Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-07-08
THE BRAbLAUGft CASE.


companied by Labouchere and Burt,
both extreme Radicals, advanced to the |
table of the House of Commons for the |
purpose of taking the oath as member |
of the House. The Chancellor OF the |
Exchequer, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, OBJ
iected to allowing Bradlaugh to take the
oath to go through the form of taking the
oath, as Sir Michael termed it. Following
this be moved that Bradlaugh be refused
permission toswear, and that the Sargent
alarms be directed to exclude him from
the precincts of the House unless he
would engage not to disturb the proceed
ings of the House, which meant that he
might remain as a spectator, but not as
member. The motion was carried by
vote of 263 to 2l9 The vote raised some
discussion, and one member, MIR. Charles
II. Hopwood, an advanced Liberal,
moved an amendment in favor OF legls-
lating as quickly as could be respecting
oaths of office This motion was second
ed by Sir Wilfred Lamson, Radical.
This brought Mr.. Gladstone to his feet,
who said he had strong views respecting
the question of privileges, and that he
believed that the House had acted uncon-
stitutionally and illegally. He recognized
the fact that the electors of Northampton
had been most grievously wronged. In
these few remarks he showed himself the
same lover of constitutional rights and
freedom that won for him the title of the
"Grand Old Man" He was IN his
stronghold then, and displayed the
same spirit that is the source OF
his true greatness. When the vote
had been taken, Mr.. Bradlaugh
re-advanced to the table, saying he would
obey the Speakers order and withdraw.
His action upon this occasion was far
more graceful and dignifed than upont the
occasion of the first refusal of the House
to admit him when he refused to take the
oath, which refusal he afterwards with
drew, and profered to take the oath or
to affirm, which he was not allowed to
do. On that occasion actual physical
force was necessary to remove him from
the House, and he was elected after
the same manner that a common
lounger is from a public house. He
saved no right that he would not
have saved by gentlemanly department,
while he lost much sympathy and re-
spect.
The reason for refusing him admittance
to the House is that he is an atheist and
holds opinions and beliefs contrary to the
religion of Christianity. On his first re-
! fusal to take the oath he honestly and
frankly stated that the solemn oath of
the House would be no more binding
upon him and his conscience than his
pledged word. He said he looked upon
the subscribing to an oath as a mere
matter of form, and when he
decided to go through the form
he was not allowed to do SO.
His want of belief, in the eyes OF the
House, disqualified him to sit therein as
a member. 1t was the old religious big
otry of England that has so often found
expression in oppressive acts of Parlia-
ment. 1t is the same spirit that actuated
the anti-Catholic legislation of England,
and that has ever looked with an evil and
doubling eye upon all who professed not
the orthodox and established faith. When
Lord EldOn deprived Shelley of his
children he did it as much, if not
more, on account of Shelley's op,n-
ion as expressed in Queen Nab, as
on account of his treatment OF his
first wife. If it is reasonable to make
disbelief test of fitness for member OF
Parliament, it is equally as reasonable
to require special belief in a member.
The reasoning and prejudice upon which
is based the argument for excluding Mr..
Bradlaugh from the House are absurd,
and legitimately belong to the ages when
the Inquisition and auto de te were in
vogue and power.
In thinking over the case of Mr.. Brad
laugh and the right of the electors Of
Northampton to choose whom they wish
to represent them, most readers will
recall the case OF John Wilkes, of North
BritOn fame, and the Middlesex electors.
Upon his return from France in
1859, and after charge of libel had been
lodged against him on account of his crit
icism of the ministers in his now famous
North Briton, No. As, he was elected to
Parliament by the electors of Middlesex
and was excluded from the House. He
was returned second time by Middle
sex, and second time excluded from the
House. Middlesex returned him a third
time, and third time the House ex-
cluded him, and. declared that Wilkes
opponent, one Colonel Lutteral, ought to
be returned and so declared him, although
Wilkes had been elected by an over
whelming majority. The same thing was
once done by our gracious Governor.
The action of the House in the case of
Wilkes gave birth to new powers in Eng
land, the power of the press and the
power of political associations. From
this time the scribblers of Grub street
were replaced by different and better
class of writer's, men with education and
convictions. Prior thereto the power of
the press had either been muzzled or
corrupted, but henceforth it became in
dependent and fearless. Perhaps Junius
and Woodfall did more to bring this
! about than any others though circnm-