CHAPTER VII

LABOUCHERE AND BRADLAUGH

(1880-1881)

At the general election of 1880, Mr. Labouchere found in the electors of Northampton a constituency which was to remain faithful to him throughout his political career. He was described in the local press as the "nominee of the moderate Liberals," though, as he explained in the columns of _Truth_, a moderate Liberal at Northampton was a Radical any where else. The "Radical" candidate was that upright and greatly persecuted man, Mr. Charles Bradlaugh, who merited far more than Mr. Labouchere the title of the "religious member for Northampton."[1] It has often been pointed out that the difference between religious and irreligious people does not lie so much in opinion as in temperament. Labouchere had an essentially irreligious nature, he was a born _impie_, as the French say: Mr. Bradlaugh had the soul of a Covenanter. As far as speculative religious opinions were concerned, they practically coincided, while, in the general lines of political opinion, they were quite at one. Both were strong Radicals and strong anti-socialists.

Northampton was in 1880 one of the most promising Radical constituencies.[2] The Radical element had for {143} many years been very numerous among the population, but unfortunately the majority of the workers had no vote. The Household Suffrage Act of 1868 remedied this state of things to some extent. The work of the Freehold Land Society developed the scope of the remedy. This most practical expression of democratic ideals, by making freeholders of workmen, raised the numbers of the electorate from 6829 in 1874 to 8189 in 1880; of these 2500 had never voted before, and to a man were Radicals. When Mr. Labouchere was introduced as Liberal candidate he at once decided to make common cause with Mr. Bradlaugh, and his manifesto to the electors, published on March 27, was craftily worded so as to appeal with simple directness to those modern sons of St. Crispin, "the communistic cobblers of Northampton." It ran as follows: "Having already sat in Parliament as a Liberal member for Middlesex, it is needless for me to say that I am an opponent of the Imperialism which, under the leadership of the Earl of Beaconsfield, has become the policy of the Conservative Government. This new-fangled political creed consists in swagger abroad and inaction at home. Its results are that we have made ourselves the patrons of one of the vilest governments that ever burdened the earth; that we have joined with the oppressors against the oppressed; that we have acquired a pestiferous and less than worthless land in the Mediterranean; that we have annexed the territory of some harmless Dutch republicans against their will; that we have expended above six millions in catching a savage, who had as much right to his freedom as we have, and that we have butchered Afghans for the crime of defending their country against an unjust invasion.... For my part, I am anxious to see Parliament again controlling the executive, and a majority of members returned who will radically revise the laws regarding land, so as to encourage its tenure by the many instead of its absorption by the few, who will render farmers independent of the caprices of the landlords, who will emancipate {144} the agricultural labourers by securing to them their natural right to vote." He went on to express in strong terms his desire for the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church of England.[3] In a speech which he made on the same day as the publication of his manifesto, in the Wesleyan Chapel, in the Wellingborough Road, he said that he had been asked a little while ago whether he was a member of the Church of England, and he had replied that he had been brought up in the Church of England, and, if he had to register his religion, he should register it as a member of the Church of England. But, if he had been asked what his religion was, he should have said the question was one between his God and his conscience, and it was no business of any one's in Northampton, because he stood upon the distinct issue that, whatever the religious opinions of a candidate might be, they were sending him to Parliament to perform certain political duties, and if his political views were in accordance with theirs, religion had nothing to do with it.[4]

The borough had previously returned two Tory members, Mr. Phipps, a local brewer, and Mr. Merewether, a lawyer. They were not themselves very formidable opponents to the Radical joint candidature. The clergy and the press urged the theological motive, as well as his greatly misunderstood views on Malthusianism against Bradlaugh. On the Sunday before the election the Vicar of St. Giles intimated that "to those noble men who loved Christ more than party, Jesus would say, 'Well done.'" But, in spite of nearly 2000 years of Christianity, heaven has not yet learned to bless the weaker cause, and on the election day, the figures stood--Labouchere (L.), 4518, Bradlaugh (R.), 3827, Phipps (C.), 3125, Merewether (C.), 2826. When the news of the poll was brought to Mr. Labouchere, who was smoking his cigarette in the coffee room of the hotel where he was staying, his only comment was a quiet chuckle, and the remark, "Oh, they've swallowed Bradlaugh, after all, have they?"

{145}

Great was the fury in the Conservative camp. "The bellowing blasphemer of Northampton," as Mr. Bradlaugh was amiably called by the _Sheffield Telegraph_, had to meet the full blast of popular prejudice, which was exploited to the utmost by his political opponents.

The Tories were soon to have more than popular prejudice to exploit. On May 3, Mr. Bradlaugh, before taking his seat in the House of Commons, handed to Sir Thomas Erskine May, the Clerk of the House, the following statement:

_To_

THE RIGHT HONBLE. THE SPEAKER.

I, the undersigned, Charles Bradlaugh, beg respectfully to claim to be allowed to affirm as a person for the time being by law permitted to make a solemn affirmation or declaration, instead of taking an oath.

On being invited by the Speaker (Sir Henry Brand) to make a statement to the House with regard to his claim, he replied:

Mr. Speaker, I have only now to submit that the Parliamentary Oaths Act, 1866, gives the right to affirm to every person for the time being permitted to make affirmation. I am such a person; and under the Evidence Amendment Act, 1869, and the Evidence Amendment Act, 1870, I have repeatedly for nine years past affirmed in the highest courts of jurisdiction in this realm. I am ready to make the declaration or affirmation of allegiance.

It might have been thought that the principle of Mr. Bradlaugh's position needed only to be stated to be accepted by men of honourable feeling and average intelligence. After all, as Mr. Labouchere, in course of conversation on this very point, once remarked to me: "a statement is either true or false, and expletives cannot affect it." The legal precedents, invoked, although they did not actually mention {146} the parliamentary oath, had been considered sufficient by the last Liberal law officers. Sir Henry Brand, however, had "grave doubts," and desired to refer the claim to the House's judgment. Lord Frederick Cavendish, on behalf of the Treasury Bench, seconded by Sir Stafford Northcote, the leader of the Opposition, moved that the point be referred to a Select Committee. Lord Percy and Mr. David Onslow attempted in vain to adjourn the debate.

On May 10, Lord Richard Grosvenor, the Government Whip, announced the names of the proposed Committee: Mr. Whitbread, Sir J. Holker, Mr. John Bright, Lord Henry Lennox, Mr. W. H. Massey, Mr. Staveley Hill, Sir Henry Jackson, Sir Henry James (the Attorney-General), Mr. Farrer Herschell (the Solicitor-General), Sir G. Goldney, Mr. Grantham, Mr. Pemberton, Mr. Watkin Williams, Mr. Spencer Walpole, Mr. Hopwood, Mr. Beresford Hope, Major Nolan, Mr. Chaplin, and Mr. Serjeant Simon. In spite of the fact that the actual motion was not to come on till the next day, Sir Henry Drummond Wolff endeavoured at once to raise a debate on the legitimacy of the Committee, and the next day succeeded in doing so. The debate was characterised by "great violence and recklessness," but the Government succeeded in getting their Committee appointed by a majority of seventy-four. The report of the Committee was presented on May 20. Eight members were in favour of Mr. Bradlaugh's right to affirm, and eight members against: Mr. Spencer Walpole, the Chairman, took the responsibility of giving his casting vote for the Noes. All the Noes with the exception of Mr. Hopwood were Conservatives, the rest of the Liberals voting on the affirmative side. Bradlaugh now claimed the right to take the oath, as the right to affirm was denied him.

There has been so much misunderstanding of Bradlaugh's position on this point that it may be well to explain exactly what it was that he did claim. In a statement of his case subsequently published in his paper, _The National Reformer_, {147} on May 30, 1889, Mr. Bradlaugh used the following words: "My duty to my constituents is to fulfil the mandate they have given me, and if, to do this, I have to submit to a form less solemn to me than the affirmation I would have reverently made, so much the worse for those who force me to repeat words which I have scores of times declared are to me sounds conveying no clear and definite meaning. I am sorry for the earnest believers who see words sacred to them used as a meaningless addendum to a promise, but I cannot permit their less sincere co-religionists to use an idle form, in order to prevent me from doing my duty to those who have chosen me to speak for them in Parliament. _I shall, taking the oath, regard myself, as bound, not by the letter of its words, but by the spirit which the affirmation would have conveyed had I been permitted to use it_. So soon as I am able, I shall take such steps as may be consistent with parliamentary business to put an end to the present doubtful and unfortunate state of the law and practice on oaths and affirmations."

The words italicised indicate very clearly the spirit in which Mr. Bradlaugh proposed to take the oath. To do so, was, as he conceived, the only way, since the adverse decision of the Committee on his claim to affirm, by which he could qualify himself for the performance of his duty to his constituents. It was in no sense intended as an insult to those to whom the oath had a distinct and positive religious value, or as a defiance of the dignity or orders of the House. This document was dated May 30, the day on which the report of the Committee was issued, and on the following day, Mr. Bradlaugh presented himself to take the oath and his seat.

Sir Henry Drummond Wolff at once rose and objected to the administration of the oath, and, on the Speaker's allowing his objection, proceeded to make a remarkable speech. For flippancy of tone and sheer ineptitude of argument, not to speak of the crass and brutal quality of {148} the prejudice which inspired it, this deliverance possesses an unenviable pre-eminence among the many absurdities uttered by honourable members during the Bradlaugh parliamentary struggle. Wolff's argument rested on two grounds, both palpably false, while the second was entirely irrelevant to the point at issue. He maintained that Atheists who had made affirmations in courts of law (as Mr. Bradlaugh had done) thereby admitted that an oath "would not be binding on their conscience," and, furthermore, that Bradlaugh had stated, in his "Impeachment of the House of Brunswick," that "Parliament has the undoubted right to withhold the crown from Albert Edward, Prince of Wales." Sir Henry "could not see how a gentleman professing the views set forth in that work could take the oath of allegiance." He went on to say: "What we have now before us is the distinct negation of anything like perpetual morality or conscience, or the existence of God. And, as I believe that a person holding these views cannot be allowed to take the oath in this House, I beg to move my resolution." Mr. R. N. Forster seconded. Mr. Gladstone at once rose and, while refraining from expressing any personal opinion, suggested reference to a Select Committee. Sir Henry James supported the Prime Minister's amendment. Mr. Labouchere, speaking as the colleague of the honourable member in the representation of Northampton, said that he thought it right to state that his honourable friend was selected by the majority of the constituents solely on account of his political views. They did not occupy themselves with his religious convictions, because they were under the impression that they were giving him political, rather than theological, functions to fulfil in that House. A proposal had been made by the Prime Minister that this matter should be referred to a Select Committee. It certainly did appear to him (Mr. Labouchere) somewhat strange that a member who had been duly elected should be told that he could not take his seat because he was forbidden to make an affirmation on {149} account of his not being a Quaker or a Moravian, and because he was forbidden from taking the oath on account of certain speculative religious opinions, which he had professed. But that appeared to be the view of many gentlemen on the other side of the House, and he should be perfectly ready to discuss that view; but, as the Prime Minister had very rightly said, the matter was a judicial one, and it would be far better, in his humble opinion, that it should be referred to a Committee of the House to look at it in its judicial aspect rather than that there should be an acrimonious theological discussion in that House. When, however, it was referred to a Committee, he thought that he had a right to ask, in the name of his constituents, that that Committee should decide it as soon as possible. Should the Committee decide that the honourable gentleman was not to be allowed to take the oath, it would then become, if not his duty, the duty of some other honourable gentleman to bring in a bill to enable his colleague to make an affirmation in order that his constituents might enjoy the right which the constitution gave them of being represented by two members in that House.

Lord Percy drily observed that he was sorry for the electors of Northampton if they were deprived of the services of one of their representatives, because the honourable gentleman was recommended to them by his honourable colleague, whose religious opinions were well known, and, after an eloquent speech from Mr. Bright, who recommended "the statesmanlike and judicious course which has been suggested to us by the First Minister of the Crown," the debate was adjourned.

On the resumption of the debate the next day, the wildest remarks were made by Mr. Bradlaugh's opponents. Dr. Lyons proposed the solution that "Northampton should send us a God-fearing if not a God-loving man." Mr. Warton argued that "the man who does not fear God cannot honour the King," and Mr. Callan scoffed at Mr. Bright's tribute of respect to Mr. Bradlaugh's sense of honour and {150} conscience, "language," he said, "that should not be used with reference to an infidel blasphemer." After the din caused by this _ex parte_ criticism had subsided, the still small voice of Mr. Labouchere was heard mildly asking whether the honourable member was in order in referring to his colleague as an infidel blasphemer, and the Speaker having ruled the phrase out of order, Mr. Callan withdrew it. He was, however, an ardent polemist, and added that he was sure that Mr. Labouchere, in spite of his support of Mr. Bradlaugh, "would prefer in this House his old acquaintance Lambri Pasha to the gentleman who was the subject of the debate." And so the foolish wrangle went on, recalling the historian's account of the Œcumenical Council. It is true that the amateur theologians of Westminster stopped short of pulling each other's beards. Their zeal had not quite the professional note of that of the Fathers at Ephesus.

After two days of this sort of thing, Sir Henry Drummond Wolff's motion was rejected by 289 votes to 219, and a second Select Committee of twenty-three was appointed. The members were: the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, Messrs. Bright, Chaplin, Childers, Sir Richard Cross, Mr. Gibson, Sir Gabriel Goldney, Mr. Grantham, Mr. Staveley Hill, Sir John Holker, Mr. Beresford Hope, Mr. Hopwood, Sir Henry Jackson, Lord Henry Lennox, Mr. Massey, Major Nolan, Messrs. Pemberton, Simon, Trevelyan, Walpole, Whitbread, and Watkin Williams.

The Committee reported that Bradlaugh by simply stating (though in answer to official question) that he had repeatedly affirmed under certain Acts in courts of law, had brought it to the notice of the House that he was a person as to whom judges had satisfied themselves that an oath was not binding on his conscience; that, under the circumstances, an oath taken by him would not be an oath within the true meaning of the statutes; and that the House therefore could, and ought, to prevent him from going through the form. The Committee further suggested that he should be allowed {151} to affirm with a view to his right to do so being tested by legal action, pointing to the nearly equal balance of votes in the former Committee as a reason for desiring a decisive legal solution.

On June 21, Mr. Labouchere moved "that Mr. Bradlaugh, member for the borough of Northampton, be admitted to make an affirmation or declaration instead of the oath required by law." This speech was one of the best he ever made in the House. It was an admirable piece of argument and an excellent piece of literature, solidly reasoned and witty; "it is contrary to, it is repugnant to, the feelings of all men of tolerant minds that any gentleman should be hindered from performing civil functions in this world on account of speculative opinions about another"--was a terse summing up of the situation worthy of Gibbon. His main argument was that the Parliamentary Oaths Act of 1866 gave to all persons, legally entitled to affirm in the law courts, the right to affirm in Parliament. He further pointed out that the refusal to allow Bradlaugh to affirm would be to turn him into a martyr. Mr. Bright again made a fine speech in which he said, amid ironical cheers from the Opposition, that he pretended to no conscience and honour superior to the conscience of Mr. Bradlaugh. Mr. Gladstone also spoke cogently in favour of Mr. Labouchere's motion. It was, however, lost by a majority of 45, of whom 5 were English Liberals and 31 Irish Home Rulers.

On June 23, Mr. Bradlaugh again presented himself at the table of the House. The Speaker called on him to withdraw, in accordance with the vote of the night before. Mr. Labouchere then moved that "Mr. Bradlaugh be now heard at the Bar of the House," following which motion Mr. Bradlaugh made an eloquent and dignified defence of his position. A confused debate followed, and Mr. Labouchere moved that "Yesterday's decision be rescinded," withdrawing his motion, however, on an appeal from Mr. Gladstone. The Speaker then recalled Bradlaugh to the table, {152} and informed him that the House had nothing to say to him beyond once more calling upon him to withdraw. Bradlaugh replied: "I beg respectfully to insist on my right as a duly elected member for Northampton. I ask you to have the oath administered to me in order that I may take my seat, and I respectfully refuse to withdraw." After a second admonition from the Speaker, to which Bradlaugh replied, "With respect I do refuse to obey the orders of the House, which are against the law," the House was appealed to "to give authority to the Chair to compel execution of its orders." Mr. Gladstone, although called upon, did not rise. He appeared to be absorbed in deep thought, and, with his gaze fixed on a vague distance, just above the heads of the belligerent theologians, he meditatively twirled his thumbs. Northcote hesitatingly moved, "though I am not quite sure what the terms of the motion should be, that Mr. Speaker do take the necessary steps for requiring and enforcing the withdrawal of the honourable member for Northampton." The Speaker explained that the motion should simply be "that the honourable member do now withdraw." On a division being taken, 326 voted in favour of the motion and only 38 against. On the Speaker renewing his order, Mr. Bradlaugh answered: "With submission to you, Sir, the order of the House is against the law, and I respectfully refuse to obey it." The Sergeant-at-Arms was now called, and touching him on the shoulder, requested him to withdraw. Mr. Bradlaugh said: "I will submit to the Sergeant-at-Arms removing me below the Bar, but I shall immediately return to the table," and did so, saying as he returned toward the table, "I claim my right as a member of this House." This little ceremony was repeated twice, the House being in an uproar. High above the din, Mr. Bradlaugh's voice could be heard shouting: "I claim my right as a member of this House. I admit the right of the House to imprison me, but I admit no right on the part of the House to exclude me, and I refuse to be excluded." He was again led to {153} the Bar by the Sergeant-at-Arms to await the House's action.

Mr. Bradlaugh had, no doubt not unintentionally, indicated to his enemies the only line they could take. It was his tactic, and a wise one, to force the House into the extreme measure of physical force. To do so was a fair retort from a Rationalist to his opponents. Northcote, complaining again of Mr. Gladstone's inaction, proceeded to move that "Mr. Bradlaugh, having defied the authority of the House, be taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms." Mr. Labouchere at once rose and said that he would not oppose the resolution, although he thought it a somewhat strange thing that a citizen of this country should be sent to prison for doing what eminent legal gentlemen on his side and an eminent legal gentleman on the other side of the House said he had a perfect right to do. He was interrupted by cries of "No, No!" He continued that he did not know whether honourable members opposite meant to say that the honourable and learned gentleman, the late Attorney-General, was not an eminent legal authority on such a point. That was the view taken by that honourable and learned gentleman. It seemed a somewhat hard thing that any one should be put into prison for doing what a general consensus of legal opinion in that House held to be his duty and his right. But, as the Prime Minister had stated, it was useless to oppose the motion, because Mr. Bradlaugh had come into conflict with a resolution of the House, whether that resolution were right or wrong. He, regretting as he did the necessity that had been forced upon the House, did not think he should be serving any good purpose in opposing the resolution, or in asking the House to go into a vote on this question. He believed himself that the sending of Mr. Bradlaugh into custody would be the first step towards his becoming a recognised member of the House. It is interesting to note that Mr. Parnell also spoke in favour of Mr. Bradlaugh, and said that, if Irish members voted for his imprisonment, {154} they would be going contrary to the feeling of their country. On a division being taken there were 274 Ayes to 7 Noes, and Mr. Bradlaugh was removed in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms to the Clock Tower.

The imprisonment was rather an insult than an injury. The prisoner received his friends freely and openly, and proceeded to the business of fighting his battle in the country from his "cell." A cry of indignation, which must have greatly surprised the Tories, went up all over England, and, on the next day, Northcote, at the urgent advice, it is said, of Lord Beaconsfield, moved for Bradlaugh's immediate and unconditional release. On Sir Stafford making his motion, Mr. Labouchere pointed out to the House, "in order that there may be no misconception in the matter," that Mr. Bradlaugh would immediately on his release "return to the House and do what the Prime Minister, the colleagues of the Prime Minister, the present Attorney-General and the late Attorney-General, say he has an absolute legal right to do." The motion was nevertheless agreed to, and Mr. Bradlaugh was released.

The next day, June 25, Mr. Labouchere gave notice that he should move on the following Tuesday that the resolution of the House, which had resulted in Mr. Bradlaugh's imprisonment, should be read and rescinded. He also asked for special facilities from the Government on that day for bringing the matter before the House. Mr. Gladstone, whilst reserving his answer as to the particular form of proceeding, agreed that "it was certainly requisite and necessary that the subject of Mr. Bradlaugh's right should be considered," and promised facilities for the day mentioned by Mr. Labouchere. On the Monday, however, Mr. Gladstone himself informed the House that the Government had framed the following resolution, which they intended to submit: "That every person returned as a member of this House, who may claim to be a person for the time being by law permitted to make a solemn affirmation or {155} declaration instead of taking an oath, shall, henceforth (notwithstanding so much of the resolution adopted by this House on the 22d of June last, as relates to affirmation), be permitted without question to make and subscribe a solemn affirmation in the form prescribed by the Parliamentary Oaths Act, 1866, as altered by the Promissory Oaths Act, 1868, subject to any liability by Statute; and, secondly, that this resolution be a standing Order of this House." The Prime Minister then expressed the hope that, as the question would be raised in what the Government considered the most convenient manner, Mr. Labouchere would not consider it necessary to proceed with any motion on the following day. Mr. Labouchere withdrew his resolution "after the very satisfactory Notice, which has just been given by the Prime Minister."

The next day, when Mr. Gladstone made his motion, Sir John Gorst opposed it, on the technical ground that it was a breach of the Rule of the House, which laid down that, if a question had been considered by the House and a definite judgment pronounced, the same, or what was substantially the same, question could not be put again to the House during the same session. This contention was, however, overruled by the Speaker, and, on a division being taken, the Prime Minister's resolution was accepted by a majority of 54, the Ayes numbering 303 and the Noes 249. Bradlaugh was now free to affirm at his own legal risk, and he did so the next day, thus bringing to a conclusion the first movement of this ironic symphony.

There can be no doubt that Mr. Labouchere's great speech of June 21 contributed powerfully to this result. Apart from the speeches of Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Bright, and indeed Mr. Bradlaugh's own fine speech at the Bar of the House on June 23, it was the only attempt made to present the constitutional and legal aspects of Bradlaugh's case in their true light. The subject was one that appealed very strongly to Mr. Labouchere. In personal agreement {156} with the views which it was sought to penalise in the person of Mr. Bradlaugh (although it would have been alien to his temperament to have enrolled himself as a partisan of those views), his attack on Mr. Bradlaugh's enemies acquired weight and energy from the love of individual liberty that was at the bottom of his character, and his detestation, on that, as on every other occasion of his public life, of oppression and prejudice.

The prejudice aroused by Bradlaugh's entrance into the House of Commons was slow to disperse. Numerous petitions for his exclusion from Parliament were signed, in some cases, _en bloc_, by Sunday-school children. The varieties of English Protestantism were all zealous in the good cause, and Cardinal Manning, who wrote a violent article in the _Nineteenth Century_ on the subject, succeeded in presenting a monster petition from English and exiled Irish Roman Catholics. There were, however, some notable exceptions among those who represented the religious principle. Several clergymen of the Church of England and not a few Non-conformist ministers wrote to the papers on his behalf. Newman refused to sign the petition, on constitutional grounds, and the "Home Government Association of Glasgow" sent to Bradlaugh a resolution stating "that this meeting of Irish Roman Catholics ... most emphatically condemns the spirit of domination and intolerance arrayed against you, and views with astonishment and indignation the cowardly acquiescence and, in a few instances, active support, on the part of a large majority of the Irish Home Rule members to the policy of oppression exercised against you." Such voices were, however, few and far between; in the House itself the Opposition could not resist the temptation of such a weapon against the Government. It was good policy, as Lord Henry Lennox said, in a moment of expansion, "to put that damned Bradlaugh on them." Mr. Labouchere held an unswerving course in support of his colleague. Temperamentally, as has been said, he did not {157} sympathise with Mr. Bradlaugh's attitude. He did not share Mr. Bradlaugh's view of the importance of transcendental opinions of any shade, and his wider experience of life and human nature led him to gauge more truly perhaps, certainly very differently, the value in the social scheme of other people's religious belief. He would never himself have raised the question raised by Mr. Bradlaugh, but he was wise enough to realise that, once it was raised, there was only one way of settling it. In the course of his long life, he championed many a victim of oppression and prejudice, but it may be doubted whether his championship ever showed to greater advantage, was ever more firmly based on those wide views of justice which underlie genuine political sagacity, and distinguish the true statesman from the mere politician, than in the case of Mr. Bradlaugh's parliamentary struggle.

The venue of that struggle was shortly transferred to the law courts. Bradlaugh had affirmed and taken his seat at his own legal risk. During the five months in which Parliament sat between July, 1880, and March, 1881, he was one of the most assiduous and energetic members of the House. On March 7, the action of one Clarke _v._ Bradlaugh came on the Court of Queen's Bench before Mr. Justice Matthew. On the 11th the judge delivered his judgment, which was against the defendant. He said that the Parliamentary Oaths Act, cited in his favour by Bradlaugh, only permitted affirmation to persons holding religious beliefs. On judgment being delivered against him, Bradlaugh applied for a stay of execution of costs, with view to an appeal, which was granted, the judge consenting to stay his verdict for the opinion of the Court of Appeal to be taken. The appeal was heard on March 30 by Lord Justices Bramwell, Lush, and Baggallay, but their decision was again adverse to the defendant. The point taken was not, as Mr. Labouchere had argued before the House, the actual grammatical meaning of the wording of the Act, but {158} the intention of the framers of the Act. Their Lordships held that it had only been intended to emancipate persons possessed of positive religious beliefs rendering the taking of an oath repugnant to their consciences. This rendered the second seat for Northampton vacant. On April 1 Mr. Labouchere, in the course of moving for a new writ for the borough of Northampton, said that a decision had now been given against Bradlaugh by three judges, and, in all probability, the House of Lords would decide against him. He was authorised by Mr. Bradlaugh to say that he fully accepted the law as laid down by the Court of Appeal, and that it was not fair that Northampton should have one member only--the election might be got over by the Easter holidays, and honourable and right honourable gentlemen would have an opportunity of considering what course they would take should Mr. Bradlaugh be re-elected. The writ was issued, and Mr. Bradlaugh was, as Mr. Labouchere had predicted, re-elected on April 9. Mr. Labouchere made a speech at Northampton, before the election, in defence of his colleague, the interest of which was wider than that of the Bradlaugh controversy on account of one statement in it. He described his leave-taking of Mr. Gladstone, on his departure from London, in these words: "And, men of Northampton, that grand old man said to me, as he patted me on the shoulder, 'Henry my boy, bring him back, bring him back!'" I think Mr. Labouchere's autobiographical Muse used a poetic license here. It is certainly difficult to imagine Mr. Gladstone patting the member for Northampton on the back, and calling him "Henry, my boy." The success of this allusion to the Prime Minister, however, was enormous, and the name stuck. Mr. Gladstone was the "Grand Old Man" for the rest of his life.

As every one knows, Bradlaugh again was not allowed to take his seat. That his attitude caused embarrassment to the Liberal party cannot be denied. At the end of June, he wrote to Mr. Labouchere on the subject of forcing another {159} contest in the House, and Mr. Labouchere forwarded his letter to Mr. Chamberlain with the following comments:

10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, July 2, 1881.

DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--Please look at enclosed letter. If you think it of any use, show it to Mr. Gladstone. I send it to you in order that you may see what are, I take it, the genuine intentions of Bradlaugh. I had written to him to suggest that he should go up to the table and take the oath at the end of the Session, and I offered if he liked to do so on the last day of the Session to talk on until the Black Rod appeared, or, if he preferred to do so before, I said that Government always had a majority during the last week or two, and that, probably, if a division were taken upon expulsion, he would win it.

Yesterday I received a letter from the Executive Committee of the Liberal and Radical Caucus at Northampton, telling me that Bradlaugh had sent to call a public meeting next Wednesday, and asking me to come down to meet the Committee on that day to advise with them what to do, as Bradlaugh has asked for a resolution to be passed, in the nature of a mandate ordering him to take his seat. I have written urging delay, but, of course, in this matter I have to carry out the wishes of the constituency, as the question regards them.

Whilst Bradlaugh exaggerates his strength, his opponents underestimate it. He can bring together a mob, with a vast number of fanatics in it, ready for anything, and he contends that he is illegally hindered from taking his seat, and therefore may oppose physical force to physical force.

From what I gather, from many Members of Parliament, they are very anxious that the matter should be settled this Session, because they think that its being kept open will do the Party great harm.

Why cannot the Bill[5] be brought in after the Land Bill? It has but one clause, and if our side speak very briefly, the Conservatives cannot go on talking for ever on so simple a matter. Moreover, there are a good many Conservatives who have told me that they are not against the Bill.--Yours truly,

H. LABOUCHERE.

{160}

Mr. Gladstone discouraged Bradlaugh from resorting to any more militant methods just then, and intimated that it would be useless to bring in the Oaths Bill, as they proposed to close the session early in August, and they could not hope to carry any strongly controversial measure after the Land Bill.

This book is not a life of Bradlaugh, and it is enough to have noted here the first phase of the ignoble struggle. As is well known, Bradlaugh returned to the House, and following Mr. Labouchere's suggestion, administered the oath to himself. A sordid fight ensued on the attempt to remove him forcibly, in which no merely formal violence was offered. His clothes were torn off his back and, although a man of unusual physical strength, he fainted in the _mêlée_. Bradlaugh, in that Parliament, was never allowed to discharge his duty as a member. Once more re-elected by the constituency in the General Election of 1885, the Speaker would suffer no intervention, and he took the oath and his seat, and in 1888, in spite of a Conservative majority, secured the passing of an Affirmation Bill. Finally, in 1891, when Mr. Bradlaugh was lying on his death-bed, after a brief parliamentary career that had won for him the respect of all parties, the resolution of January 22, 1881, that had been passed amid "such ecstatic transports," was expunged from the records of the House. I cannot refrain from quoting the fine tribute paid to his memory and excellent summing up of the case as bearing on the real crux of the situation, made by Mr. Gladstone, a few days later, in the course of introducing his Religious Disabilities Removal Bill on February 4:

A distinguished man and an admirable member of this House was laid yesterday in his mother earth. He was the subject of a long controversy in this House, the beginning of which we recollect and the ending of which we recollect. We remember with what zeal it was prosecuted; we remember how summarily {161} it was dropped; we remember also what reparation has been done within the last few days to the distinguished man who was the immediate object of that controversy. But does anybody who hears me believe that the controversy so prosecuted and so abandoned was beneficial to the Christian Religion?

Throughout that controversy, his fellow-member for Northampton was his loyal colleague both in the country and the House. In season and out of season Mr. Labouchere spoke, moved, and agitated until the victory, to which his advocacy was so important a contribution, was won, and, after Bradlaugh's death in 1891, he published the following paragraphs in the pages of _Truth_, bearing witness to the nobility of Bradlaugh's character:

Mr. Bradlaugh was a man of herculean physical strength, but of great nervous susceptibility. I believe that he never entirely recovered from the rough usage which he met with when he sought to force his way into the House of Commons. Last year he had a serious illness. He recovered, but he came out of it a broken man. He would not, however, admit this, and he struggled on in the House of Commons, at public meetings, and at his desk, with the sad result that we all know.

Never was a man less understood. I never knew any one with a stronger sense of public decorum or with a deeper respect for law. When he asked leave to affirm in the House of Commons it was said by some that he was seeking notoriety; by others, that he wished to defy the law. What led to it was this: I was sitting by his side when the Parliament of 1881 met, and he said to me, "I shall ask to be allowed to affirm, as with my views this would be more decorous than for me to take the oath." I replied, "Are you sure that you legally can affirm?" "Yes," he answered; "I have looked closely into the matter and I am satisfied of my legal right." His attempt to affirm was, therefore, solely due to a desire to respect the feelings of others, and to the conviction that the law allowed him to do so.

Mr. Bradlaugh was my colleague for ten years. During all these years our relations, political and personal, were always of the most cordial character. He was in private life a thoroughly {162} true and amiable man, whilst in public life he was ever ready to sacrifice popularity to his convictions of what was right. He was, as is known, an atheist, but his standard of duty was a very high one, and he lived up to it. His life was an example to Christians, for he abounded in every Christian virtue. This the House of Commons came at last to recognise. I do not think that there is a single member more popular or more respected than he was on both sides. Often and often Conservatives have, in a friendly way, said to me: "What a much better man your colleague is than you are!" And I heartily agreed with them.

Regarding money, he was more than disinterested. So that he had enough to pay for his food, his clothes, and for his modest lodging in St. John's Wood, he never seemed to trouble himself as to ways and means. In one part of his life he had been led into some sort of commercial enterprise which did not succeed, and the failure resulted in his owing a considerable sum. He called his creditors together, told them that he had nothing, but if they would agree to wait he would pay them twenty shillings in the pound. They trusted him. He went to America, made the money by lecturing; returned, called them together, and fulfilled his promise. His lodgings in St. John's Wood were over a music shop. They consisted of one or two bedrooms and of a large room, with deal shelves round it for his books, an old bureau where he wrote, and a few chairs and tables. He had a great affection for his books, and the only time I ever saw him disquieted about money matters was when he feared that he might have to give them up, owing to some bankruptcy proceedings that were threatened, in consequence of one of his numerous actions on the oath question.

In an article, published in the _Northampton Echo_ just after the death of Mr. Labouchere, that able writer, Mr. C. A. McCurdy, comments thus on the first Radical members for Northampton:

What a strangely assorted pair Northampton's two members were in those days! Bradlaugh, a giant in stature as in intellect, Boanergian in his oratory, tremendous in the strength of it, sweeping away opposition by the force of its torrent--Labouchere, {163} with his slight figure, his quiet, sardonic manner, wielding a rapier which was sometimes even more deadly than the battle-axe and broadsword of his colleague. His aristocratic connections and his wealth accentuated the clear and strong outline of his Radicalism. His disregard of convention, his simplicity, his courage, his irrepressible gaiety and wit, the audacity of his envenomed personal assaults, the passionless quality of it all, the cynic's pose--all this, combined with his encyclopædic knowledge and the sureness of his aim in controversy, made him the idol of Northampton Radicals. How they laughed at his solemn assumption of moderation and orthodoxy! But how sure they were of his earnestness and conviction! And how proud of his easy triumphs in the battles of the wits, of his courage and resource in the conflicts of Parliament and the political fame which he, working loyally with Bradlaugh, helped to win for Northampton![6]

It is impossible before leaving the subject of Mr. Bradlaugh's struggle for liberty of conscience, not to recall the very similar episode of Wilkes' fight with the House of Commons a little more than a hundred years earlier. Mr. Labouchere, speaking in the House on the occasion of Bradlaugh's presenting himself to take the oath, after his re-election in 1884, pointed out that behind his colleague stood the people of England. He continued: "I do not say this from any feeling of regard or affection for Mr. Bradlaugh. as an individual; assume if you like that Mr. Bradlaugh is, the vilest of men [Mr. Warton, Hear, hear!], as was stated by Mr. Wilkes, 'in attacking the rights of the vilest of men you have attacked the rights of the most noble of mankind.'"[7] Bradlaugh established the principle that legislative rights are wholly independent of religious belief, and that what Drummond Wolff called "the distinct negation of anything like perpetual morality or conscience and the existence of God," does not affect a man's capacity for the exercise of his political rights.

{164}

This means that the modern state is non-theistic, and that our civilisation, of which the state is the political expression, is based on those positive social needs of man to which theological problems, however interesting in themselves, are irrelevant. Thus, in Bradlaugh's victory, to the winning of which Mr. Labouchere so powerfully contributed, one of the most important principles of 1789 was definitely ratified by the representatives of the people, the Lords, spiritual and temporal, and the sovereign of this country.

A truly momentous event, the importance of which it would be hard to overestimate. For it means that God has ceased to exist in England as a political entity. In like manner, the action of Wilkes, in severely criticising the Speech from the Throne in the _North Briton_ for April 23, 1762, and condemning the Ministers who were responsible for its production, raised, and settled for ever in England the question of the political position of the sovereign. In both cases the man who dared to raise such points was pursued rancorously and unfairly by the partisans of officialdom, in both cases the utmost force of law and order arrayed against him failed. The enemies of Wilkes and Bradlaugh failed, because the stars in their courses fought against them--because the time had gone by when kings could rule as well as reign, or when the qualification of religious belief was necessary for the full rights of citizenship.

[1] The late Lord Randolph Churchill once referred in the House of Commons to Mr. Labouchere (greatly to his delight) by this title.

[2] I have followed in this chapter the admirable account of Bradlaugh's parliamentary struggle given by Mr. J. M. Robertson, M.P., in the second part of Mrs. Bradlaugh Bonner's _Charles Bradlaugh: Life and Work_.

[3] _Northampton Mercury_, March 27, 1880.

[4] _Ibid._

[5] The Oaths Bill.

[6] _Northampton Echo_, January 17, 1912.

[7] _Hansard_, February 11, 1884, vol. 284.

{165}