have
many features in common. No one denies
that they were both const!tutionally elect
ed to their seats, but no law, no constitu.
tiona provision, is strong enough to maxi
a body OF educated men, be their political
bias what it may, deliberately condone 6
crime against God and society.