1
10
7
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/5a2122b15ce17a37506ae3cdc43c2769.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=S0afZbqMqa4OT1mCnMr%7EST4LgfPq4gCoqr9AZ-tIMVSMnHokfT0833l9GVEBi-WzSO0nVfVfjJSUhNbKY8pFFNw2yqe5Ac28DFlTXFjbz2YJTv8oNi4slM%7EukC3F5Aq9geXv%7E-iPwbs3crF7Hdwpczy0enP035oGfMBKrNKwcU5Y26Clz-TadmLDGLpFVlVm50wMOSOSavV%7EIERe6d1dK8BUIOO08RY6xTyj7gaIFT7p-ATrKK%7EB2YwH0ABM-FFmIulBeA-BLTwyJTBDkSVEjtavkh9ab4Y7kODn9uVrZ1Z4zDaqvyLFC%7Ep%7EhgfS52mxfbj81WInObJuEIKhLRdZGg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
7580a57627d958ad71e09f53517e027a
PDF Text
Text
Enlarged (140th Thousand)
0^1 NATIONAL secular society
tty
Includes the Bradlaugh, Foote, and “ Freethinkt
Mr. Varley’s letter to the Electors of Nortl
Mr. BRADLAUGH Proved I
Unfit to Represent any English Cons
IND.
>NLY,
AN APPEAL
rime,
wing
TO THE
MEN OF ENGLAND
By HENRY VARLEY
Mr. Bradlaugh asks the sympathy of his fellow countrymen concerning
his rejection by the House of Commons. I remind him that he merits
their sternest reprobation and opposition. He thinks to trade upon their
lack of knowledge. He shall not da it. I challenged him three years
since to refute in a Court of Law the statements made in “ the Appeal."
He dare not attempt it. His recent threat of an action against me, was
simply intended to throw dust in the eyes of those who heard it. It is
monstrous that the daily press should lend itself to circulate his idle
bombast.
MAY, 1884.
LONDON:
Office of the CHRISTIAN COMMONWEALTH,
73, LUDGATE HILL, E.C.
Can be obtained of all Booksellers, or direct from the Author, by letter
addressed to 32, Clarendon Road, Notting Idlll, 17.
PRICE ONE PENNY.
SPECIAL
TERMS
FOR
LARGE
01’ A NT IT I F S.
�PREFACE.
know to how large an extent the Appeal to the
Li has check-mated Mr. Bradlaugh. I rejoice in this
latest is one in which issues of very grave character are
s question is not one of party politics, much less is it a
■the infringement of the rights of a constituency.” No one
■ than Mr. Bradlaugh does that the opposition which exists
■ rises from his own lawless conduct. For many years, on
Fplatforms in England, he has uttered the most revolting,
>d social blasphemies. Through the medium of the press
ulated these shocking statements by hundreds of thousands.
Lcen done to further his atheistic principles when, under the
'cd title of “Iconoclast,” he went through the Country using
inguage, samples of which are furnished in “This Appeal.”
this, he has circulated books which are loathsome and
II.rule.
These disgusting publications teach doctrines and
cs which are subversive of the Divine institutions of home,
ige, social purity, and national morality.
must not be forgotten that, for publishing and circulating “ The
ts of Philosophy,” Mr. Charles Bradlaugh and the abnormal
Bcsant were tried, found guilty, and sentenced to six months’
Fiiprisonment.
' Mr. Bradlaugh never tires of appealing to the sympathies of his
fellow countrymen on the ground of political liberty. In doing this, I
charge hi n with political dishonesty. Few men know better than he
does how to draw “a red herring” across the scent. Mr. Bradlaugh
represents that the opposition he receives arises from the fact that he is
a representative of working men. This is altogether untrue. Few men
in the House of Commons are more respected than Messrs. Broadhurst
and Burt, who are well-known representatives of the working classes.
The social mischief wrought by his abominable publications in
Northampton is simply deplorable. One of the leading Christian men
and Liberal politicans in the town told me that during the past twelve
years the growth of infidelity, lawlessness, sensual license, and
blasphemy amongst working men and young people has been appalling,
and that the outlook, socially,’was simply deplorable
Mr. Bradlaugh has recently threatened me with an action at law. I
am not in the least alarmed. I sent his solicitor’s letter to my lawyer,
who replied that we should defend any action taken. I am free to
admit that if my statements are not true, I had no right to publish them.
Further, if any man in England should charge me with making or
publishing such statements, and they were not true, I would certainly
give him all which the law should allow. Mrs. Besant has attempted to
reply to this Appeal. A more worthless, or scurrilous diatribe has
seldom been issued. Unable to answer the definite charges made, she
resorted to the old expedient of abusing the plaintiff.
With all the Editorial material in her hands she failed to answer the
charges. Mrs. Besant’s denial of the accuracy of quotation is entirely
false, as the columns of the National Reformer, the Pamphlets, and the
British Museum Library conclusively prove. The statement that 1 had
left out contexts which, if quoted, would have entirely altered the sense
of Mr. Bradlaugh’s words, is absurd and untrue. What context could
alter the blasphemous directness and evident meaning of the sentences
which I have qnoted ?
HENRY VARLEY
�iMAT’ONA’.SECUlARSOCIEn'
TO THE MEN OF ENGLAND.
FOR THEIR PRIVATE READING ONLY.
Gentlemen,—There are times when silence becomes a crime,
and though to me it is utterly repulsive to publish the following
statements, I dare not withhold them from your knowledge. It is
in the interests of right and truth, and on the behalf of home and
women and children that I earnestly appeal to you. This is no
personal quarrel or political party question, but a war in defence
of right and truth. I sound a clarion blast against Charles
Bradlaugh, by his own writings and speeches proved to be the
notorious advocate of social iniquity and lawlessness. If any other
man in England should dare to utter such revolting blasphemies,
or publish and circulate such horrible books and doctrines, I
promise him the same uncompromising opposition which I have
given Mr. Bradlaugh.
Having selected Northampton, Mr. Bradlaugh proceeded, years
since, to educate large numbers of working men into sympathy with
his extreme political views, and his'unclean and lawless social
publications. He industriously kept at this work of personal
propaganda for fifteen years, and gradually succeeded in
demoralising a large part of the constituency. This is how the
return of Mr. Bradlaugh came about. To affirm that the
constituency deal with this question on political grounds, that
they have nothing to do with Mr. Bradlaugh’s opinions or
doctrines, is to assert that politics have nothing to do with a
man’s morals, character, or conduct.
Such a statement is
altogether false.
The law already makes a number of exceptions, e.g., it is not
competent for the electors of Northampton to return an Irish peer,
a clergyman, a bankrupt, an imbecile, a felon, or a woman. Such
is the letter of the law. I hold that the spirit of the law together
with the moral conviction of the nation, forbids the acceptance,
if returned, of such a man as Mr. Bradlaugh.
The basis of English law is found in personal responsibility to
God. No man in England has the right to deny that responsi
bility, though he may have the power to do so. The Legislature
has no right to aid any man in denying that responsibility.
�4
Herein is seen the lawless character of the Affirmation Bill. Forthe first time in the history of England the Government attempted
to pass a measure which would have macle it competent and legal
for any man, if he chose, to deny his responsibility to God. A
more corrupt and false view of liberty, or a more unjust use of the
functions of the Legislature was never attempted.
He again asks the electors of Northampton to uphold him, and
expects that the representatives of the English constituencies will
ignore the law and permit him to enter the House of Commonsunchallenged. God forbid! Let that House stand firm against
the admission of this representative of social iniquity and atheism.
How dare the electors of Northampton speak of their constitu
tional liberties being infringed ? The question is, How they dare
insult the English nation by returning a man to make laws in
regard to national morality and righteousness, whose public
teachings and writings have for years past been disgusting,
lawless, and false, and who has been sentenced to six months’
imprisonment for publishing and circulating the same.
The nation expects the constituencies to send “ fit and proper
persons” to represent them. Such is the law ! How has North
ampton answered that requirement ? She sends the author of the
following blasphemous utterances.
In one of his public discussions Mr. Bradlaugh thus expresses
himself in relation to the Supreme Lawgiver, the Almighty God :—
“If you tell me that by God you mean ‘something’ which
created the universe, which before the act of creation was not:
‘ something ’ which has the power of destroying that universe ;
‘ something’ which rules and governs it, and which is, neverthe
less, entirely distinct and different in substance from the universe—then I am prepared to deny that any such existence can be.”
(Robertson Discussion, p. 12.) Again, he says:—“I hold that
the logical consequence of Secularism is the denial, the absolute
denial of a Providence.” (Holyoake Discussion, p. 29.) In the
same discussion, p. 16, he says:—“Although, at present, it may
be perfectly true that all men who are Secularists are not yet
Atheists, I put it to you, as also perfectly true, that, in my opinion,
the logical consequence of the acceptance of Secularism must be
that the man gets to Atheism, if he has brains enough to com
prehend.” In another place he observes :—“ I urged that Atheism
denied ffie existence of a God controlling the universe.” (New
castle Discussion, p. 74.) He blasphemously affirms that it is
utterly impossible to establish Secularism until not only Chris
tianity, but every form of Theism is completely destroyed. And
this is Charles Bradlaugh, the blasphemer, that Northampton
dares to send to the House of Commons ! There is no mistaking
his language, nor the object that he has in view. He exclaims : —
“ I find the preached ideas of God interfering with the children in
their cradles, with the children in their schools, with the grown-up
�5
children in their churches, and in their daily avocations of life, and
I am obliged to destroy Theism to make way for Secularism.”
Christianity he calls ‘‘a system theoretically unjust and practically
pernicious;” “rotten, intolerant, and false; derived from the
cruelty, the bigotry, the barbarism of a bygone age.” (Barker,
as above, pp. 85-104,) In the same discussion, p. 66, he calls
■Christianity a “cursed, inhuman religion,” while in that on
“What does Christian Theism Teach?” he pronounces it to be
“an accursed creed.” (P. 56 ) In his discussion with Matthias,
p. 179, he adopts the language of Shelley, and denounces Chris
tianity as a “bloody faith.” Again, he says:—“ Christianity is a
system which teaches submission to injury ; courting wrong, and
■volunteering yourself for oppression.” (Cooper Discussion, p. 42.)
Recently, he has said:—“Christianity has been a corroding,
an eating cancer, to empoison the whole life-blood of the world ;
the enemy of all progress ; the foe of all science. What is Chris
tianity ? I give it to you now in a word—it is blasphemy against
humanity, the mockery of humanity; it has crushed our efforts,
has ruined our lives, has poisoned our hearts, and has cursed our
hopes.” {National Reformer, Aug. 15, 1875, p. 108.)
Such is the horrible testimony of Charles Bradlaugh, whose
moderation has become so noticeable since he entered Parliament!
I ask, in all the interests of truth and right, Is this blasphemer a
fit and proper person to represent Northampton or any other
constituency ? It is no answer to affirm that “ They are the proper
judges in the matter, and that if the constituency of Northampton
is satisfied, there is nothing cither to be said or done.”
The character and work of our Lord Jesus Christ is thus spoken
of by Mr. Bradlaugh :—“ The plan of salvation by an atoning
sacrifice is repulsive in its details ;” “ immoral in its tendency;”
“ His mission was a sham ;” in His agony he proved Himself “ a
coward craven : ” when on the cross His language was that “ of
an enthusiast who had been himself deluded, or of a knave who
had deluded others.” “ as this the language (‘ My God, my
God, why hast I hou forsaken Me ?’) of a God, or of an enthusiast
who, in the agony of death, breaks down in despair ?” “ Your
atonement is a sham. Your atonement is a deception. Your
atonement is but a foul leprosy upon human intellect—a plaguespot of priest-craft—and I impeach it.” (Discussion with Barker,
as above, pp. 149, 155, 162, 172.)
Such is the public testimony of Charles Bradlaugh, whom the
electors of Northampton send to represent them in the Empire’s
House of Law. Does Mr. Bradlaugh imagine that such horrible
language as this is going to pass unchallenged ? I promise him
a censorship which he shall know exists. Only in June last at
Leeds Mr. Bradlaugh, speaking of a letter written by the Hon.
W. Fitzwilliam, MB., said that as a professed Liberal it stamped
him as “ a traitor and a coward.” Who is Mr. Bradlaugh that
�6
bis shameless tongue should be permitted to calumniate men who
dare to take their stand against his lawless blasphemies ?
The teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ are thus spoken of by
this blasphemer. Remember, reader, I quote his own words : —
“ I say, that if Jesus lived to day, neither his doctrine nor his life
would be the doctrine or the life of a great reformer.” (Barker,
as above, p. 152.) In his discussion with the Rev. T. D. Matthias,
at Halifax, he g ive utterance to the following sentiments :—“I
have further to say that the doctrine Jesus taught is not the
doctrine of a good man at all;” “never was a doctrine more
calculated to degrade mankind than this (the Sermon on the
Mount), which I place before you in all its monstrosity.” (Bp. 8298.) In the same discussion he argues that Christ was a perse
cutor, a teacher of immorality, and an ignorant man. (1’p. 6285, 124-125, 134-140.) Again, he says:—“ If he wants to tell me
that Christ has given us a moral system without reproach, I will
reply that under no system of morality which can pretend to be
without blemish, is so much vice permitted.” (Cooper Discussion,
p. 42.) Finding fault with Mr. Greg’s conception of the teaching
of Jesus, he says :—“ On the contrary, his (Christ’s) philosophy
is incoherent, his morality often imperfect, his conception of
human duty often unsound, his ideas as to the scope and range of
the human understanding utterly erroneous. The ascctcism some
times inculcated by Jesus was misleading, his injunction to submit
to wrong, absolutely immoral.” {National Reformer, July 31st,
1870.)
Such are the horrible and blasphemous utterances of Charles
Bradlaugh ; and yet, because the electors of Northampton have
returned him, he supposes that he is forthwith to be whitewashed,
and accepted as a legislator.
Hear, again, what Mr. Bradlaugh says of the Bible. Notice,
these are his own words
“ The whole of the book (the Bible) is
a reflex of the wanderings, a mythological representation, the out
growth of an ignorant and barbarous age;” “If you take the
Bible as a guide, immorality must necessarily result
“Immoral
book, I denounce it.” (Barker Discussion, pp. 28, 45, 64.) In the
National Reformer of February 20th, 1876, p. 123, he is repre
sented as saying:—“ So long as the Established Church exists to
teach the people the divinity of the Bible, and School Boards
pollute children’s minds with the same book, we must attack it
wherever and whenever we can, till we have rooted out and de
stroyed the upas-tree of superstition.” With reference to this
extract, Mr. Bradlaugh says, in the National Reformer of
March 12th, 1876, p. 169:—“We have had several letters from
Northampton as to the report of our speech on the Bible, quoted
by Mr. Peek at the School Board. We have been told that, unless,
we modify or explain our statement, we shall lose many votes. To
those whose political vote depends upon a theological statement,.
�7
we have nothing to modify, nothing to explain. To others—who
desire to know our real view on the matter—we answer that no
such sweeping statement could justly be made [quite truej
regarding a book containing so many varying moralities as does
the Bible ; some of it is good and useful, some of it bad and
harmful, reflecting, as it does, the changing civilizations among
which it was written. We emphatically hold that the Bible ought
not to be a school book, and that there are parts of it which must
have a terribly polluting influence on the minds of young children
taught to regard it as a message from an infallible Deity.”
Such are the views of this ‘‘fit and proper person ” who
has been sent by the electors of Northampton, and who profess
themselves to be indignant concerning what they have dared to
call “ the infringement of their constitutional rights.”
Dear, again, what Mr Bradlaugh teaches concerning social
questions. He has in two cases reprinted, and in either case
strongly commended, three books, whose titles I give, “ Elements
of Social Science,” the ‘‘Fruits of Philosophy,” and a recently
republished pamphlet entitled, ‘‘Jesus, Shelley, and Malthus.”
At page io Mr. Bradlaugh says, ‘‘This work 1 specially recom
mend. From its price the book is within the reach of most
working men, and it is from the pen of a man who is thoroughly
versed in the subject he deals with.”
This horrible book, the ‘‘Elements of Social Science,” under
mines the family bond, and is so disgusting that the author was
ashamed to put his name to it. The leading principles of this
book may be thus summarised : First, An exaltation of the animal
and sensual in man over the spiritual and mental. Second, A
condemnation of marriage in the strongest terms. Third, Apolo
gising for the birth of illegitimate offspring. Fourth, Condoning
with prostitution. Fifth, Excusing the evils and diseases resulting
from licentiousness. This is putting the matter in the mildest
form possible. The filthy author says, on p. 355 :—“ Marriage is
one of the chief instruments in the degradation of women.” On
page 366 he teaches :—“ Whether children have been born in
marriage or not, is a matter of comparatively very little import
ance.” On page 270 he declares that ‘‘prostitution should be
regarded as a valuable temporary substitute for a better state of
things,” and adds
‘‘Therefore the deep gratitude of mankind,
instead of scorn, is due, and will be given in future times, to those
unfortunate females who have suffered in the cause of our sexual
nature.”
In course of his discussion with David King, Mr. Bradlaugh
endeavoured to enlist the late Lord Amberley on his side in
defence of this book. He said :—“ I myself heard Lord Amberley
say that this book—the ‘ Elements of Social Science ’—is the best
book that has been written on the subject, and ought to be in the
hands of every working man ; he said that in my hearing, and in
�8
the presence of seventy or eighty of the most respectable physi
cians in the City of London.” (King Discussion, sixth night,
p. 33.) Mr. King wrote to this nobleman to know if Mr. Brad
laugh’s words were true, and received a reply in the negative,
which, when read to the meeting, was greeted with loud and
prolonged cheers. The letter is as follows :—
“ With the book you mention, the ‘Elements of Social Science,’ I am
indeed acquainted, but I regard it with the strongest disapproval. The
author's ideal of society appears to be a state of unlimited license, happi
ness being obtained by the indulgence of degrading passions. I contemplate
such teaching with the utmost aversion, and I consider the wide circulation
of the work which contains it the more to be regretted because its preten
sions to medical authority (to which I am convinced it has but little claim)
may easily mislead unwary or uninstructed readers.
“ Should anyone attribute to me in your presence any sort of agreement
with this pernicious work, I authorise you to contradict the statement in
the most emphatic manner.’’
Mr. Bradlaugh, still persisting in his statements (pp. 39-40),
Mr. King again wrote to Lord Amberley, and received the
following answer:—
“ Sir,—In reply to your letter of the 3rd instant, I have to say that the
speech alluded to by Mr. Bradlaugh was made at the Dialectical Society
on July 1st, 1868.................................. With reference to Mr. Bradlaugh’s
alleged quotation, I may observe that I do not believe I made any reference
to the ‘Elements of Social Science,’ and most certainly not in the terms
stated by Mr. Bradlaugh. I am not at all surprised to learn that he
‘ cannot give ’ the number of the British Medical Journal, since the report
referred to by him contains not the most distant allusion to the work in
question. This will be sufficient to show you with what extreme caution
Mr. Bradlaugh's assertions must be received. In conclusion, my present
estimate of this book is not the result of a change of mind since 1808.__
Yours faithfully,
“ Amberley.”
What, then, are we to think of Mr. Bradlaugh in this matter ?
Simply that he endeavoured to attribute his own words to Lord
Amberley. Having admitted that Mr. Laurie, Lord Amberley’s
tutor, read a paper (p. 39), it was deemed wise to write to him 'on
the subject.
That gentleman (Mr. Laurie) wrote to Lord
Amberley thus:—
“I am convinced you said nothing about the book called ‘Elements of
Social Science.’ But the opinion quoted by Mr. Bradlaugh, and attributed
to you, was delivered by himself after your lordship had left the meeting.”
Having settled the question in relation to Lord Amberley, Mr.
King wrote to the late John Stuart Mill, to ascertain if he had
been fairly represented by the frequent use of his name in con
nection with this abominable book.
That gentleman replied
thus:—
�9
“ Dear Sir,—I have most certainly never on any occas'on whatever, in
public or private, expressed any approbation of the book entitled ‘ Elements
of Social Science.’ Nor am I likely ever to have done so, inasmuch as I
very strongly object to some of the opinions expressed in it. You are
therefore quite at liberty to say that I am not correctly represented by any
one who asserts that I have commended the book.—Yours very faithfully,
“J. S. Mill.”
Well does Mr. King add :—“ Thus this wretched case of falsi
fication of testimony and boldly impudent imposition is completely
exposed.” My readers would do well to obtain this discussion for
themselves, and read carefully the last two nights’ proceedings,
where the above evidence is given in full, for a more thorough
exposure of Mr. Bradlaugh’s shallow pretentiousness, unfairness,
ignorance, and untruthfulness has never been made.
And you are ready to ask, What about the men who became
associated with this unclean blasphemer ? Hear the testimony of
a gentleman well known in Northampton :—‘‘I can well remember
the time when the late Joseph Barker and the present G. J. Holyoake were co-editors with Mr. Bradlaugh of the National
Reformer. Each of them withdrew in disgust from it on account
of Mr. Bradlaugh advocating the ‘Elements of Social Science.’”
The former (Mr. Barker) wrote a review of this book, in which he
says :—‘‘I regard the man who can recommend a book like the
miscalled ‘ Elements of Social Science ’ to unsuspecting boys and
girls, and who can form or patronise associations for the purpose
of stealthily spreading its most deadly poison through the com
munity, as a more dangerous man, as a greater criminal, as a
deadlier foe to virtue and humanity than the vilest murderer that
ever plotted or sinned against mankind. My duty to myself, my
duty to my wife and children, my duty to my readers and friends,
and my duty to the public, require me—and my own heart prompts
me—to separate from such men entirely and for ever, and to wage
an unceasing and unsparing war against their principles.”
Review, p. 26.)
And this is written concerning Charles Bradlaugh, with whose
character and opinions the electors of Northampton are so little
concerned that they count him a ‘‘fit and proper person” to
represent them in the House of Commons.
Another book commended by Mr. Bradlaugh is by one Richard
Harte. It was reviewed by Mr. Bradlaugh in the National
Reformer of August 28th, 1870. He says :—‘‘With Mr. Harte’s
view as to what ought to be essential in the inception, duration,
and termination of the marriage contract we cordially concur.”
Learning, then, what the author’s views on marriage are, we can
easily determine the belief of Mr. Bradlaugh on the subject. On
page 26 we read :—“ Love is a combination of three sympathies—
the moral, the intellectual, and the physical. And since it is
impossible to develope these sympathies, or even to be certain
�IO
that they actually exist without the experience of intimate associaation, it is imperative that marriage should be, to a certain extent,
a matter of experiment. Not only are human beings exceedingly
liable to judge wrongly in matters of love, but, moreover, they are
liable to develope in character unequally and in different direction;
therefore the dissolution of marriage should be as free and
honourable a transaction as its formation.” Mark the last two
lines of the extract. They mean that two persons may live together
for some time as man and wife, to know whether they suit each
other; they mean that any person is free to enter into the marriage
state to-day, and equally free to dissolve the contract to-morrow.
On page 66 we have free love [ ? lust] coming into vogue. It
says :—“ Finally, there can be little doubt that much of that
a priori contempt and hatred for free love which has hitherto been
a fruitful source of want of self-respect in the classes deemed dis
reputable, and consequently of their degradation, is disappearing
from the philosophy of our time.” On page 67 we have the
startling statement :—‘‘And we may conclude that, even if the
effect of the changes I have advocated be to cause all women to
become little better than prostitutes, that, at all events, they will
also have the effect of putting all women into a much tetter
position than wives.”
What can this mean, unless it is that now the position of
the wife is worse than the position of the prostitute ? Husbands
of England! what do you think of this fellow’s teaching ? Re
member that Mr. Bradlaugh endorses it, for he has said :—“ With
Air. Harte’s view as to what ought to be essential in the inception,
duration, and termination of the marriage contract, we cordially
concur.” Before I .give Mr. Bradlaugh’s own words on the
subject, one more quotation from Harte’s book must be recorded.
It is relating to. seduction. On page 84 the words are:—‘‘The
evil effect of seduction lies in the treatment that society accords
to the seduced woman. Were she no longer consigned to misery
and degradation, there would be little or no evil effect produced
by yielding to the promptings of love .... Where there is no.
punishment, there is no crime; neither seducer nor seduced
should be punished for the seduction.” This means, of course, if
punishment for crime be abolished, crime will be no longer crime ;
for, as Harte says, ‘‘Where there is no punishment, there is no
crime.”
Here, then, are two of Mr. Bradlaugh’s admired authors
recognising seduction as a virtue, Air. Harte and the author of
the “ Elements of Social Science,” for, as G. J. Holyoake says of
this last:—‘‘The medical moral of this book has appeared to
some (who are eminently entitled to deference) to be that
seduction is a physiological virtue. If this be so, a more danger
ous licence to vice has never been suggested.” Yet Air. Bradlaugh
says of these two books:—“Richard Harte’s book, or the
�II
‘Elements,’ are at any rate an improvement on these laws of
Christianity [he refers to the Mosaic laws], which are diabolical,
inhuman, and damnable, and, therefore, against which 1 plead.”
(King Discussion, sixth night, p. 36.)
Little need be said of the “Fruits of Philosophy,” by Dr.
Knoulton. My readers well know that for publishing and circu
lating this obscene book Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant have
been convicted, fined, and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment.
The legal technicality which enabled these notorious blasphemers
to escape the actual punishment detracts nothing either from their
guilt or their desert. Notwithstanding their laboured defence of
it before the Lord Chief Justice anda special jury, 1 believe there are
few decent people but will agree with Aiderman biggins that “ it
is a pamphlet not published in the interests of science, but issued
as a popular production at a low price lor general reading, and
that it is a production against the public morals, because it is a
publication which directly points out, not only how the families of
married women may be limited, but how unmarried women may
gratify their passion without fear of the'natural consequences”
{National Reformer, April 29th, 1877, p. 263) ; that it is, to use
the words of the indictment, “ indecent, lewd, filthy, and obscene,
thereby contaminating, vitiating, and corrupting the morals of
youth, and bringing people to a state of wickedness, lewdness,
debauchery, and immorality.”
Mark the following:—Mr. Bradlaugh, in a debate with Mr.
Brown, at Leeds, on “ Miracles,” said of Mr. Muller’s Orphanage
at Bristol, that the sickness took place “ through their having
omitted to look to the drain-pipes,” which sickness the “ Sanitary
Inspector says may be avoided in future if they will pray less and
drain their place better.” {National Reformer, May 14th, 1876,
p. 310.) Mr. Muller’s agent writes about this as follows:—
“There was not the shadow of a foundation for Mr. Bradlaugh s
statement that we omitted to look to the drain-pipes : on the
contrary, the Inspector regarded the drainage as so perfect that
he had nothing to suggest.” What are we to think of such
proceedings as these? These illustrations might be greatly
increased, but sufficient has been adduced to warrant the assertion
that he practically believes in the principles of Voltaire:—“To
lie for a friend is the first duty of friendship. Lying is only a vice
when it does harm, but a very great virtue when it does good.”
{National Reformer, June ptffi 1870.)*______
* With virtuous indignation Mrs. Besant denounced the withdrawal of
the name and date of the National Reformer. in regard to the passage
quoted from Voltaire, as above, and given in the first edition of the
“Appeal.-’ No doubt Mrs. Besant was aware that the error was simply
one of date, and not of fact.
A gentleman, deeply interested in this controversy, sends me the missing
date, viz., National Reformer, June 5th, 1870, p. 355- Mrs. Besant can
hardly have been ignorant of this.
�12
Mr. Bradlaugh is called by his friends a great man ; well,
if to advocate that which is lawless, filthy, blaspheming,
immoral, and destitute of any regard for righteousness and
truth makes a man great, Charles Bradlaugh is a great man
indeed ! I should say the greatest, or more properly, the most
notorious, this century' has seen.
The foregoing extracts are from the pen of a gentlemen well
known in Northampton, who deserves the thanks of the men
of England for the bold and manly exposure that he has given of
this lawless blasphemer.
After these testimonies will any man dare to say that Mr. Brad
laugh is persecuted, or that opposition in his case means the in
fringement of the civil and religious liberty of the subject. Liberty
is a relative term, and comprehends a course of conduct which
is consistent with individual, social and national welfare. There
can be no liberty to do that which is injurious to the interests of
others. No householder is at liberty to store petroleum, dynamite
or gunpowder in his house. The risk to himself and others forbids.
No man is at liberty to keep an immoral house, to publish,
sell, or circulate obscene books, to keep a gambling house, or
to jeopardize the health of his neighbours. For these and similar
acts there is no liberty.
The men who do these things are
lawless. Judged from this standard, Mr. Bradlaugh’s conduct
has been lawless in the most offensive and criminal sense.
Northampton must learn that if her electors have no conscience
in the return of sugIi a man, the House of Commons, the law,
and the country have.
I scatter this broadcast among the men of England, in order that
they may know how it comes about that Mr. Bradlaugh meets and.
merits such unflinching opposition. The question of national
righteousness is at stake, and silence at such a juncture becomes
criminal, and would mean tacit complicity with lawlessness,
iniquity, and profligacy
Henry Varley.
WE COME NEXT TO THE BRADLAUGH,
FOOTE, AND CO. TRIALS FOR BLASPHEMY.
I proceed to ascertain and to make my readers acquainted with
the ground there was for the recent trial, also the relation which
Mr. Bradlaugh sustained to the Freethinker, and what the
character of the atrocious writings allowed to be published and
circulated from his office in Stonecutter Street.
I ask attention to th‘e horrible blasphemies which are appended.
They are quoted from the Freethinker, a periodical which was
commenced in May, 1881, and edited by Mr. G. W. Foote, one of
Mr. Bradlaugh’s prominent supporters at the Hall of Science, and
who has recently served a term of twelve months’ imprisonment
�for printing and circulating this loathsome and disgusting paper.
Mr. Bradlaugh has dared to say that he was not responsible for
what appeared in the Freethinker, but for nearly eighteen
months the Freethinker was published at Mr. Bradlaugh’s office.
Let any one compare the atrocious blasphemies which I have
taken from the Freethinker for December 18th, 1881, with the
quotations from the National Reformer, given in pages 5,6, 7
of this “Appeal,” and it will be seen how entirely they corn spond.
They are alike both in matter and spirit, and might have been
uttered by the same voice, or written by the same hand.
I ask your forbearance whilst I reproduce some of thg horrible
statements. I loathe the whole business, but it is no use to shut
our eyes to the facts. In the interests of righteousness and truth,
I respectfully ask you to hear how the leaders of this school of
blasphemy and atheism write and speak in 1881.
The following quotation, from the pen of Mr. G. W. Foote,
appears in the Freethinker for December 18th, 1881 :—
“Next to the brutality of God, and the barbarity of his chosen people,
the most shocking circumstance in connection with the Bible is the degra
dation and depravity of its women. Scarcely any of the gentler sex whose
shadows flit through the Biblical panorama possess the virtues that should
adorn them. They are cither concubines, like Hagar, artful dodgers, like
Rebecca, harlots and traitors, like Rahab, incestuous, like Lot’s daughters,
or infamously immoral, like Jezebel. Like Potiphar’s wife, they are more
solicitous of entrapping the unwary virtue of man than of guarding pure and
chaste their own. But their conduct is scarcely reprehensible if the pro
fligacy of God is to be piously winked at. For Jehovah, like all the gods
of old, was an unmitigated rake. In one case, thirty-two Midianitish
maidens were delivered over to his unbridled lust. In another, he scurvilv
debauched the fair betrothed of a Jewish carpenter. From the gusto with
which the Holv Ghost has diversified the dull narratives and insipid
twaddling of the Bible with spicily-told indecencies, one may well imagine
in how edifxing a manner God and his pious saints must spend their time
in the heavenly regions, and picture the unctuous debaucheries that while
awav the tedium of their eternal Tc Dciims. No decent woman, unless
possessing the accommodating virtue of a Sarah or a Jezebel, would care
to spend eternity in a heaven presided over by a lecherous-minded God,
and inhabited by pious rakes.
“ Strange it is, despite the infamy with which the Bible brands woman
kind, that the fair sex should be so fondly devoted to the verv emblem and
instrument of their shame and dishonour. Their attachment to Christianity
is an edifying example of self-mortification, prompted, we presume, by
Christ's sublimely absurd maxim:—-Bless them that curse you, and pray
for them that despitefully use you.’ (Luke vi. 28.) That the ladies have set
their affections on an unworthy God, and hallow an unholv Book, the
following facts, in addition to the foregoing, will abundantly prove : —1. In
punishment of Eve's disobedience God inflicts upon her, and all her future
daughters, the sorrow—above all physical sorrows—of the pains of partu
rition. Retribution more fiendish for crime so insignificant could not be
imagined. God, further, ordains man as the ruler, not the equal of woman,
�H
and thus sows the seed of the most widespread of all tyrannies_ the
tyranny of the home, besides laying the foundation of the so'cial and legal
inferiority, which, in all Christian lands, man has adjudged to woman.
“The amatory prowess of King David, the man after Gods own heart, is
notorious. It would require the poetic fervour of an Ovid to adequately
recount the famous exploit which gained for him the hand of Michal, the
daughter of King Saul. For our part, we will simply relate the pathetic
story in the plain prose of holy writ. The tale runs that Saul, whose lofty
mind abhorred ‘ filthy lucre,’ desired no dowry for the young damsel
(i Sam. xviii. 25). but simply ‘an hundred foreskins of the Philistines.’
Whereupon David, who was mighty both in love and war, ‘arose and went,
he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men ; and David
brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he
might be the king s son-in-law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter
to wife’ (v. 27). Will some German princelet take the hint, and bid in
like manner for the hand of Princess Beatrice ?
. “Then, again, the infamous treachery of David in respect to Uriah, and
his adultery with Bathsheba, was punished by the righteous judge ofheaven
—not by the death of the base culprit, but by the death of the child of his
sin. But it was at the dread hour of death that the piety of King David re
asserted itself. For is it not written that he surrendered his soul to God,
and his body to the embraces of a fair damsel, and thus died ‘ safe in the
arms of Jesus’ and Venus (1 Kings i.)
“Abraham—the father of the faithful—who was selected from all the
world's inhabitants to be the founder of Gods chosen nation, did only one
good deed in his whole life. Abraham was an incorrigible liar. He twice
passed his wife off as his sister—not to save her honour, but to save his own
skin ; and on each occasion God punished not the liar, but the persons who
were simple enough to believe him. He turned his own son and the lad s
mother out into the wide world to live or die, with no sustenance except a
little dry bread and cold water. He consented to offer up another son as a
burnt offering to God. True, he was arrested at the critical moment. But
in estimating character, intention is everything. These two occasions show
that he was a murderer at heart. Abraham was therefore a liar, a coward,
and a murderer.”
G. W. Foote.
I charge Mr. Bradlaugh that he allowed, without protest, the
foregoing horrible and utterly false statements to go forth. Let
it be remembered that this is ’but a sample of the writings to be
found, week by week, in the columns of the Freethinker. I charge
Mr. Bradlaugh with being an accessory in this disgusting business.
1 affirm that he knew perfectly well what was being done, and
permitted his offices to be used for spreading the filth of the
atrocious Freethinker amongst thousands of illiterate men and
women. I promise Mr. Bradlaugh that he shall not do such
things with impunity, nor make a catspaw of another Mr. Foo:e.
I will not shock my readers with any more of these revolting
extracts, but I will ask, Can any working man in England wonder
at the strong feeling which exists against Mr. Foote and Mr.
Bradlaugh, or be surprised that Sir Vernon Harcourt refused to
interfere with, or remit any part of, the sentence passed upon Mr.
�i5
Foote? Mr. Justice North deserves the heartiest thanks of the
entire community for the exemplary’ sentence which he passed
upon this blaspheming outlaw, and I believe every right-minded
man in England, when he knows the facts, will say so too. It is
a pity that such men as Dr. Fairbairn and Rev. Guinness Rogers
did not make themselves acquainted with the facts before they
hastened to the defence of these lawless blasphemers. Their
conduct in defending such men on political grounds is simply’
disgraceful
These quotations from the Freethinker show the fearful lengths
to which these blasphemers are prepared to go. They also prove
the exceeding value and importance of the existing law in its
ability to cope with and punish these social outlaws. Mr. B. W.
Newton says of the Christmas (1882) number of this atrocious
publication :—“ It contains a sheet on which are eighteen pictures
or illustrations, loathsome and disgusting, even if designed as
caricatures of the lowest and most debased wretch that can be
found on earth. But these caricatures are not directed against
men, they are avowedly directed against Christ. They are in
tended to ridicule, degrade, and vilify the King of kings and Lord of
lords—even our Lord Jesus Christ—the Saviour. I should not use
too strong words were I to say' that these caricatures are devilish. Of
all the insults that have ever been directed against God, there has
never, I believe, been any greater than this ; and yet the Govern
ment proposes so to alter the laws of England that persons who
might edit, or sustain such publications as the Freethinker would
become eligible for seats in the Legislature.”
Mr. Bradlaugh’s special pleading at the time of his trial for
blasphemy, bamboozled the jury.
Lef us see whether he can
bamboozle the men of England. I am greatly mistaken if he can.
They shall know the true character of the Freethinker, and Mr.
Bradlaugh’s connection therewith. They can here read forthem
selves some of Mr. Foote’s atrocious writings, and become competent to judge for themselves as to the justice or otherwise of the
sentences of imprisonment passed upon Messrs. Foote and Ramsey.
I venture to say' that the thought will fasten itself upon many minds
that the injustice of the position is that Mr. Bradlaugh was not
prosecuted and imprisoned long since. I honestly say that if, as a
publisher, I were to lend my office and influence to publish and
In a displayed advertisement of the National Reformer of the last week
in June, 1881, the following appears :—“ A special feature of No. 3 of the
Freethinker will be a comic sketch of Jonah and the whale, after the
prophet was vomited up. The whale looks the very picture of disgust,
while Jonah is radiant with triumph. A bland smile lights up his Hebrew
features, and he sings a joyous song, accompanying himself on the banjo
—a real side-splitter.” That this was with Mr. Bradlaugh’s knowledge
and consent there can be no doubt.
�16
circulate such a loathsome periodical as the Freethinker, I should
merit a criminal prosecution, the penalties of a lengthened term
of imprisonment, and the detestation of my fellow men.
I am persuaded that when my fellow-countrymen know what
Charles Bradlaugh has said and done, they in the vast majority
will recognise the justice and right of his rejection by the House
of Commons. British working men like fair play, but they are not
prepared to stand side by side with Mr. Bradlaugh’s coarse and
revolting blasphemies.
He has made great capital of their
sympathy by keeping back from their knowledge the real causes
of his rejection. I for one am determined that they shall not be
kept in ignorance any longer. 1 housands of working men ask the
question, “ Why is Mr. Bradlaugh opposed, and why is he refused
admission to the House of Commons?” I answer, Read this
“Appeal,” and you will understand how richly he merits the
strong opposition of his fellow-men. Mr. Bradlaugh talks about
“ his rights.” Will he dare to assert that he ever had the right
to say and to do what these pages prove him to have said and
done ? He had the power, but he never had the right. This
distinction needs to be clearly understood. Mr. Bradlaugh is
reaping the harvest of his own corrupt sowing, and if he thinks the
men of England arc going to endorse his horrible wickedness, he
never made a greater mistake in his life.
Of all the contemptible things which have been recently done,
the latest was Charles Bradlaugh’s subtle special pleading at the
time of his recent trial for blasphemy. To shuffle out of the
responsibility which belonged to him in sheltering and publishing
The Freethinker, merely to save his own skin, is so entirely like
him, that those who know him will not affect the least surprise.
Hear his reasoning, which I summarize: Had he not ceased to
publish The Freethinker ?
Had he not removed his office to
Fleet Street ? Was not the Christmas number of that vile pub
lication, for which Foote was sentenced to twelve months’ im
prisonment, published subsequently to the removal to Fleet Street?
Very clever, no doubt. Very, very convincing to those who knew
no better; but what about publishing, fostering, and circulating
J he Freethinker at the office of 7 tie National Reformer for seven
teen months prior to the removal to Fleet Street, during the whole
of which time such vile and blasphemous articles as those I quote
at pages 13 and 14 were practically endorsed by Mr. Bradlaugh ?
“ No responsibility.” What! This is scandalously false. Common
honesty should have led Mr. Charles Bradlaugh to share the punish
ment with his friend and coadjutor, Mr. Foote. The matter for
astonishment is that Lord Chief Justice Coleridge should have
ignored this damning fact.
It is abominable that these facts
should have been ignored, and the cause of justice subverted and
overthrown. Why did he not direct the case for the prosecution
.0 be so amended, as to shew Mr. Bradlaugh’s connection with
�i7
The Freethinker in Stonecutter Street ? nothing could have been
easier.
Repeal the’ blasphemy laws, indeed!
What! and
play into the hands of Messrs. Foote, Bradlaugh
Co. ? Rather
let us be profoundly thankful that in these days of disgusting
infidelity, law exists which is competent to deal with these un
scrupulous men.
MR. HENRY VARLEY’S LETTER
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
ON THE AFFIRMATION BILL, APRIL, 1882.
Lords
Gentlemen,
The grave mistake made by the Liberal leaders
at the time of the last General Election in endorsing the can
didature of Mr. Bradlaugh, has borne its bitter fruit of discord and
division. That a man who has spoken, written, and circulated
such scandalous and offensive words and such immoral books,
should have been elected for Northampton is bad enough, but that
the Liberal party should be expected to stand with such a man as
Mr. Bradlaugh, simply because he professes himself to be a
Liberal, is abominable, and must be resisted and broken through
at all costs. Many staunch Liberals have refused to follow the
Government in the past, and the unjust cry of “breaking faith
with party,’’ and the silly talk concerning the “ sacred rights of
constituencies,” must not hinder them if necessary from again
protesting against this unpardonable and disgraceful association.
I do not speak as a politician nor as a partisan. Had any other
political party endorsed the candidature of Mr. Bradlaugh, I
should have spoken out just as strongly. To identify the apostle
of Atheism and lawlessness with either political party, means
division, confusion, and trouble to all concerned.
•
It was a great mistake to suppose that the passing of the
Affirmation Bill would settle this question. One of the worst
features of this Bill was that it appeared in the form of an attempt
on the part of the Government to clear Mr. Bradlaugh from the
consequences of his scandalous conduct in the past, and sought
to make the Legislature an agent to open the lawfully closed doors
of the House, in order that the most lawless blasphemer of modern
times might enter. To attempt to separate the political elements
from the individual and moral features of this case, is both
impossible and undesirable.
The law in relation to Affirmation requires of all who make it,
the following testimony, “I, A, B, solemnly, truly, and sincerely
declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her
Majesty Queen Victoria, her heirs and successors according to
law.” How could these words be used by Mr. Bradlaugh! In
his offensive pamphlet, “ The Impeachment of the House of
Brunswick,” Mr. Bradlaugh says that “one object is to submit
reasons for the repeal of the Acts of Settlement and Union as far
and
�i8
as the succession to the throne is concerned after the abdication
or demise of the present Sovereign, and to procure the repeal of
the only title under which any Member of the House of Brunswick
could claim to succeed the present Sovereign on the throne, or to
procure a special enactment which shall for the future exclude the
Brunswick's.” That there may be no mistake, listen to Mr.
Bradlaugh’s own words: “ Do not yet challenge the old and
crumbling dynasty to die ; you cannot expect it to commit suicide,
and your weapons are not strong enough to fight it successfully”
{National Reformer, Jan. 26, 1868). Speaking of H.R.H. the
Prince of Wales, Mr. Bradlaugh has written: “ Wetrust that the
Prince of \\ ales may get fair play ; if he does, most certainly he
will never sit on the throne of England” (National Reformer,
Oct. 30, 1870). In the year 1871, H.R.H. the Prince of Wales
accepted the Presidency of “ The Asylum for Idiots.” Mr. Brad
laugh, in a specially printed leader in the National Reformer of
April 23, 1871, wrote these grossly insulting words: “We are
pleased to see H.R.H. in a station for which the habits of his life
and the traditions of his family so thoroughly qualify him.”
Now, in the face of these insulting statements, how could the
House of Commons become a party to admit Mr. Bradlaugh by
the proposed Affirmation Bill ? Had that measure been carried,
it would have been lawful for him solemnly, truly, and sincerely to
affirm at the door of the House that he would bear faithful alle
giance to Her Majesty the Queen, when he has distinctly stated
that he intends to act in direct opposition to the terms of the
Affirmation. The name of God was to disappear and a lie could
then have been solemnly affirmed without conscience, hindrance,
rebuke, or prevention. Surely this would not have been liberty,
byt corrupt, and shameful license.
In relation to the CL th, it was very properly stated that the
House of Commons could not become a party to its profanation.
1 he House of Commons was invited to lend itself to become a
party to the profanation of the Affirmation. Recognised as
wrong by the Legislature if the Oath was taken by Mr. Bradlaugh
in relation to God, could his affirmation be accepted and right if
made in relation to Her Majesty the Queen ? Given the passing
of this Bill, would the legislature quietly stand by and see Mr.
Bradlaugh solemnly, truly, and sincerely promise “that he would
be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty QueenVictoria,”
in the face of the following words which are found in Mr. Brad
laugh’s pamphlet ?
He says, “ I loathe these small, German,
breast-bestarred wanderers, whose only merit is their loving hatred
of one another.” How could the House of Commons legislate to
this end ? Surely legislation h id never been more foully prostituted.
The Rev. Brewin Grant ven- forcibly said, “ The Affirmation Bill
would have been an Act to legalize hypocrisy or moral perjury.”
Moreover, the Affirmation Bill had become so hopelessly en-
�!9
tangled in the meshes of Mr. Bradlaugh’s notoriety, that *t "as
everywhere known as the Bradlaugh Relief Bill! even Mr. Glad
stone’s great popularity could not prevent it taking this distinct
shape. In the minds ot hundreds of thousands this Act was regal vi
ed as an insult to the Supreme Lawgiver, and it aroused the
conscience of the nation to such an extent that the present Govern
ment, taking sides with Mr. Biadlaugh, was defeated. There
should have been real ground for this legislation. A strong case
could not be made out, not even by Mr. Gladstone, and tlie
measure was most wisely rejected. It is desirable that the fa< is
in regard to the existing law should be carefully considered.. T-he
law which makes the recognition of God, and the expression of
dependence upon and accountability to H im, necessary a.t the door
of the nation’s house of law is neither unjust or oppressive to the
conscience of any man. The Brahmin, the Mohammedan, the
follower of Confucius, has no real ground of complaint against
the existing law.
Even Buddhism, which began as an
Atheistic philosophy, has become an idolatry known as the
worship of Buddha.
Though the thoughts of God amongst
these people differ very much, they all recognise accountability
to God, and should any of these become English subjects
and be returned as parliamentary representatives, the existing
law would impose no injustice upon them.
lhe same is
true concerning the Jews, the Unitarians, and the Friends,
none of these deny Go'd, and all who, on the ground of conscience
toward God, object to take an oath are by law enabled to make
1 ‘ an affirmation. ” Even in the case of the Secularists, no injustice
or oppression exists. These do not deny the existence of God.
The platform of the Secularists in this respect is “ that the exist
ence of God has not been proved.” lhis was well put some time
since by Mr. Holyoake, who, replying to Mr. Bradlaugh’s vehe
ment declaration, “ that such a being as God does not and cannot
exist,” quietly and with keen sarcasm congratulated Mr. Bradlaugh
upon “ his amazing knowledge.” It is clear, therefore, that the
avowed Atheist is the only being in the world who can charge the
existing law with injustice; and the charge, if brought, has no
force in it if Mr. Bradlaugh is accepted as the exponent of Atheism,
for his conscience is so elastic that now he will either affirm, take
the oath, or let it alone, whichever is permitted or most convenient.
Mr. John Stuart Mill, and more recently, Mr. John Morley,
found it practicable and within the range of a good conscience to
take the Oath of Allegiance. Why should the Government turn
aside from the legitimate business of the country to waste time and
strength over this notorious leader of atheistic blasphemy and
social lawlessness ?
It is remarked by some that if what they have been pleased to
call the “ farce of Oath-taking ” could be seen at the commence
ment of the Session, when hundreds of Members hurry and struggle
�20
around the Speaker’s chair, the desirability of abolishing the Oath
altogether would press itself upon all observers. This I think is
mere sentiment. It does not follow that an act done hastily
either by or amongst a crowd, is necessarily irreverent. Were that
so, a crowd pressing into a church or to a religious service should
be decried and condemned. The perfunctory way in which oaths
are administered in our Courts of Justice, is no reflection upon the
ac't of oath-taking, but it is a great scandal to the Tud«es
and Magistrates who permit the officials in our Courts of Justice
t,lu? to tr>fle with the solemn act of invoking the witness and aid
ot the living God in regard to the testimony about to be given.
Another argument used is this. It is said that there are other
members of the House of Commons who are as atheistical as is
Mr. Bradlaugh; and if he is prevented taking the Oath or
Affirmation, so also they should be. Though this were true, such
reasoning is fallacious ; the law can only deal with transgressors
■ftho are found out, or with such as criminate themselves. Its
povver to operate, detect, and punish is in the sphere of discovered
action. Ihousands of dishonest men escape the law because
their actions remain unknown and undetected.
. Though this be true, we do not declaim against the law, or
insist upon its repeal, because many undiscovered and unavowed
criminals escape its detection and punishment. In the case of
the junior Member for Northampton, he has discovered himself,
his character and intentions, to the law, and unless the law
identified with our Parliamentary Constitution be openly violated
or ignored, it will never be competent for Mr. Bradlaugh to take
either the Oath or make an Affirmation in the House of
Commons, except upon the ground of his repentance, and the
complete withdrawal of his blasphemous and disloyal utterances.
Mr Bradlaugh ignores the Lawgiver. The Constitution and
Legislature of the United Kingdom, in harmony with the law,
reverently recognises the Lawgiver. Mr. Bradlaugh says that an
Oath is to him “a meaningless form.” Certainly, upon his own
showing, an Affirmation would be. Now, either the law must be
set aside to meet this condition, or Mr. Bradlaugh must. He is
disqualified for taking the Oath or making the Affirmation,
and the disqualification, be it remembered, is his own act.
It is desirable carefully to notice that it is in the nature of an
Oath absolutely essential to recognise three parties—e.g"., as
between subject, sovereign, and God ; or as between man
AND MAN, AND God. To attempt to shut out the greatest of the
three members nullifies the Oath. To comprehend or take the
Oath as between subject and sovereign only, or man and man
only, without any reference to, or, as in this case, on the grout d
of an absolute denial of God’s existence, destroys the Oa’h by
ignoring the Chief Factor in the Oath—the High Court of App« al
which gives an Oath its solemn character. This is equally true
�2I
in regard to the nature and constitution of an affirmation. No
man, according to the existing law, can claim to affirm on the
ground of his disbelief in the existence of God, or his responsi
bility to Him. There is no law upon the English Statute Book
which sanctions this, and though it. has been permitted by
magistrates and others, such permission involved in every case
a violation of existing law. All the measures which have been
enacted in regard to affirmation have been on the ground of “ a
tender conscience toward God.” In no single instance has the
voice of the legislature been heard giving the atheist, or the man
who denies personal responsibility to God, the right to take the
oath or to make an affirmation. In the nature of the case this
could not be. Such legislation would be in direct opposition to
the fundamental principle which underlies English law, viz., tnat
every man is responsible to God.
To repeal the law in relation to an act which involves recognition
of accountability to Almighty God, is in any case a tremendous
responsibility to assume. To do this in the case of this blas
phemer would be nothing less than a governmental insult to the
King of kings.
It is one thing for a man, as an individual in
the state or nation, to be an Atheist; it is quite another for the
Government of that nation to legislate so that the denial of
responsibility to God becomes an individual legal right, and a
part and parcel of the country’s law. This coquetting with
Atheism and lawlessness on the ground of political freedom and
liberty has done, and is doing, incalculable mischief. Persisted
in, it can only eventuate in the break-up of the party whose policy
is contrary to the traditions of sound Liberalism.
To make this question a political one only is in the highest
degree unwise and impolitic. Any Government insisting upon
legislation in order to secure Mr. Bradlaugh’s admission to
the House of Commons, will surely cut off at a stroke thousands
of staunch and friendly adherents. Large numbers of sincere
Liberals are Christians first and politicians afterwards. They
have no intention to ignore or deny the authority of the living
God, nor will they take sides with falsehood, blasphemy, and
Atheism.
Moreover, they cannot fail to see that such legis
lation is undertaken to faciliate the admission into the
House of a man who has used the most horrible and blasphemous
lang’ age concerning the Holy Son of God.
Mr. Bradlaugh has
trampled under foot the most sacred themes of the Christian faith.
If any other man should use such shocking and offensive language,
and pursue, as Mr. Bradlaugh has doue, a course which should
outrage the moral sense of the nation, the House of Commons
would have a perfect right to fall back upon its own prerogative,
and exclude him from its assembly.
Mr. Bright, speaking in favour of the abolition of oaths, says:
“ Probably there is nothing in the New Testament more especially
�22
condemned and forbidden than oaths.” But surely it should be
borne in mind that our Lord’s words were directed against taking
in vain the Holy Name of God in ordinary conversation, which was
common in H s day, aud alas ! equally so in ours. Moreover,
He was speaking to His disciples. If all men were subject to
His government, His law might be applied to all. But such
is not the case. Mr. Bright argues as though all men were
loyal to truth. The law exists to deter the lawless. Penal law
is excellent both for the righteous and lawless. There is
no element of oppression in just laws to the law-abiding and
upright. The reflex action of law is safeguard and protection
to the great maj rity.
If all men were Joyal to truth, we
could dispense with Oath or Affirmation, whether in Parlia
ment or in our courts of justice. But men are not all truthful.
Solemn tests which can be readily improvised, oaths which
take cognizance of God, and appeal to His knowledge, become
in a high degree important defences against false witness. There
are thousands of men whose characters are such that their
witness ought not to be accepted except upon oath solemnly taken
—taken, let me add, with the distinct understanding that if they
perjure themselves they will be visited with exemplary punishment.
This practice is not only warranted by Divine example, but is
designed to be a valuable safeguard against deception and false
witness. In Hebrews vi. 13-17, we read, “For when God made
promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no greater, He
sware by Himself.
For men verily swear by the greater:
and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.
Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs
of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by
an oath.”
It is said that the oath is not deterrent,
but the hesitation, vacilliation, and withdrawal of state
ments repeatedly witnessed in our Courts of Justice prove
the contrary. When false witnesses have been confronted
with the fact that they were giving evidence on oath, and that
they were liable to be committed for perjury, in vast numbers of
cases it has proved an invaluable protection against false evidence
being given. It is conceded that the law does not deter in
every case; but that is true of the law of felony, and, indeed, of
every other law. Thousands of thieves escape the action and
penalty of the law. What then ? Is the law worthless, and
shall the cry be for repeal ? Surely not. Thousands have
been deterred, detected, and punished by the law; and in any
case, the law should stand against the transgressor, and on the
side of the right. By reason of man’s transgression, God added
the law. So long as men are transgressors, such is the wise
example for human legislators to follow. Wise and good laws
are not only a terror to evil-doers, but an essential defence in
order to the security and well-being of society.
�23
THE SUBSTANCE OF MR. HENRY VARLEY’S LAM
THE ELECTORS OF NORTHAMPTON, FEBRUARY
Gentlemen,
It has been my privilege in the past to help you in t
battle which is being fought in your town against infidelity, bias;!
corruption, and lawlesssness.
j
Large numbers in your midst properly feel that you are bond
Charles Bradlaugh, the atheistic demagogue, who for years has .
people of England by his coarse and blasphemous p'atform utteran
printing and circulating such filthv books as The Frui.s of Philoso/ii,
Elements of Social Science. His conection with the Press has been li
as it has been revolting. Certainly, if the law had not been perm:
outraged, Charles Bradlaugh would long since have been where his 1
Foote the Editor of the disgusting Fi ecthlnker is.
Let it be remembered that this is not a question of the rights of the C m
or party politics. It is no question of opposition to the working man s c.
Few men are more respected in the House of Commons to-day than
Broadhurst and Burt, who are well-known representatives of the working via-The opposition against this notorious blasphemer comes by reason of his atroco
utterances and publications. Mr. Bradlaueh alone is responsible for the stroisj
feeling which exists against him. To yield to such a man a place in the Legis«
lature in order to frame laws for the well-being of society is not only monstrous, v
but wickedness of the highest order. Mr. Bradlaugh denies responsibility to God.
Anv man who denies the Supreme Lawgiver, is necessarily unfitted to become a
law-maker. It is said, We do not ask whether a tailor, a bootmaker, or a baker is
an Atheist before we employ him. Certainly not; but. be it remembered, that
boot-making and law-making are two essentially different occupations which
involve immensely different issues. The man who puts bad material into his woik
we can refuse to employ. Corrupt laws, which have been framed and passed by
bad men, are not so easily dealt with or repealed.
Some of the most corrupt corporations on the face of the earth have come into
these conditions through allowing men to fill public positions for which their
base characters always disqualified them. To speak ot his ability, or the expressed will of the constituency as qualifying him for the post ot a Legislator is
not necessarily true. No doubt the devil is both subtle and clever. Is he fitted
to represent Northampton ? Lord Justice Lush, writing to me some time before
his death, and shortly after Mr. Bradlaugh’s contention in the Law Courts,
said, “ I am astounded, as often as I think of Christian men preferring an open
blasphemer and enemy of Christ to a follower of Him, because ot his political
affinity. If Satan himself had appeared in human form, they would have
selected him for the same reason. It is a terrible thought that politics are thus
put in the first place, and a sad feature of the times.”
I have never argued this question on political grounds or as a political partisan.
From the commencement of this important fight I felt certain that a
heritage of weakness and division must come from such a flagrant departure from
the true basis of sound political Liberalism.
.
.
A platform wide enough to take in the devil side by side with the living Hod,
a platform which is to recognise on equal terms light and darkness, truth and
error, law and lawlessness, could only be made by practically discarding any
recognition of, or responsibility to God. Such a platform could only mean
interminable confusion, quarrel, and separation. Truly it has already separated
very fr onds.
.
Let it be borne in mind that the mere voice of numbers gives no necessary
solution to this question. No man can give a satisfactory answer or a conclusive
reason why the majority should rule the minority. We have m principle
and practice consented to this arrangement, but it remains to be proved whether
�24
condemned and- 1 am not affirming which is right; nevertheless, it is true
borne in mind tJf existing institutions concedes the rule everywhere to the
in vain the Ho'V'i61^ ''ell-ordered family in Northampton either the minority
common in Idlddo- In every house of business it is not the employes which,
t‘ ™
em£l0yerS- In every sch001 and fact0IT the same truth holds
ne was speamj Go'ernment, even' army, et ery regiment, every ship the same
His governr.he minority rule. Even a builder who employs twenty or thirty
is not the Ca house must employ a foreman, or the work will not go on. Every
loyal to tru* riment? college, or school, every foreman, forewoman, and pupilis e\-cellerircS a P^lncUde <d government which is not the rule of the majority,
rm Ju™ J a mischievous elements in the social state of a country there are none
no eiemeied the blatant demagogucism of such men as Messrs. Bradlaugh Foote
upright.
Bradlaugh’s statement that he is fighting for “ the rights’of the
to the gr>” is simply dust thrown in the eves of his hearers. Mr.' Bradlaugh
could distec^y
that he has himself to thank for the opposition which exists
m.
Solemn1
which Mr. Bradlaugh edits, is still playing the game
ooieinn .on and shuffle which has characterised its policy for so lore a period
takmort time since it was heralded in bold letters as the champion of
in
find Malthusianism; now, in order to facilitate Mr. Bradlau«h’s
are llssl°n to the House of Commons, these headings are removed. This of course
wit' p 1 d?ne to hlde ’he true character of the National Reformer. Happily
_ ost of us know perfectly well what a chameleon is like.
Mr. Bradlaugh s return, at the last Election, weakened the Liberal party
more than the return of ten Conservative Membeis would have done and-has
produced a strong feeling throughout the country against Mr. Gladstone’s Govern
ment. Ibis is obvious to all thoughtful men. In proof of the feelino- which
exists against Mr. Bradlaugh and his corrupt doctrines, it needs but to recall the
tact that 5,000 petitions, comprehending nearly . five millions (5,000 000) of
signatures, were presented against the Affirmation Bill and Mr. Bradlau<4i’s
admission to the House of Commons in the last Session of Parliament.
°
The numbers in favour of the Bill were roundly stated at 1,000 petitions and
1,000,000 signatures. Thus in the proportion of five to one the public voice said
M e are not going to stand side by side with Atheism and Blasphemy, nor with
the corrupt Socialism advocated in 1'he Elements of Soeinl Science and The
Im its of Philosophy. Despite Mr. Bradlaugh, the people know how to distin
guish between persecution and righteous opposition.
Notting Hill, London.
Feb. 14, 1884.
Henry Varley.
Private, Important, and Invaluable.
LECTURE
TO
MEN
ONLY.
(Delivered to 3,000 Men in Exeter Hall).
On the Advantages and Obligations of Chastity, with special reference to certain
forms of temptation.
Containing invaluable information for Young Men, and those who are married
Post Free lor 5d., or Three Copies for Postal Order, Is.
_
____________________
Two Copies, post free, Is.
LECTURE
TO
YOUTHS
AND
In Stiff Covers' 7d.
YOUNG
MEN.
On Chastity, Strength, and Success in Life.
Containing Selections from Lecture to Men. Adapted for Youths and Yqung Men who
are unmarried.
________________ Price 3jd., post fr.ee, or Twelve Copies, 2s. 9d.
, . An.y °f these Publications can be obtained direct from the Author, by letter
addressed THOMAS E. VARLEY, 32, Clarendon Road, Notting Hill, London, W.
Orders should be prepaid, and, so far as possible, be made by Postal Orders.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
An appeal to the men of England
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Varley, Henry
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 24 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Cover pages torn. Includes the "Substance of Mr Henry Varley's last letter to the electors of Northampton, February 1884" (p. 23-24). Union catalogues (COPAC, KVK) list a similar pamphlet by Varley published in 1881 by John F. Shaw (16 p.). Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Office of the Christian Commonwealth
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1884
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N650
Subject
The topic of the resource
Parliament
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (An appeal to the men of England), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Charles Bradlaugh
Great Britain-Politics and Government-1837-1901
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/053c1050e44fd0e8b1d751eb1a25a410.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=CwpmdWuIEleD0dY7wX8xwtvdjo3dtpZgAXAFoZjyZtHMO6SliH0b2smSPjRaW3mpoM9cCboYyF2AiwejzwNlyRDmmeVSFWr1NOLgCwVr6KchGYO2WOfOC0aIhfg3AcYHyCj0HJiraKap0wTGHGFBXXnYQtTxJOR3T%7ECPtNEIr%7ErDRhBVIrwJiLMWUj7Ndp-fxfWxNGPeyg0bt2E3NBnCJK8Zq-DOyDyB%7EIRW9kFPGNgQPDVTqaAD4ikoWlAQzPxaf6HmiKdhRUqkdV5FoJw2flxEXAwC8h2D%7EJYTqNXts5%7Es9fJKquZ4b%7EcHoXdydm8eD9xh%7EzZNI9c-Ixta3oAINQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
9261c96c165f14918d8057b3dbdf1003
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
LOCAL TAXATION,
ESPECIALLY IN
ENGLISH CITIES AND TOWNS,
H Speech
Delivered in the House of Commons, on March 2$rd, 1886,
BY
JAMES E. THOROLD ROGERS, M.P.
(SOUTHWARK, BERMONDSEY DIVISION.)
CASSELL & COMPANY, Limited
LONDON, PARIS, NEW
YORK 6* MELBOURNE.
��?4-
PREFACE.
The following speech was made in the House of Commons
on March 23rd, 1886. For fifteen years the country party
had succeeded, at the instance of several Conservative
country gentlemen who have been members of the House,
and have been assisted by gentlemen on the Liberal side,
in putting Liberal Governments in a minority on the sub
ject of local taxation, and thereby of transferring taxation,
levied from the beginning on landowners or their tenants,
to the Consolidated Fund, and, consequently, of burdening
the general public and increasing the annual expenditure
of Government.
As the burden of local taxation in towns is growing
heavier and heavier on occupiers, and as in Scotland
and Ireland half the local taxation is paid by owners, I deter
mined as early as possible to bring the subject before
the new Parliament, and I did so with success, carrying
my motion by a majority of forty. This, the first defeat
which the country party has sustained on the subject of
local taxation for years, is of great interest to townspeople,
especially to shopkeepers, and with the view of attracting
their attention, the speech has been published.
JAMES E. THOROLD ROGERS.
Hcnise of Commons,
June 1st, 1886.
��Local Taxation,
ESPECIALLY IN ENGLISH CITIES AND TOWNS.
Sir,—Since the year 1831, down to the last session of the Attention
late Parliament, scarcely a single year has passed in which Tven in
some Act bearing upon Local Taxation has not been added t^the'^b1
to the Statute Book; while during the last fifty years there ject.
have been constant debates in this House on the same
subject, generally indeed from one aspect of the question,
the relief of the landed interest at the expense of the Con
solidated Fund, i.e. of the general body of taxpayers. As
a consequence of these debates, and the votes taken on
them, very considerable changes in the liability to local
taxation have been made during the last fifteen years, and
very considerable charges have been transferred from the
local taxpayer to the general public. I do not, indeed, in
introducing this motion to the House, intend to discuss the
merits of these proposals, or the policy which has effected
the transference; but I trust that, with the indulgence of the
House, I may be able to substantiate the four propositions
which are contained in my motion. I am aware, indeed,
that to deal exhaustively with the subject would require a
speech of ten or twenty hours, and, though I shall not
trespass long on the patience of the House, I trust that it
will not believe that the subject is concluded in the brief
remarks to which I venture on inviting its attention.
Practically, local taxation, as we now understand it, i.e. origin of
a charge levied on defined localities for local purposes, com- Local,
menced with the poor law of Queen Elizabeth (43 Eliz., TaxatI0n-
�6
Transfer
ence from
owners to
occupiers.
cap. 2), and since that time, with only a short interruption,
on which I shall comment hereafter, it has been the in
variable practice to levy the whole of local taxation on what
is commonly called real estate only: in England and Wales
on the occupier only of real estate; while in Scotland and
Ireland, under Acts of a much more recent date, such local
taxation has been shared by the owner and occupier, i.e.
has been divided into nearly equal moieties between the
parties interested. Originally, the whole of the local taxa
tion in Scotland was levied on the owner, and it was only
when a more extensive system of Poor Law relief was ren
dered necessary in Scotland, owing mainly to the disruption
of the Scottish Church, that the division of liability was
made between the two principal parties, the landowner and
the occupier.
Now, sir, in the latter part of Elizabeth’s reign such an
imposition of local taxation on occupancy was not only
obvious but was generally equitable. At that time, and indeed
for a long time afterwards, the number of occupying owners
was very large, and the tenant farmer was comparatively
rare. Besides, there is good reason to believe that the
owner paid his tenant’s rates, though I cannot venture on
troubling the House with the somewhat antiquarian evidence
by which I am convinced that I could prove my statement.
The property of these occupying owners was therefore
obviously the natural object for local levies, the division
between owner and occupier being naturally disregarded in
view of the comparative rarity of occupying tenants at will.
In course of time the ranks of these occupying freeholders
were sadly thinned, especially during the latter half of the
seventeenth century. Lawyers, or at least legal antiquaries,
are aware of the fact that at this time the strict settlement
was invented, under which nothing which had been purchased
by any landowner under a settlement could be reft from the
estate ; but few are aware of what was the process by which
thousands of these freeholds were violently extinguished.
For several sessions the House of Lords passed an Act, the
object of which was to confiscate certain freeholds, and at
last the Commons accepted the Act. Any one can see how,
�7
under the first clause of the Statute of Frauds (29 Par. ii.,
cap. 3), the great landowners contrived to effect this pur
pose ; for this famous clause provides, without any reference
to the antiquity of the tenancy, that persons who were not
possessed of documentary evidence of title in the lands which
they occupied should, unless the rent reserved were twothirds the rack rent, be treated as tenants at will. This,
and not, as some persons fancy, a honest purchase of the
small freeholder’s tenement, is the true explanation of that
sudden disappearance of freeholders which so many his
torians have noticed.
A generation or two later another system began, which Inclosure>
still more limited the number of occupying owners, because
it narrowed the opportunities of their agricultural industry.
I am alluding to the appropriation and enclosure of com
mon lands under numerous and incessant Private Acts of
Parliament. The first of these Inclosure Acts was in 1709,
and between that date and 1852 it is well known that at least
nine millions of statute acres have been appropriated by
private owners under those Acts, to say nothing of what has
been confiscated since. Now, any one who has studied the
history of the poor, especially of the agricultural poor, knows
how severely these inclosures pressed on them, how frequent
was the complaint of the consequences, and how, the con
dition of the peasantry having become more hopeless and
more miserable, all sorts of expedients were adopted to
remedy the mischief which was created. The House knows
how pauperism increased, how it threatened to absorb rent,
and to swallow up all the gains of the landowners, not only
the profits on their ancient estates, but on the additions which
the enclosures had made to their estates, and how at last
the experiment of Mr. Lowe, of Bingham, the father of a
distinguished statesman, once a member of this House, and
now of the other, with Mr., afterwards Sir G., Nicholls,
became the type on which the New Poor Law was
enacted. By this time, however, the occupying owner
has become a rarity, and the occupying tenant, now gene
rally a tenant at will, is now made liable to all that local
taxation which was levied on the basis of the Poor
�8
ew kinds
' Local
axation.
lie coniittee of
?~o.
Law assessment, and is frequently paid by precept on the
guardians.
For a long time, local taxation for the relief of destitu
tion was nearly the only charge which was imposed on the
occupier. In course of time other charges were imposed on
the same persons, and on the same assessment, for different
purposes. The House is aware that the repair of roads, the
maintenance of bridges, the custody of criminals, and the
police of district was a local landowners’ liability. But many
of these liabilities were discharged by personal service. The
repair of roads was a local obligation discharged by Statute
labour even after the great Turnpike Act of 1773. Gaols
were frequently franchises, and valuable franchises too. It
was only by 12 Geo. II., cap. 29 (1739) that the county rate
was leviable on occupiers, and made the means for repair
ing bridges and building prisons. Still more lately has the
parish constable been superseded by the police, in the
towns first and in country places much later. I don’t think,
indeed, that the tolls taken on the roads could have been
employed for their repair, for the Novels of the eighteenth
century complain that travellers had to pay heavy tolls for
the use of roads which were no better than quagmires.
Of course, however, these local taxes are nothing to what
the exigencies of modern society have demanded, and the
custom of Parliament has imposed on occupancy. So large
have they become that in many places the poor rate, origin
ally almost the only local tax levied, has become only the
third or fourth part of that which is exacted from the occu
pier, and about which the occupier bitterly complains, as I
shall hope to show, with reason.
No doubt in consequence of those complaints, a Committee was appointed in 1870, at the instance of the then
President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Goschen), in
order to inquire into the whole subject of local taxation. My
right hon. friend was Chairman of that Committee, and,
apart from the labours which he gave with his colleagues,
in the valuable report and evidence which he collected; he
published on his own personal authority an excellent
summary of the situation. The members of the Committee
�9
were of proved capacity, and were peculiarly familiar with
the subject referred to them. They published a Report
which, as is the case with many other valuable reports, has
not been followed by remedial legislation. In it they recom
mended that division of rates between owner and occupier
which I commend to the House in my motion. It is true
that the recommendation was only carried by a bare ma
jority, but this need surprise no one who remembers that our
Committees are not, as they should be, a microcosm of the
House, but a mere balance of the two great parties. But most
of the witnesses, and certainly the best informed, who were
examined before the Committee, recommended the division,
not because they thought, as I do, that the change would
materially and justly modify the incidence of local taxation,
but because they thought that it was likely to result in a
more careful and economical administration of the rates,
since in the event of the change all who paid rates would
be represented on the board. But I am disposed to think
that the witnesses exaggerated this result of the change. I
am sure indeed that it would be often an advantage and an
economy, to say nothing of the obstacle to scandals, if ex
guardians did not frequent their board, and I well know
that an admixture of such gentlemen as are entirely free
from personal bias has often purged a board of guardians ;
but I am bound to say that the administration of public
funds by county magistrates has been characterised by un
questionable integrity and economy. They are not an
elected body, but I very much doubt whether, when in time
to come we have elected boards, the new men will exceed
the old hands in public spirit, integrity and thrift. Sometimes
indeed they go too far in this praiseworthy direction. I well
remember that an old friend of mine, the late Mr. Joseph
Henby, carried his economies to excess; for he took upon
himself in constructing some new cells in Oxford County goal
to disregard the requirements of the Home Office, and he found
out that the money he wished to save had to be spent, and
that which he had been niggard in spending had been wasted.
Now, Sir, I have thought it necessary to give this brief Q^stthgCtl<
and very imperfect sketch of a subject, the full history of House.
�IO
which would be beyond my physical powersand the patience
of the House. I now come to the more controversial part
of my motion. And here I cannot help regretting that most
of those gentlemen who, in past years and in other parlia
ments, have brought forward diverse motions, are absent
from the present House. Sir Massey Lopes, Mr. Pell, Mr.
Clare Read and Sir Baldwyn Leighton have often spoken,
and at length, on this topic, and have made the subject of
local taxation their peculiar study. I regret it the more
because I am constrained to differ greatly from their conclu
sions, though I should gladly have had the benefit of their
criticisms. They have certainly been successful with the
last three Parliaments, for during the last fifteen years the
efforts of the landowning interests have been incessant in the
direction of the transference of local burdens from the occu
pier to the Consolidated Fund, and with marked success,
especially in the Parliament of 1874, when they pushed
their opportunities vigorously. Sir Massey Lopes, in one
remarkable speech, put forward the doctrine that all local
taxation was an imperial concern, and even alleged that the
maintenance of the poor should justly be derived from the
national exchequer. The result of these efforts has been
that local rates have been relieved, without, I am afraid,
much resultant economy, from the charges of prisons and
criminals, of lunatics, to a large extent from the maintenance
of public roads ; while increasingly larger subventions, as we
see from the swollen Civil Service Estimates, have been
granted for similar local purposes. Now, I gather from the
last Report of the Local Government Board that nearly two
and a-half millions were paid from the Consolidated Fund in
aid of local taxation.
Mr. Chamberlain (President Local Government Board):
I can assure my hon. friend that two and a-half millions are
far below the amount which is paid for the objects to which
he refers. He will find that the total of the contribution
amounted to a far larger sum.
Mr. Thorold Rogers : I named the sum of two and
a-half millions, which was all that I could find in the
Report of the Local Government Board, and I have been
�11
consulting with Mr. Howard, the librarian, who referred
me to the figures which I have quoted. I fear that my
opportunities and intelligence have been limited.
Mr. Chamberlain (handing the summary of the Civil
Service Estimates) : My hon. friend will find the particulars
in this page, and may see that in the United Kingdom the
amount paid under the head he describes amounts to near
six millions.
Mr. Thorold Rogers : I beg to thank my Right Hon.
friend for the information. It is a little unfortunate that
Parliamentary papers are not drawn up in a manner which
enables one to make immediate and conclusive use of them.
I have been looking through these papers, as I said, the
whole afternoon, in hope of getting the information which
would enable me to state what has been the course of events
for the last fifteen years, and nothing can be conceived more
hopelessly puzzling and confusing than the Estimates are.
I am quite convinced that the criticism of Supply would
be infinitely easier, if the process under which the Estimates
are presented was revised and amended. I hope, how
ever, that I may be excused for having understated the
charge transferred from the occupiers to the Consolidated
Fund. The House will see that my Right Hon. friend has
strengthened my position. Now, as the money has to be
paid, for local expenditure increases in spite of these sub
ventions, where does the money come from ? Who pays
it ? It is quite certain that it comes out of the Incometax.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer : It comes out The per
sons who
of all the taxes.
pay grants
Mr. Thorold Rogers : No doubt it nominally comes in aid to
out of all the taxes, because the proceeds of all taxes go to Local
Taxation.
the Consolidated Fund. But I do not modify my state
ment. It is perfectly well known that the proceeds of these
taxes are not progressive, but the reverse, as I am afraid the
Chancellor of the Exchequer is already aware. The only
tax which is progressive is the Income-tax, and this only,
unluckily, because those who pay it are visited with an
increased percentage. As a matter of fact, it is not the
�12
I
I
I
I
custom, at any rate, it is not the wisdom or experience of
gentlemen on the Treasury Bench to put on new taxes, and
it has not been for the last fifteen years. The gentlemen of
the Treasury Bench had a pretty rough experience last
June of such attempts. They find it dangerous to them and
to their stability on their seats, but they always have the
remedy of screwing up Income-tax by a penny or two, in
order to meet the deficiencies, whether they are due to a de
clining revenue, to an increased expenditure, or to the relief
of opulent landowners. Now, I have no doubt that the
greater part of the subventions of which I complain have
been taken from those who pay Income-tax. I wonder
whether Hon. members reflect on the singular severity with
which the Income-tax presses on such persons as work for
their living, and out of that work earn incomes between
^150 and ^1,000, and who cannot in any way escape from
the tax-gatherer. I believe there is no class of persons in the
United Kingdom who contribute more to the Exchequer, in
proportion to their resources, and with such serious sacrifices
to themselves and their families. Can my Right Hon.
friend point out to me any source, during the last fifteen
years, from which any additional revenue has been derived
except from the Income-tax ? I think I have shown who it
is that has been forced to pay.
to the question as to who really pays
are Put upon occupancy, that is,
upon whom the ultimate incidence falls of that which the
occupier is forced to contribute. The whole force of my
argument depends on my proof of this part of my case.
Here I can claim the authority and support of my Right Hon.
friend the member for Edinburgh (Mr. Goschen), who said
very truly, as indeed every man of sense must say, that the
burden of a tax has a tendency to remain upon those on
whom the tax is first imposed. Of course there are callings
or industries in which the tax is mechanically and imme
diately transferred, as in the case of those who deal in
excisable and duty-paying articles. Such traders could not
exist unless the transference were understood. But it is
/ho pays
I now, Sir, pass
axation? those local taxes
�T3
an economical law that in order to enable a person to
transfer a tax, he must effect a subsequent operation with
some other party, whom he is able to make ultimately the
contributor of the tax, and that, of course generally, with
a profit to himself on the tax which he has primarily paid.
This is the reason why certain shopkeepers and tradesmen
are able to impose on their customers, not only the taxes
they pay on the materials of their trade, but even the large
rents they pay, and the local taxation which is heaped on
them; but even the Income-tax. This was curiously illus
trated by the complaint of the traders against the Civil
Service Stores. They came to my noble friend Lord
Sherbrooke, then Mr. Lowe, and Chancellor of the Ex
chequer, and told him that they could not compete against
the Stores because they had to pay Income-tax and the
Stores had not. He was talking to me about this, and
I said to him, “ Of course, you see that this can only
mean, that the traders make their customers pay a double
Income-tax, their own and their tradesmen’s; in short, they
transfer their taxes to their customers by raising the price
of their goods.”
Now, Sir, I do not blame these tradesmen. They are
simply carrying out a familiar economical law. Their
action has no taint in it, for every person who has the wit
to transfer a tax from himself to his neighbour must have
the sympathy of every right-minded citizen, for he is
educating himself in what we are told is the business of
life, i.e. the Survival of the fittest. But with such excep
tions, and they could be multiplied in number and degree,
taxes have always a tendency to stay upon those upon
whom they are first imposed. This is a statement which
I believe no fair-minded economist would ever pretend to
dispute. And as this is the case, it is quite certain that
many of these taxes, even though levied locally, will remain
where they are imposed, and that even where they are trans
ferred, it requires a very vigorous effort, and very exceptional
circumstances of freedom, to get rid of them. But as a
matter of fact, very few occupiers are free agents from the
moment they enter into their contract of occupancy. Some
�14
members of the House will recollect that this matter was
pretty fully argued in the last Parliament in relation to the
Sitting tenant. An occupier in agriculture can never sur
render his holding without losing from io to 15 percent,
of his capital. This is equally true, sometimes still more
cogently true, in the case of professional men and trades
men, and it is by the screw which this loss suggests to the
landlords that they are able not only to raise their rents
enormously, as I shall presently show, but impose the whole
burden of local taxation on the occupier. Those members
of the House who are familiar with these facts know that
my statement has been confirmed as regards agriculture
by such competent persons as Sir James Caird and Mr.
James Howard, and I could give from my experience as a
metropolitan member of some years’ standing proofs of
how cogent is the machinery in the case of traders. I do
not find fault with those who take advantage of their oppor
tunities. I never heard of any man who was so bad as the
creed he professed, and I never have found any man who
was better than the law he lives under. I find fault with
the law which gives them the opportunities ; and it is with
only one of these opportunities that I am dealing now. I
do not, for instance, dwell on the power which the settle
ment of estates in great towns, and the existence of opulent
corporations, give to landowners to exact hard terms from
their tenants. These people have neither character or con
science.
>Clll
Now, Sir, I shall probably be treated to the timefixation honoured generality that local taxes are always paid ulti
id to be
mately by the landlords. I hope I have shown already
ii<] by
ndowners that this is not true, and I shall say a little more on this
the end.
subject. But assuming it for the moment to be the case,
if it be true that the landowner pays them all at the end,
what can be the hardship of putting them entirely on the
owners at the beginning. I have sometimes suggested this
change to the advocates of the theory I have quoted; but I
have always found them intensely reluctant to make the
experiment. They are reluctant with reason, for the state
ment is only plausible to a landowner or his agent, and
�i5
unreal to the occupier or tenant. I have not the smallest
doubt that if a thousand occupiers were asked who it was
who paid local taxes, 999 would reply that the whole, or
the greater part, fell on their shoulders. Now, if the land
lords are right, there could be no harm in their paying a
moiety as I suggest; and it is quite certain that their
tenants, however wrong their theories might be, would
be very glad of the temporary, and as I believe, of the per
manent relief. And I venture upon urging that it would
be very expedient to do so at the present time. Very
awkward opinions are gaining ground, opinions which
I deprecate as unsound, unfair, and dangerous; but if the
contention of the landlords is correct, that local taxation
presses upon them, they cannot possibly lose by my pro
posal, because they simply have to put into operation the
process of transferring that which they have paid to the
tenant immediately, after they have paid that which they
have to pay in the end, according to their own assertion.
At any rate, I am pretty certain that the adoption of the
provision which I have proposed will be a great concession
to popular sentiment, which is entirely on my side of the
argument now, and must be a very useful means for stifling
popular discontent.
The opinion, Sir, that a landlord pays the tax in the
end, is merely derived from the facts of a single transaction,
and that only at the instant of its completion. When a
farmer takes a farm he always calculates or discovers its
average outgoings in local taxation, and now, at least, what
ever he did in past times, he deducts these outgoings from
the rent he offers. But as I have already said, the freedom
of his action ceases with the beginning of his occupancy.
In the case of other occupiers, who are constrained by the
exigencies of business to reside within defined localities,
the freedom of choice hardly exists at the beginning of
the contract, as every trader or merchant who occupies
premises would tell you. In the case of the poor in great
towns there is even less freedom still. Everybody knows
how enormous is the proportion of their rent to their
income. I have housed, in connection with the company
�i6
of which I am a director, many thousands of London
artizans and their families in model dwellings, and I am
I
glad that I have been able to give my time and attention
i
to this work. I could have housed them at thirty per cent.
I
less if the local taxation which enhances their rent, and
I
which I think they pay, had been put on the persons whose
|
land has profited by their presence.
ldonofXa'
Now, Sir, I do not mean to say that our system of local
sonal°pro-r taxation is fair. As an occupier, I should have no objecperty for
tion to adopt the American system and to have my chattels
p°ocsae1sptir' taxed. You must not, indeed, tax stock-in-trade, as was
attempted between 1790 and 1800. Lord Mansfield, a
wise judge, always refused to accept the contention of those
who alleged that personal property, that is, manufacturing
stock, was taxable under the statute of Elizabeth. Lord
|
Kenyon, a foolish judge, permitted the taxation of this
property, with the result, as you may see in the report of
1834, of ruining the West of England cloth trade, of giving
a bounty to the better placed Yorkshire industry, and of
impoverishing the midland and southern counties. I am
sorry to say that I am old enough to remember the comments
on this process, and the ruin that followed it in my own
district of England. But if you are going to tax chattels,
my books and chairs, etc., you cannot allow great houses,
splendid pictures, and vast libraries, to altogether escape
this taxation. You must levy these taxes on Chatsworth,
Blenheim, Althorpe, and a thousand other ostentatious and
splendid personalities. I do not know what price the
founder of the House of Churchill gave for the Raphael for
which we paid ,£75,000, probably not more than ,£750,
even if he paid that. Now, why should these, and a million
other pictures escape taxation, if you are to charge personal
property with local taxation, as the landowners always claim
we should ? I doubt very much whether they would be glad
to acquiesce in that which they demand.
Much Local
Now, Sir, what are the great local burdens, as they are
beneficial21 ca^e(^>
country places? The principal charges are those
outlay on for the maintenance of the poor and the repair of highways,
land.
Now, I contend that these are both beneficial outlays, The
I
I
�17
poor rate in the country, as every economist will allow, is
an insurance against the inevitable certainty of destitution—
a certainty which has been heightened by the eviction of
the peasant from the soil, a certainty which will become a
remote risk when he is restored to it, as I hope this Parlia
ment will restore him. If this insurance fund were not
paid his wages would inevitably rise. I know that I con
tribute, and have for many years, not only to the pauperism
which I do not create, but aid the miserable wages which
farmers pay by the wages of my domestic servants, for their
relations, mainly peasants, know pretty clearly when quarter
day comes to them, and have generally paid them a visit
shortly after that event. My experience is that of thou
sands.
And, with regard to roads, the beneficial outlay is even
more obvious. Without roads, land is only of prairie
value. The cost of creating and maintaining these roads is
absolutely necessary to the landlord for the enjoyment of
his property or his rent. I live in a town, and I pay for the
roads which give value to the ground landlord’s property.
I ought not to do it, but I do not grudge it. I do, how
ever, grudge paying out of my income-tax to the roads
which are necessary for my opulent and meritorious neigh
bours, the country gentlemen. I hope my Right Hon. friend
the Secretary for the Treasury (Mr. Henry Fowler) will not
consider me inconsistent. I voted the other day for pay
ing the charges of the Chester and Holyhead Road out of
the Consolidated Fund. The road was made for strictly
Imperial purposes, for the maintenance of law and order in
Ireland, or, as hon. gentlemen opposite might say, for its
coercion. That road, therefore, like the highway to the
North, was a matter of national importance, ought to be
maintained by the nation, and ought not to be paid by the
inhabitants of those poor and barren counties through which
it passes. I admit a public duty; I deprecate the affecta
tion of public spirit in a direction which would be unjust
economy. I hope, Sir, that I have now made out a good
case for the division of local taxation between the owner
and the occupier, and have supported the contention of the
�i8
Committee of 1870, that landowners ought in equity to
bear at least a moiety of these charges.
he argu
Now, Sir, I shall be told that what I have proposed will
ment
gainst dis- disturb existing arrangements—perhaps that freedom of con
lrbing
tract which some well-to-do people believe to be the centre
Listing
ontracts. of the Constitution, but which those who struggle for their
living look upon with very different feelings. I shall be told
that it is an ancient custom for the occupier to pay the
rates, as it is a modern theory that the landlord pays them.
I shall be instructed that it is an indelible part of the Con
stitution, or the latest phrase, “a fundamental law.” Sir,
these phrases remind me of a story of my youth. An
early friend of mine, the late Dr. Buckland, geologist, and
Dean of Westminster, was being shown over an ancient
cathedral. The verger pointed out to him a spot which was
indelibly marked with the blood of a mediaeval saint and
martyr. The mark was washed out from time to time, but
the sanguine stain always reappeared. Now, Dr. Buckland
was a naturalist of an inquiring, not to say sceptical, mind.
He determined to inquire. He wetted his finger, stooped
down, rubbed the mark, applied his finger to his tongue,
and replied conclusively, “ Bat’s dung I ” (Loud laughter.)
Now, Sir, there is a deal of “bat’s dung” in the British
Constitution, and for my part, having discovered by some
study the cause of many of these indelible stains, I am
quite prepared, with the assistance of my friends here, to get
up to the roof and dislodge the bats.
rhe assessI now proceed to what is practically the second clause
nent of
of my motion—I mean the low values for rating purposes at
country
nansions. which country mansions are assessed. The House must be
perfectly well aware of the soreness and discontent which
the present system excites. Men who live in towns, and
carry on business there, complain that their premises are
assessed at amounts which are in excess of the rate imposed
on huge country mansions and vast parks. Now, we know
well how these assessments are settled. The valuation is
fixed by the Justices in Quarter Sessions—that is, by the in
habitants of these mansions—and in accordance with the
provisions of 5 and 6 Will. IV. Now, I am far from saying
�19
that these mansions ought to be rated at their full building
value, and I am far from finding fault with the Justices for
rating them, in accordance with the terms of the Act, on
a hypothetical letting value. In point of fact, if the Quarter
Sessions interpreted the clause strictly, it would justify the
Justices in putting a still lower nominal assessment. I do not
think that they would break the law if in many cases they put
no value on them whatever, for many of them could hardly
be let to any persons at all. But the practice of England is
not the practice of other countries. In the United States
local taxation visits- all house property with an assessment
on its building value. They do not give owners such
advantages as they get in England, for they tax empty
houses on the ground that the State ought not to assist or
excuse a man when he keeps his goods out of the market.
Now, though I admit that these assessments are in accord
ance with the existing law, I think it is high time that the
law should be materially modified. It is policy to do so, for
I venture on again reminding the House that there is an awk
ward spirit in the air. There are thousands of persons who
argue thus : “ I, with my wife and family, live in one room,
for which I have to pay 3s. 6d. or 4s. a-week. I pay it with
difficulty, all the more because the rates are so heavy, and
which I know come upon me in the rent, and which I am
forced to pay. And I know that Lord So-and-so, and
others like him, have houses with 150 rooms, and large
grounds about the house, for which they are rated at next to
nothing.” It is a bad thing that this sort of spirit should
get abroad, and that these comments should be justly made.
They who profit by the present system and escape liabilities
would do well not to accentuate the distinction between the
poor and the rich by any feeling that gross injustice exists.
I desire to raise no prejudice against the opulent. I
have always, to the best of my powers, attacked the
theories of Socialism; but unless something is done, and
that speedily, in the direction of my motion, there will be a
growing and dangerous feeling of grudge and dissatisfaction
at the escape of wealthy men from local contributions. It
has always been held to be a sound principle of finance to
�20
tax luxuries when you can get at them. And if a peison
thinks proper to have half-a-dozen fine houses, when he
lives only in one, he ought to be equitably assessed on the
whole.
I- contriThe last part of my motion refers to the estate of the
lon of
ground landlord. The House will remember that latterly
line]
s to
there has been a debate upon ground-rents, and at first I
al
ation thought that as the matter had been already discussed I.
had better not press this clause; but I determined to retain
it, because I shall treat it in a totally different way from that
in which it was handled in the late debate. I have no
special grudge against ground-rents. I see no more reason
for specially taxing the lucky purchaser of land than for
taxing exceptionally the gains of a successful lawyer or
physician. All these are various forms of fertility in the
economical sense, and all of them have an equal right to be
protected against rapine. I am no believer in the doctrine
that the State should appropriate the unearned increment,
and that for reasons which I will not trouble the House
with, though I have over and over again stated them in print.
What I do complain of is, that the property of the ground
landlord is constantly being swollen in value by the contri
butions of the tenant under our system of local taxation.
Let me illustrate my position by my own experience. I
live in a city seven-tenths of the building land of which at
least is the property of Corporations. The inhabitants of
the city were very properly restrained from polluting the
Thames with sewage, and works had to be undertaken at
the cost of some ^150,000, with a view of putting a final
stop to the nuisance. But the whole cost of paying the
interest and extinguishing the principal is put upon the
occupiers, who are thus engaged in improving the estate of
the ground landlord at their own expense, and of course, in
time to come, to their own detriment, as they may have to
pay an enhanced rent on the improved estate. But when
you come to the metropolis the burden is still more unfair
and crushing. London occupiers are engaged in improving
the estates of the ground landlords, and paying increased
rents upon their own unexhausted improvements at a rate
�2I
which, if it were exhibited in Ireland, would make the hair
of Irish members stand on end and very effectually loosen
their tongues. I find from the latest reports that the whole
amount of local debts for local improvements, and for the
most part on unproductive expenditure, is no less, in
England and Wales, than ^159,000,000. The whole of
this, interest and principal—for most of it has been raised in
a terminable stock—is liquidated by the occupier ; that is, he
is engaged in England to the extent of ^159,000,000 in
making valuable estates, the whole value of which, by the
way, his presence has created still more valuable. This is
particularly the case with the great settled estates, many of
which came into the hands of the ancestors of their present
owners by Heaven knows what means. I will take an
example : the Covent Garden estate was originally the home
farm of Westminster Abbey. It was squeezed out of that
corporation by the founder of the house of Bedford, who
was a favourite of Henry VIII. Now, in the course of my
researches I have come across a lease of this estate granted
by the Earl of Bedford in the reign of Elizabeth. The
whole estate was, I believe, about 300 acres, and it was
let for a term of thirty years for about ^40 per annum.
I do not quite know what it is let for now, but I am pretty
sure that it is a multiple of six figures. Now, this estate has
been improved by the tenants without the Duke having
been called upon to lay out a single shilling upon it, and
everything which is necessary in order to make the estate
possess any market value whatever is constantly being paid
by the occupier. This is what people see is grossly unfair ;
it is what they resent. And it is what, at an early date, the
Legislature will, I trust, thoroughly remedy. What, I should
like to ask, is necessary towards making a locality habitable ?
Roads must be made and repaired ; water must be supplied ;
and sewage must be carried off. If justice were done I
contend that the highway rate, the water rate, and the
sewage rate should be paid by the ground landlord, and that
they should be deducted from the stipulated rent just in the
same way as income-tax is. They would then be paid by
the landlord, for I suppose that the landowner would hardly
�22
contend that he makes his tenant pay the income-tax, as he
is accustomed to say his tenant would have to pay an
enhanced rent if he, the landlord, paid any part of the local
taxation.
ie necesI cannot help thinking that this question ought not only
y of
to be debated but decided. The early solution of it appears
:edy
to be imperatively necessary. There is a great deal of dis
n.
content abroad. People come to me from poor districts,
and from rich ones too, complaining of the ever-increasing
rates which they have to pay on property which has been
enhanced in value by the previous outlay of occupiers.
And, as the House knows, this ever-growing assessment
affects every form of local taxation and service. The pre
sent burden of rates is such, and its incidence is so ob
viously unfair, that public bodies do not dare to undertake
many useful and even necessary works because they dread
the indignation of the occupiers at the increased rate which
would be involved in the operation. I will illustrate what I
mean. The House is aware that the Royal Commission on
the state of the Thames condemned the sewage outfalls at
Barking Creek and Crossness, and called on the Metropoli
tan Board of Works to purify the Thames. The Board of
Works prepared a scheme for carrying the sewage down
from these two points to Canvey Island, where there was
ample space for desiccating the sewage so completely as to
send out nothing but pure water into the Thames. Why
has it not been done ? The scheme would have cost
^4,000,000, and the Board of Works hardly dared to put
this charge on the ratepayers, who would be compelled,
under the existing law, to meet the whole expense, princi
pal and interest. Now, I submit that a very considerable
part of the expense to be incurred in carrying out these
permanent works should be borne by the ground landlords,
in proportion to the extent and value of their estates—
seeing that they reap the benefit of these improvements.
This, Sir, is my contention. I have not stated the case
as fully as it might be stated. I hope I have dealt with it
temperately. Some alteration of the law, in respect of the
matters I have referred to, is, I am convinced, imperatively
�23
necessary. It is wise and politic to palliate or remove
that galling sense of injustice which the public feel so
keenly when they see and know that they are improving the
estates of their neighbours out of their own hard-earned
incomes. The struggle of life is hard enough now, and dis
content at unmerited wrongs may grow into a danger. At
any rate, it is high time that this most important subject of
local taxation, and particularly of its incidence and distribu
tion, should not only be considered by Parliament but dealt
with. I have trespassed long enough on the patience of the
House, and shall conclude by moving the resolution of
which I have given notice, and of which, I may add, I gave
notice in the late Parliament.
The following was the motion :—
“ That the present system under which, in England and
Wales, the first Incidence of Local Taxation (with some
slight exceptions) falls on the occupier and not on the
owner of lands and tenements, is unjust; that such owners
ought in equity to bear at least a moiety of these charges;
that the system under which country mansions are rated is
unfair; and that the owners of ground rents in towns are
liable to no part of those charges, the outlay of which is
essential in order that the property may possess any market
able value whatever.”
Sir Richard Paget moved the following amendment:—
“ That, while the apportionment of the payment of Rates
between landlord and tenant may be desirable, as part of
a complete scheme for remedying the admitted inequalities
of the Incidence of Local Taxation, this House is of opinion
that the financial injustice complained of can only be
removed by a comprehensive measure, and that an equit
able readjustment of taxation as between real and personal
property, is urgently required.”
On a division, Sir R. Paget’s amendment was negatived
by 207—188, including tellers. And on the main question
being put, it was affirmed by 218—178, including tellers.
The division was a strictly party one. It is noteworthy
that all the Metropolitan Tories who were present voted
against the resolution.
��
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Local taxation, especially in English cities and towns: a speech delivered in the House of Commons, on March 23rd, 1886
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Rogers, James E. Thorold
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 23 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Stamp on title page for Cobden Club. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Cassell & Company, Limited
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1886
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N553
Subject
The topic of the resource
Taxation
Parliament
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Local taxation, especially in English cities and towns: a speech delivered in the House of Commons, on March 23rd, 1886), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
NSS
Taxation
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c7934d754bf9de69e623dc26ed38081b.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=hPeEaz2-wFribhOhOPi5vU6Wz8yL24vzKZbpU0UwOyVbe74-Y6YOd7-xVik6tY4eCtviT9GiTJjDgxOxEYMrqn5F8mfi7QKdVq45ESZxgRfjhBpY%7EjEqaJa9GOaYEGZrAUmjFZ7B7fuZFxEsP49ccilf60HpmTjpG0E%7EFN-ay81fygVJXY0FfL4pdwBegf92j%7EJm11cbRutYqisQx1GCkdxfT78ZsYCWBLxqflOriixX%7EmTud-jiiWV%7EqjgQ1Rsz4UaMG2%7ETbaNmRLuwYJr3k3dIfJyXNq9i3dsm87gE2CJLG1-f0gOwttjNFr6hy5KFiULtUTyqJ1TORIjP%7ECekFw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
41ece2a420ec5ee65f0e52d3f8271a87
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
PARLIAMENTARY
PROCEDURE
THE MISCHIEF AND THE REMEDY
BY
SIR EDWARD CLARKE, Q.C, M.P.
LONDON
STEVENS & HAYNES
13 BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR
1896
��TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE
OF COMMONS.
The difficulty which recurs with every Parliamentary Session,
and annually disappoints the intentions of the Government
•and the hopes of its supporters, has in the present year become
more than usually serious.
We are threatened with the mutilation or abandonment of
Bills upon which the House of Commons has spent much time
•and labour, and which the large majority of that House strongly
desire to pass into law.
This difficulty will never be got rid of so long as the House
maintains the senseless rules which at present cripple its
capacity for Public usefulness.
The remedy has long been known ; it is already in operation
to France, Austria, Hungary, Belgium, the Netherlands, Den
mark, Norway and Sweden, Spain, Portugal and Greece.
In this country it was advocated by Lord Derby in 1848, and
by Lord Salisbury in 1869; and in 1882 I made a speech in the
House of Commons, to which I hope I may now be allowed to
invite the attention of my fellow-Members of that House.
Since 1882 a great advance has been made in the direction
■of the reform which I then advocated without success.
. In 1890, when the Parliamentary situation was one of much
difficulty, a very strong Committee was appointed to consider
these proposals, and the report of that Committee, which I now
�PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.
4
reprint, is a declaration of opinion of the highest importance,
framed as it was by Mr. Arthur Balfour, and supported by Mr.
Goschen, Lord Hartington, and Mr. Chamberlain.
At this serious juncture in public affairs, when the leaders of
the Unionist party, if assured of the hearty support of their
followers, could relieve themselves from a position of humili
ating embarrassment, save valuable measures now threatened
with destruction, and effect a reform in Parliamentary practice,
which would weaken the forces of obstruction, lessen the strain
on Ministers and Members, and give to the House of Commons
a new capacity for deliberate and careful legislation, I respect
fully offer these pages for the consideration of all those who
are proud, as I am, of belonging to this great Assembly and
earnestly desire to increase its power and opportunity of public
service.
House of Commons, June ig, 1896.
EDWARD CLARKE.
�REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF 1890.
Mr. Arthur Balfour.
Sir Algernon Borthwick.
Sir Edward Clarke.
Mr. Chamberlain.
Mr. Dillon.
Mr. Dillwyn.
Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald.
Mr. Goschen.
Mr. Gladstone.
Sir William Harcourt.
Dr. Hunter.
Lord Hartington.
Mr. Jennings.
Mr. Labouchere.
Colonel Malcolm.
Mr. John Morley.
Sir Stafford Northcote.
Mr. T. W. Russell.
Mr. Sexton.
Mr. John Talbot.
Mr. Whitbread.
The Select Committee appointed to inquire whether by means of an
abridged form of procedure, or otherwise, the consideration of
Bills, which have been partly considered in this House, could
be facilitated in the next ensuing session of the same Par
liament ;------Have agreed to the following Report:
Four times since 1880 the House of Commons has been obliged
to revise its rules for the purpose of expediting public business.
Four times in the same period exceptional methods of restricting
discussion, not based upon the Standing Order or practice of the
House, have been adopted, when, in the opinion of the majority, it
became absolutely necessary to pass into law measures required to
meet a pending crisis. The causes, legitimate and illegitimate,
which stimulate discussion, have, however, counterbalanced, and
more than counterbalanced, the effect of the rules designed to
restrain it: the difficulty of -legislation has not diminished; the ex
hausting labours imposed upon Members of Parliament, excessive at
�PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.
6
the beginning of this decade, have, if anything, increased ; and
experience shows that while closure, in the form in which it is recog
nised in the Standing Orders, may be, and, in the opinion of your
Committee, is adequate to deal with single resolutions and short
Bills, it is not adequate to enable the House to consider, within the
compass of a session of convenient length, measures which are both
long, complicated, and controversial. Unless, therefore, the House
is prepared to acquiesce in its increasing impotence to grapple with
such measures, some further modification of its procedure seems to
be necessary.
Such a modification can only take one of two forms. It must
either, by some very stringent form of closure, enable Bills which
would, if debate were free, be killed by a prorogation, to pass
through all the stages in the course of one session, or else it must
revive them'in the succeeding session under such conditions that it
would not be necessary, or indeed permissible, to repeat the dis
cussion which had taken place upon the stages to which the Househad already agreed.
As your Committee are of opinion that the first course might in
certain contingencies seriously endanger that right of free criticism,
which is one of the fundamental and most useful privileges of
Parliament, they are driven to the consideration whether the second
course might not be safely adopted, without introducing a more
serious innovation into the practice of the House. Your Committee
therefore agreed to the following resolution :
*“That, in the judgment of your Committee, it is expedient that a
Standing Order be passed for the purpose of abridging procedure in
the case of Bills originating in the Blouse of Commons which have
been partly considered, and your Committee advise that such
Standing Order should be adopted by the House in the following
terms :
“ In respect of any Public Bill which is in progress in Com
mittee of the whole House, or in a Standing Committee, 01
which has been reported therefrom, or which has reached any
further stage, a motion may be made (after notice given) by a
member in charge of Bill, ‘That further proceedings on such
Bill be suspended until the next session,’ and no amendment
shall be moved to such motion.
* This Resolution was proposed by the Chairman, Mr. Goschen.
�THE MISCHIEF AND THE REMEDY.
7
11 If such motion be carried, then, in the ensuing session'
(being a session of the same Parliament), any member whose
name was on the suspended Bill may claim 1 That the resolution
of the previous session be read.’ Thereupon the Speaker shall
direct the Clerk to read the Resolution, and shall proceed to
call on the member to present the Bill in the form in which it
stood when the proceedings thereon were suspended; and the
questions on the first and second readings thereof shall be
successively put forthwith.
“ If both these questions be carried, the Bill shall be ordered
to be printed; and, if it had been partly considered in Com
mittee in the previous session, it shall stand committed to a
similar Committee, and it shall be an instruction to such Com
mittee to begin their consideration of the Bill at the clause on
which progress was reported in the previous session ; but if it
had been reported from Committee in the previous session, the
consideration of the Bill, as reported, shall be appointed for that
day week.
“ Provided always, that, if the first or second reading be nega
tived, such vote shall not be held to preclude the House from
entertaining a Bill, on the same subject-matter under the ordinary
rules of procedure.”
This Standing Order, it will be observed, differs fundamentally
both in its character and in its object from the various schemes with
which it has a superficial similarity, and which have been more than,
once considered by the House of Commons during the last forty
years. Committees have sat upon three such schemes in the years
1848, 1861, and 1869, but in every one of these cases the object of
the proposal was not to enable the House of Commons to deal
effectually with measures submitted to it by the Government, or by
private Members, but to enable the House of Lords to deal effectually
with measures sent up to it from the House of Commons. This last
object may be desirable or undesirable, and the means suggested for
carrying it out may have been effectual or ineffectual, but your Com
mittee desire to point out that neither the object nor the machinery
for obtaining it were the same as those of the proposed Standing.
Order.
In spite of these essential differences, fears have been expressed
lest the adoption of this Standing Order should supply a justification.
�PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.
to the House of Lords for reviving and putting in force the rejected
schemes of 1848, 1861, or 1869. But it must be observed, in th
first place, that a plan by which one House is enabled more effectually
to deal with business which has originated in it, and which has never
left it, can hardly form a precedent for a totally different scheme by
which one House may be able to postpone without rejecting Bills
initiated in the other. And, in the second place, it is obvious that no
endeavour on the part of the House of Lords to carry out the second
of these objects can be effectual without the concurrence of the
House of Commons. For the change of procedure must either be
effected by Bill or by Standing Order. If by Bill, then the assent of
both Houses is required. If by Standing Order, then only by Stand
ing Orders adopted by both Houses, and to which both Houses.,
therefore, must be parties. “ It has been alleged that the Standing
Order now proposed would invite and countenance the adoption by
the House of Lords of a similar Standing Order, and thus enable
that House to postpone the consideration of all Bills passed and sent
up from the House of Commons.” In reply to this allegation, your
Committee deem it right and necessary to record their opinion that
any claim or attempt by either House of Parliament of its own
authority, by Standing Order or otherwise, to postpone to a future
session cf Parliament any Bill sent to it from the other House of
Parliament, would be a breach of the constitutional usage of Par
liament.
It has been suggested that, by suspending a Bill, the valuable power
of amending it during the recess and reintroducing it in a better form
would necessarily be lost. Your Committee are not prepared to
dispute the fact that changes wdiich may also now and then be
improvements are often made in Bills which have failed to become
law in the session when they were first introduced; but those who
are of opinion that such amendments are necessary or expedient in
the interests of good legislation should be prepared to carry out their
theory to its logical issue, and to propose a Standing Order under
which no Bill should be passed in the same session in which it was
first read a second time. By this means the advantages, inseparable
in their opinion from every abortive attempt at legislation, would not
be arbitrarily confined to a few measures chosen at random. It may
be noted in this connection that those who are impressed with the
. advantages of not passing measures till they have been twice intro-
�THE MISCHIEF AND THE REMEDY,
g
duced into the House of Commons are hardly in a position to regret
that the proposed Standing Order may in certain cases extend legis
lation over two years instead of one.
The only other argument which it is necessary to consider is that
based upon the fact that the House of Commons has already
.adequate powers, without a Standing Order, to repeat in an abridged
form the stages of any Bill which have been already passed in a
previous session. In the words of Sir James Graham, “Whenever it
may be thought desirable promptly to pass and send to the other
House for concurrence, a Bill passed in a former session, but set
aside in the Lords, the Commons may pass the Bill rapidly through
.all its stages if they be so minded, and this course is not open to the
objection of providing fresh opportunities for the postponement of
legislation.” No doubt the House has such a power, as it has the
power of deciding, if it so pleases, that the first, second, and third
readings of a new Bill shall be put without amendment or debate.
But your Committee are of opinion that it is of the utmost import
ance that Parliamentary practice should be guided as far as possible
by settled rules, deliberately adopted, and generally applicable. And
it appears to them that every argument which can be urged against
the proposed Standing Order is equally effective against the policy
.suggested by Sir James Graham’s Report; while the latter is open to
the most serious objections, based not only upon the waste of time
which any attempt to carry it out must necessarily produce, but still
more upon its sudden, occasional, and arbitrary character, so little in
harmony with the general spirit of House of Commons procedure.
The preceding considerations may be briefly summarised as
follows :
The length of discussion to which it is thought necessary to
subject measures which are the object of party controversy has in
creased, is increasing, and does not seem likely to diminish. As a
result, the difficulty of passing such measures through all their stages
ill the course of one session has increased likewise. This difficulty
is especially felt in the case of long and complicated Bills, and it is
precisely in the case of these Bills that the closure of debate is most
ineffective as an instrument for facilitating the rapid progress of
business. It is, therefore, desirable to increase the power of the
House of Commons to deal with such measures; it is also desirable
to shorten the length of sessions, whose present duration overtaxes
�IO
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.
the endurance of members and embarrasses the machinery of admini
stration ; but it is not desirable, so long as any other alternative
remains, to increase the stringency of the existing machinery for
closing debate. Your Committee believe that if these three prin
ciples be accepted every possible alternative is excluded, except one
which shall relieve Parliament in certain cases from the necessity of
repeating in two successive sessions the same debate upon the same
questions. They attach no weight, for reasons above given, to any
objections that have suggested themselves to this plan, based upon
the relations now existing between the two Houses of Parliament.
They think the change, though undoubtedly an important one, ismuch less violent in character and much less at variance with the
spirit of Parliamentary tradition than some alterations which have
been made of late years in Parliamentary procedure; and they point
out that if, as they recommend, it be effected, by Standing Order
instead of by Bill, the experiment may be purely tentative, and could
be abandoned, should that course be subsequently thought desirable,
by the sole action of the House of Commons, without requiring the
consent of the other branch of the Legislature.
Adopted by the Committee after a division, by 11 to 8.
Ayes.
Mr. Arthur Balfour.
Sir Algernon Borthwick.
Mr. Chamberlain.
Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald.
Lord Hartington.
Mr. Jennings.
Colonel Malcolm.
Sir Stafford Northcote.
Mr. T. W. Russell.
Sir Edward Clarke.
Mr. John Talbot.
Noes.
Mr. Dillon.
Mr. Dillwyn.
Sir William Harcourt.
Dr. Hunter.
Mr. Labouchere.
Mr. John Morley.
Mr. Sexton.
Mr. Whitbread.
�SPEECHES.
Parliamentary Procedure.
February 21, 1882.
[The following resolution was moved by Mr. Edward Clarke:—
“ That it is desirable that the practice of this House should
be so amended that the consideration of Bills which have
passed a second reading, but have not become law, shall be
resumed in the succeeding session of the same Parliament at the
stage of committee.”
It was seconded and supported by Mr. H. S. Northcote, and
was opposed by Mr. Beresford Hope, Mr. Sclater-Booth, Mr.
Dodson, and Mr. J. Lowther. Upon a division, the motion was
rejected by 126 against 61.]
SiRj —It is hardly possible to expect that, after the exciting scenes
of the last hour and a half (the incident of Mr. Bradlaugh going
through the form of taking an oath and the debate thereupon), the
House will readily address itself to the motion I have put on the
paper. I will venture to say that a great deal of what I should otherwise
have to urge on the House in justification of the present motion has
been rendered unnecessary, because last evening the House addressed
itself to another part of the great question to which the present
motion is directed. We have already had the advantage of the Prime
Minister’s [Mr, Gladstone] powerful arguments bearing upon the subject
of the defects of our present rules of procedure—arguments based
upon half a century’s experience of the House. The question is one
of so much importance to the public interests that it is, I believe,
the duty of all parties, whether Liberal or Conservative, to endeavour
�12
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE»
to effect some remedy for the difficulties that beset the House at the
present time. The Prime Minister has dwelt on only one of the evils
that beset public business; he spoke of the manner in which the
progress of legislation was being impeded. He pointed out that
many Bills of great importance, after having been carried forward
several stages, are ultimately lost on account of the pressure on the
time at the disposal of the House. It is a great misfortune for the
country that many measures that have been fully debated and
thoroughly well considered are ultimately thrown away on account of
.the impossibility of finding time to proceed with them. But there
.is another matter of almost equal importance. The mode in which
the work of this House is done frequently causes measures to be
¡passed in so hurried and haphazard a manner that Acts are left on
the Statute Book which have not only been insufficiently considered,
.but are so badly expressed, that costly litigation is needed before
their meaning is ascertained and very often that is not the meaning
which their authors wished them to have. I have, Sir, heard it said
that the House of Commons ought not to do much in the way of
.legislation. It is sometimes cynically remarked that the less the
number of Bills that are passed the better it will be for the country,
...and it has been suggested that no change is advisable that would
lead to more legislation. But in the present system of elaborate
social relations there must be change, and all change involves and
requires legislation. It is my firm belief that many a measure which,
while in progress, produces Radical agitation, when it once becomes
law constitutes an element of Conservative strength, through the
Peeling of relief that the particular questions dealt with by it have at
last been settled. Mischiefs exist that have to be removed. There
are very few men in the House of Commons who have a thorough
acquaintance with, say, a particular trade or profession, or with a
particular portion of society, who, in objecting to further legislation,
do not make a reservation in favour of some one measure affecting
the subject writh which they are themselves familiar. Sir, no one can
deny the existence of a widely spread and well-founded belief that
Parliament is unable to do its work. Look at the present state of
jthe Bankruptcy Laws. I do not know any Act that^ was so much
wanted as a new Bankruptcy Act. All persons conversant with the
Bankruptcy Laws are at one as to the necessity for an amendment of
the law, yet year by year a Minister of the Crown comes forward and
�THE MISCHIEF AND THE REMEDY.
13
introduces a Bankruptcy Bill, the necessity for which has been
declared in Her Majesty’s gracious speech, and then when the end of
the session comes, he gives notice that the Bill will not be further
proceeded with; he puts it in his despatch-box, and preserves it
carefully for the next session, when the same farce is repeated. I
will give another instance. Last session the hon. baronet the member
for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) brought in a Bill
which was intended to consolidate the law on Bills of Exchange. It
was a thoroughly commercial question, and a question that had been
fully considered by the various chambers of commerce throughout
the country. I read the Bill myself, and found it was drawn in
almost the exact words of a judgment of one of the superior courts
of law. But what took place with regard to that Bill ? The hon.
baronet moved the second reading, and the second reading was.
allowed on the understanding that the Bill should not be carried
further, the hon. baronet being congratulated on its having advanced
so far. So the House went through the solemn farce of reading theBill a second time, without any intention of passing it, and knowing
that the same steps would have to be gone all over again the follow
ing session. All this is calculated to wear out the patience of the
public. The Conveyancing Bill of Lord Cairns, which was passed
last session, was a very important measure. It contained over seventy
clauses ; it came down to the House towards the end of the session,
and there was, I may say, a conspiracy of silence on the part of
members in order to make it possible that the Bill should pass. I
was entreated not to read the Bill, because, if any discussion should
arise, a single night’s debate would make it impossible for it to get
through the House that session. The measure only got through by
the sacrifice of certain clauses comprising somewhat debatable matter,,
and which I think were introduced last night in a separate Bill in
“ another place.” However, that Bill passed, and I do not believe
that twenty members of the House ever read it before it became law.
It was, I believe, a good Bill; but it is not satisfactory that even a
good Bill should pass without the knowledge and discussion and
approval of the representatives sent here by the constituencies to
discuss and decide these matters. Again, there was the Registration
of Voters Bill of 1878, which in its practical result has been of im
mense importance. It has largely increased a great many of the
constituencies of the country. My own constituency, which was last
�i4
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.
year 5600 in number, is now, since last year’s revision, 13,600, show
ing a greater increase than that made by the Reform Act of 1867.
What, Sir, happened with regard to the passing of that Bill ? In
1878 the Bill had been before a committee, and it came for report
before this House. Sections 1 to 21 were gone through without
any opposition or comment. Sir William Charley, then a member
of the House, objected that the Bill had only just been printed, and
asked that there might be some delay before its discussion was con
tinued. He interposed exactly at the right point, for sections 22
and 23 were those which have given so much difficulty to the courts,
and have, under the interpretation now given to them, so materially
affected the constituencies. The then member for Cambridge
(Mr. Martin), on the one side, and the hon. baronet, the member
for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), on the other, assured Sir
William Charley that no considerable change was made by the
provisions of the Bill. Their appeal was listened to ; the whole of
the sections were gone through that evening; the third reading was
taken on the following night; the Bill went up to the House of
Lords, where, as it dealt with the registration of voters for members
of the House of Commons, no great amount of attention was paid to
it; and the result has been an entirely unexpected extension of the
franchise, which, whatever its merits, ought not to have been
made in that way, but if made at all should have been made
deliberately by Parliament, with a full consciousness of what it was
doing. But, Sir, there is another, and a very serious mischief in our
present system, and that is the tremendous strain that is thrown upon
the members of the House themselves. A great many of them are
actively engaged in commercial and professional life, and to them, of
course, the strain of the long hour's the House is kept sitting, night
after night, is enormous. But that is almost insignificant compared
with the mischief of the burden upon Ministers of the Crown. Is it
not a monstrous thing that Her Majesty’s Ministers, who are
expected to perform the responsible duties of their offices during the
day, should be expected to attend this House from four o’clock in
the afternoon until three or four in the following morning ? The
marvel is that any one should be endowed with vitality and energy
sufficient to enable him to continue for years in this splendid slavery.
One of the great advantages which would be likely to follow from the
adoption by the House of the resolution I am offering to its accept
�THE MISCHIEF AND THE REMEDY.
ance is that there would be no necessity for the House to continue
sitting after 12 or half-past 12 at night, which would be a reasonable
time for the limit of our debates. Moreover, Sir, not only do our
present late hours heavily tax the endurance of Ministers and private
members, but they cause business to be done badly, and in a manner
which is by no means creditable to a legislative assembly. At 2 or 3
in the morning there is no pretence of adequate discussion of the
questions that come before the House ; and, worse than all, our
debates are almost wholly unreported. Practically, the proceedings
of the House cannot now be reported after one in the morning, and
within the last few days, as we have seen, it was only owing to the
enterprise of one great newspaper (the Times) that we were able to
have a full report a day later of the speech delivered by the leader of
the Opposition, and the reply of the noble Marquis the Secretary of
State for India, at the close of the debate on the Address. Now,
Sir, my proposal would deal practically with all the mischiefs that I
have indicated. The real difficulty of the House is that we are all,
whether Ministers or private members, competing just to get past a
certain point. If that point is passed, the Bill in which we are
interested becomes law. If we come short of that point, the whole
of our labour has to begin over again. There is one indefensible but
Very common species of obstruction to which the Prime Minister
did not advert last evening—namely, the persistent discussion of
matters which nobody cares about, in order to prevent other matters
which it is desired to impede from coming on. Valuable time is
deliberately and purposely wasted in order to keep up a debate until
a quarter to six on a Wednesday, when no decision can be come to;
and on many a dreary evening speakers go on repeating themselves
again and again, until the magic hour of half-past twelve arrives,
when nothing fresh can be entered upon. We should put an end to
that kind of obstruction by doing away with the temptation to prac
tise it. If we once provided that the House should be free to deal
with a Bill so obstructed when Parliament met again in February,
this kind of obstruction would practically be destroyed. For conduct
such as I have described excuse may in some circumstances be found,
but, Sir, I see no defence for the action of those who deliberately
waste the time of the House for the purpose of preventing Parlia
ment passing any measure at all. And I venture to urge upon the
House that these are valid reasons for adopting a substantial reform.
�16
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.
I would also call the attention of the House to the fact that every
Parliament proceeds by jerks; that it is cut up into separate sessions,,
as though when we have finished our work in July we had done with
the whole matter. So long as the machinery of legislation goes on in
that spasmodic, jerky way, a very great waste of time is inevitable. I
will take, by way of example, the Bankruptcy Bill, to the repeated
promise and postponement of which I have before referred. There isthe Bankruptcy Bill which the President of the Board of Trade intro
duced last session, and which we expected this session. There is no
security whatever that his present Bill will be in the form which it
took last year, and I will point out to the House this most inconve
nient result. Some two or three months ago, the Associated Chambers
of Commerce held their meeting, and one of the subjects they dis
cussed was the Bankruptcy Bill. If it had been known that we would
have the same Bill before us as in the previous year, the Associated
Chambers of Commerce would, no doubt, have discussed the
measure and proposed amendments which would have been of great
service to us in framing that enactment. But the President of
the Board of Trade said that he knew the Bill going to be intro
duced would differ in some respects from the last one, and thus
the whole of what I might call the consultative power of the
country was thrown away. That was the case with the Associated
Chambers of Commerce. But let us take another instance—the
Rivers Conservancy Bill. That is a measure of very great interest
to the Chambers of Agriculture, and county members of this House
going back in the autumn to their places in the country would have
the advantage of hearing the opinion of their neighbours on the
subject • but, although I believe that the proposed Bill is to be the
same as that formerly introduced, we have no assurance of that, and
without such assurance we never can obtain that advantage of local
discussion and popular opinion. I think, Sir, it would be a very
good thing if any Bill dealing with a subject of general importance
were brought in in one session and passed in the next, for then hon.
members would have an opportunity of conferring with their con
stituents, and in the following session they would be enabled to bring
their ripened opinion—their completed knowledge—to the discussion
of the measure. The proposal that Bills should not require to be
introduced afresh each session is not a new one, or one for which I
am originally responsible. In 1848, and again in 1861, this question
�iy
THE MISCHIEF AND THE REMEDY.
came before the House and before a Committee of the House of
Commons, as well as before the House of Lords. And here I would
venture for a moment to digress in order to say that, in my belief, it
is of the greatest moment to the country that the position of the
House of Lords should be properly appreciated as an integral part of
the legislative body. I do not understand the jealousy which exists
between the two Houses, or why there should be jealousy at all. It
is perfectly well known that the House of Lords contains men who
have served their apprenticeship in the House of Commons ; but the
House of Lords is discouraged, systematically discouraged, by the
action of the House of Commons towards it. Take the course pur
sued by the Government with respect to the Rivers Conservancy Bill,
upon which the other House bestowed a great deal of trouble. This
complaint has been made and repeated over and over again, and the
other House is deterred from beginning legislation, because it is prob
able that in the helter-skelter of July their labours will be sacrificed;
while, on the other hand, in July, Bills are sent up to them by dozens
when it is impossible for them to give them proper attention. Well,
in 1848, a Bill was introduced in terms somewhat similar to my own
resolution, enabling Bills discussed in one session to be proceeded
with in the next by the other House, subject always to this restric
tion—that when a measure had passed both Chambers it should be
Sent back to that from which it originated, so that if opinion respect
ing it had changed in the meantime that Chamber might have an
opportunity of recording that change. That Bill received the support
of the late Lord Derby; on the 5th of July 1848, it was read a
second time in the House of Commons, and Lord John Russell, who
was then the leader of the Liberal party in this House, suggested
that the Bill should only be a temporary one, because in case it did
not prove effectual for the purpose desired, it would otherwise be
impossible to rescind the Rule without the assent of both Houses of
Parliament. The Committee reported as late as the nth of August
that they did not advise the acceptance of that Bill; but they put
their advice on this ground—that it would introduce a material
change, and, as the session was drawing to a close, they had not
time to consider the effect of material changes in the procedure of
the House. Again, in 1869, a proposal on the subject was made in
“ another place.” On that occasion the Marquis of Salisbury made
a speech, to an extract from which I invite the attention of the House.
B
�aS
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.
“Owing,” said he, “ to a rule of the Constitution, the origin of which
nobody can discover, and of which it is impossible to say more than
that we find it here, if when August comes your labours have not
.advanced beyond a certain point, those labours must be abandoned
as far as legislation is concerned. All that you have done goes for
nothing. If a Bill has been considered in great detail by a Select
‘Committee, the Committee must sit and go through the details again;
if it had to face a powerful opposition, all that opposition must be
faced again. All the work, all the debates, all the enormous labour
which attends the passing of any change, however small, in the laws
which govern us must be gone through again, in order to reach the
goal which you had nearly reached when the prorogation arrived.
Now is there in the nature of things any reason for this practice ?
Does it commend itself to any man’s common sense ? Do we act
in this manner in any other department of life ? Supposing you made
it a rule to give up writing letters at a certain hour, would you throw
all unfinished ones into the fire, or begin next morning at the point
where you left off? Is there any body of men, in any kind of busi
ness, that adopt what I must call this senseless practice, that whatever
you have not finished by a certain time you must begin again, next
year ? I have never heard any reason for such a rule. There is
nothing but the bare inert weight of unmeaning custom to justify a
principle which wastes so much of the labour and utility of Parliament.’*
Sir, the plan which I put before the House is already in operation
in France. It is subject to certain conditions there, and perhaps
limitations may also be required here, though I confess I do not
perceive any necessity for them. My plan is that a Parliament
■should be treated in all its sessions as one Parliament; and not as a
•series of separate Parliaments, or as if the sessions were water-tight
■compartments, designed to prevent Bills getting from one to the
other.
I think, Sir, that the Bills which this House has to deal with may
be divided into three classes: first, there are the political Bills;
secondly, the Departmental Bills ; and, thirdly, private Members’
Bills. Political Bills, like the Irish Church Bill, for example, are
usually introduced by a Government with a strong majority at their
back, and, consequently, such measures can be forced through
Parliament in the course of a single session. My proposal would
therefore not affect in the least degree measures with which the
�TUB MISCHIEF AND THE REMEDY,
19
existence of the Government of the day was bound up. Departmental
Bills are for the most part independent of Party considerations, and
they are, in point of fact, practically prepared for the most part by
the permanent officials of the various departments. These Bills
would be assisted most substantially by the adoption of my proposal.
At present we are reduced to the necessity of putting on the Statute
Book a series of fragmentary Acts of Parliament. We are obliged to
do so, because if the Minister were to consolidate the laws on any
subject into a new Statute he would have a Bill so considerable in its
dimensions and giving rise to so much debate that there would be
Very little chance of squeezing it through in a single session. As an
instance of this, I may advert to the criminal code, although that
cannot properly be styled a departmental measure. The late AttorneyGeneral (Sir John Holker) took a great interest in it; three of the
btst lawyers in England were for a long time engaged in getting it
into shape; but it is almost hopeless to expect that any measure of
that importance and magnitude can be passed through the House of
Commons unless there is a power of continuing legislation from
session to session. With regard to the Bills of private members, no
doubt many of them are trivial, and ought never to be entertained by
the House. I hope, therefore, that if my proposal were adopted the
House would revert to the old practice of considering very carefully
Whether leave should be given to a private member to introduce a
Bill. There would be no hardship in requiring a member to explain
the provisions of his Bill in the first instance. One objection urged
against my plan is that it would cause a great number of Bills to be
introduced, and that there would be a great deal too much legislation.
My answer to that objection is that I do not think there need be any
fear of that result. The English people are not likely to submit to
too much legislation. We had a remarkable proof of this at the elec
tion, which changed for a time the position of political parties, in the
year 1874. It was the impatience of legislation which sapped, under
mined, and eventually destroyed, the power of a Government which
came into office with so great a majority in 1868. I do not think it
has ever been suggested that there was any real reason for the with
drawal of the confidence of the country from that Government except
the rapidity with which it had proceeded with legislation. The legis
lation required by the country is really Conservative in its tendency;
but, as matters now stand, people are irritated at the defective
�20
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.
machinery which delays legislation on questions that ought to have
been dealt with long ago. I will not particularise any Bills which
have been so delayed, because it would divert the discussion from the
general issue. But of this I am quite certain, that there are at least
half a dozen Bills which have been accepted by the House in principle
over and over again, and which some day must become law, but the
delay in the passing of which is causing great irritation to the country,
and is a source of weakness to the Conservative party. It would be
desirable, as well in the interest of political parties as in that of the
country, that those Bills should be passed, and come into operation
with the least possible delay. It so happens that I am submitting
my proposal immediately after the discussion of other resolutions
with regard to procedure. I must not, of course, revert to arguments
which have been used in that discussion, but I believe that if my re
solution were adopted it would make quite needless the more strin
gent measures which are now proposed. Private Bill legislation is
included -within the terms of this motion, but I am aware that there
are difficulties with regard to that. My experience of Private Bill
legislation is that it is extremely well done, and that the tribunals
which deal with Private Bills are quite competent and decide with
great fairness and promptitude. But instances are constantly occur
ring in which promoters are obliged to submit to clauses, and make
compromises, enormously expensive, and which seriously interfere
with the benefit of the works proposed, in consequence of the know
ledge that a few days’ delay would destroy the benefit of all the work
done during the session. However, Sir, for the moment I wish to
rest this proposition on the larger issue, that it would be of benefit to
public legislation. One great merit it has is its simplicity. If it
should become necessary to fight the question of Parliamentary Pro
cedure before the constituencies, there is no question upon which I
would more gladly challenge their judgment than upon the merits of
the proposal I now make. It possesses the great advantage of neither
disturbing nor interfering with the traditions of the House. It would
not require that the Government, or any other authority, should be
entrusted with any extreme or exceptional powers ; and, above all, it
has that merit which cannot justly be attributed to the other pro
posals which have been submitted to the House, that it is pre
eminently simple and intelligible. I beg, Sir, now to move the reso
lution which stands in my name.
�THE MISCHIEF AND THE REMEDY.
21
Extract from Annual Address to the Electors of
Plymouth at the Guildhall.
January 3, 1889.
I mentioned two years ago the subject to which Sir Edward Bates
has again called attention, and I said then that it would be needful
to rearrange the rules of Parliament in order to carry through legis
lation. That was done, and certain alterations in the rules of Parlia
ment were made. To a certain extent they have been successful.
There has been, as I feared there would be, a greater need for the
use of the closure, arising from the fact that the closure was in exist
ence. Whenever you provide a remedy for mischief you encourage
mischief to go on until the remedy is applied, and I am afraid that
the same observation will have to be made as to some of the remedies
which are now proposed. Sir Edward Bates has reminded you that
in the House of Commons we have been afflicted by certain members
who are in the habit of speaking a good many times in the course,
not of the session only, but of one evening, of even one debate, and
he has suggested that a rule should be adopted by which in com
mittee of the House of Commons a member should only be allowed
to speak once, and he should only be allowed to speak ten minutes,
unless, indeed—and I confess I think it was a very large and generous
exception—he were a member either of the present Ministry or of a
past Ministry, and then, I presume, he would be unlimited in the
time or number of his speeches. I am afraid such an exception
would be much too large to allow the rule to be effectual; but I
must confess that I do not see in that direction the best hope of im
proving our Parliamentary affairs. Suppose we were to make a rule
that no member should speak more than once in Committee of Supply,
and that he should only speak for ten minutes. If you had twenty
members willing to speak they would all speak for their ten minutes;
and the fact that there is a ten minutes’ limit would be a justification
to them for occupying the ten minutes in the observations they would
make, and if you got a series of ten minutes’ speeches in Committee
of Supply it is absolutely impossible, with our present arrangement
�22
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.
for discussing the financial affairs of this country, that you could put
any effective limit on the length of discussion at all.
We have coming before the House of Commons volumes of
estimates, page after page of items of expenditure by the country,
which are all brought under the review of the House of Commons»
and all have to be voted by its authority. It is competent to any
member of the House to propose, with regard to any item in these
votes, whether it be a vote of a million or two for the payment of
seamen, or whether it be an item of payment of ¿25 for the wages of
a charwoman at a public office, it is competent to any member to
move that the sum be reduced by ^20, ^10, or ^5, as he may
think proper, and upon that motion every member would be entitled
to make his ten minutes’ speech. And I very much fear that by
making a procedure of that kind systematic we should rather aggra
vate than decrease the difficulty we are now in.
Sir, I confess that I think if this matter of dealing with the
estimates, and the enormous time occupied by them, is to be dealt
with by Parliament at all, it will have to be dealt with in a far more
courageous way. The fact is, there is a popular belief that the
House of Commons is the protector of the financial interests of the
people, and that the House of Commons prevents the people being
taxed too much. I assure you it is a great mistake. It is not the
House of Commons that keeps down the Estimates. It is the
Ministry that does so; and if you take the trouble to read through
the discussions which go on in the House of Commons upon the
Estimates when the House is in Committee of Supply, you will find
that almost every speech that is made, is made in the direction of
encouraging a larger expenditure than that which is proposed by the
Ministers of the Crown. Those who want to keep down expenditure
do not talk; if, indeed, there are any of them. Those who want to
enlarge the expenditure, by increasing the vote for particular services,
are continually pressing these matters on the attention of the Ministers
of the Crown. I had not intended to deal in any detail with this
matter to-night, but after the observations that my hon. colleague
has made with regard to it, I should like to say a word or two more
on this, which, I agree, is a very important subject.
The first duty of the House of Commons undoubtedly is to grant
supplies, and in granting those supplies its members are granting not
their own money only but the money of the people at large. It is
�THE MISCHIEF AND THE REMEDY.
23
the duty of the House of Commons to be vigilant and watchful,
whilst there should be no extravagance on the part of the Ministry.
But, although the Ministry may be extravagant because it is incom
petent, because it undertakes tasks which are beyond its strength
with the means it has at its disposal, or because its members have
not a thorough knowledge of the work which they are entrusted to
do, you may depend upon it a Ministry is never extravagant because
it desires to spend a good deal of money. It is so unpopular a thing
among the constituencies that the last thing a Ministry desires is to
increase the amount that it calls for from the people in taxation.
But although the House of Commons is entitled to deal with the
matter of Estimates that have to be voted for the services of the
country, it is a very serious question whether a far better plan might
not be devised by which the Estimates should be considered and
revised. I should be very loth myself to allow it to pass from the
direct authority of the House of Commons. I would rather run the
risk of some expenditure of time which occasionally appears extra
vagant than allow the Estimates to be dealt with in any way which
prevented there being a watchful criticism over expenditure. But
if any change were to be made at all, I confess I think a change
should be made in this direction, that there should be a somewhat
large committee on public expenditure. That committee should
consist of men representative of the different sections of the House
of Commons, and contain upon it the present and past representa
tives of the Treasury—that is to say, the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
the Secretary for the Treasury, and the First Lord of the Treasury
for the time being, as also their predecessors in office—but not
contain any other Minister in office. And then before that committee
the chiefs of the great spending departments might come and be
interrogated by the committee as to the reasons for the proposals
which they were making for public expenditure. I am sure with
regard to any important matter in the Estimates a half-hour’s crossexamination by the committee of the Minister who was responsible
for the expenditure would be much more effective in checking
extravagant proposals, and, what is equally important to the country,
in justifying to the country proposals which were seriously and
wisely made, than ten hours spent in discussion in the House of
Commons, whatever rule with regard to the length of speech might
be adopted.
�24
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.
I think it might well be that all the Estimates should pass before
that committee. But there are one or two things which should be
steadily insisted upon. No committee ought to have any power to
increase an Estimate. If it had power to increase Estimates the
responsibility would be gone from the Ministry to the committee,
. and the whole system of Ministerial responsibility would be lost. It
should have the power to cut down the Estimates, and in that case,
and that case only, should there be any power of appeal to the
House of Commons. I think in that way the Estimates of the
■ country might be dealt with. But I should not be hasty in proposing
the adoption even of that course, dhere is no other to my mind
which is practicable and safe, but I confess I would rather go on
running the risk of lengthened debates and the occupation of a good
deal of Parliamentary time, than I would allow direct control of the
Estimates to pass from the review of every member of the House of
Commons.
I think, and I have always thought, that there is another way of
dealing with this matter. I do not believe myself in any very great
extension of the rules of the House of Commons which imposes
(.punishment on people who are breaking in on our debates and put
us to difficulty. The fact is there are too many people in the House
of Commons who would think it a creditable thing to be called to
order and to be punished, to make the imposition of any such rules
of any great value. You know what my view always has been with
regard to this matter, and I think always will be. A great deal, of
this waste of time is not intended simply for the purpose of harassing
.and vexing the House of Commons. It is intended for the purpose
of preventing laws being passed which might be creditable to the
Ministry, and by passing which the Ministry might obtain repute in
the country. The real source and secret of this obstruction, practised
in the House of Commons in past sessions, and which became
intolerable in what I may term the permanent session during the
year just gone by, is the knowledge on the part of those who so
obstruct that if they can only keep Bills off until the end of the
session in which they are talking, those Bills will have disappeared
for a time, and will have to be started fresh again in the next session
of Parliament.
There never has been an illustration so complete as the last
session has given us of the need for that proposal, which I have made
�THE MISCHIEF AND THE REMEDY.
25.
■over and over again, and will make over and over again, whenever I
get the chance, that the Bills which we have left unfinished in one
session we shall take up and try and finish in the next. And I am1
sure if those who obstruct our proceedings and waste our time knew
that the result of their action would be not to defeat or get rid of theBill, but only to postpone its discussion until the following February,
when the House would take up that same Bill again, the heart would
be gone out of obstruction and we should have got the best solution
of the difficulty. Let me give you an instance or two of the import
ance, as shown during the last session of Parliament, of this proposal.
Let me mention one Bill. You know very well how often I have
referred to the wish that I had when I first went to the House of
Commons, a wish which has strengthened with every year that has
since gone by, to put an end to that barbarous system in the
administration of our criminal law by which the prisoner who is
charged with an offence has his lips closed and is not allowed to give
evidence on his own behalf. It is an absolutely and utterly inde
fensible piece of barbarism, and for the last twenty-two years there
has been a growing opinion upon the subject. Parliament and
lawyers of any experience and knowledge have come to the unani
mous conclusion that it is our duty to do away with this blot upon
©ur administration of justice. Well, we have tried to do it year after'
year, and what is it that stood in the way ? The House of Commons
is anxious to accept the Bill, has accepted it in principle already.
The House of Lords has been urgent in trying to pass the Bill, and
has sent it twice down to the House of Commons. How is it wehave not been able to pass it ? Why, we find that the Bill, brought
in, discussed, and carried through some of its stages, cannot be got
through the House of Commons because of the obstruction which
takes place upon other matters. It is not a Bill so large as to
involve the fate of Ministry, or it would have been passed long ago,
nor so small as to escape observation, or else, perhaps, it would have
got through like one or two little odds and ends of Bills that did
scramble through in the last days of the session just gone by. But
as it is a Bill which does attract attention, but does not involve the
fate of a Ministry, it is obstructed, and this Bill which we brought in
in 1888, to the discussion of which we gave some considerable time,
and the second reading of which was accepted by a large majority of
the House of Commons, has again gone. And if next session we
�.26
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.
find an opportunity of introducing it, as we intend to do very early in
the session, we shall have the same risk that those who do not
oppose that Bill, but who want to hinder us in passing other Bills,
will make that Bill the excuse for long and persistent discussion, and
so again we may find it postponed to another session and the whole
time of Parliament wasted.
That is a strong instance, but let me give you a more remarkable
and important instance still. One of the great regrets of the members
of the Government in the past session was that we did not succeed in
passing the Employers’ Liability Bill. There is no Bill of greater
value to the working people of this country than the Employers’
Liability Bill. When I went to the House of Commons first as
member for Plymouth I found an Employers’ Liability Bill under
discussion. I took my share in that discussion, and though, as you
know, I was sitting on the Opposition side of the House, I worked
then as well as I would have worked if it had been proposed by one
of our own leaders, to get that Bill passed in a satisfactory form. But
I pointed out to the House of Commons in that discussion, that
when you are passing a Bill that deals with the interests of working
men, that Bill ought to be as simple and straightforward as possible.
Any complication means going to law, and going to law is the last
thing which any wise man should think of, especially if that wise
man happens to be poor. Well, the Bill was passed, not in so
simple a form as I should like to see, but still in a form which was
of great advantage to the industrial population of this country. And
I am sure that the result is shown in a decrease in the number of
accidents from which workmen have suffered, a greater care and
anxiety on the part of employers to provide means of protecting their
workmen from accidents, and a greater care, also, in employing men
who are thoroughly competent.
So far it has been a great advantage. But it has been marred and
hindered in its beneficial effect by the necessity of the working man
going to law in order to enforce his rights. When an accident
happens in a factory, and a poor man has his leg broken, and is laid
aside for several weeks, his wages are stopped, no means are coming
in to him, and it is scarcely possible for him with any hope of
success to set a lawsuit on foot against his employer. If he does,
the employer very often belongs to an insurance company. The casts
.is handed over to the insurance company, and the officers of that
�THE MISCHIEF AND THE REMEDY.
27
company have legal advice, and know all the technicalities and difificulties of legal procedure; and the consequence has been that
although that Act has had an indirect effect of a very great value in
imposing more care upon employers, it has not had nearly so large
an effect as I and others hoped it would have in securing the pay
ment of money to the men who are injured. The fact is, a great
deal of money disappears between the man who ought to pay it, and
the man who ought to receive it, and I leave those present to specu
late on the direction in which that missing cash has gone.
I heard of a case the other day where a man brought an action
against his employer under the Employers’ Liability Act. He
succeeded in that action, and got a verdict for ^45. The cost to
the employer out of pocket was ^150. The man himself who brought
the action got in his pocket £15. The whole of the rest of the money
had gone in legal costs, and my belief is that the best thing that could
possibly happen with regard to this is first to reduce the technicalities
of the law with which you are dealing, so that there shall be fewer
pitfalls into which an experienced lawyer can lure the plaintiff against
whom he is retained, and further, and more important still, that you
should, as far as possible, try to substitute for the legal liability of
the employer the liability of an insurance fund, to which the
employer shall himself contribute. If you have an insurance fund
all this difficulty of legal cost is gone. If a man’s leg is broken, and
the man belongs to an insurance fund, his allowance will be paid to
him without reference to any difficult legal question as to who was
responsible for causing the injury. In the Bill which was brought in
by the Government for the amendment of the Employers’ Liability
Act we in the first place, in many respects, simplified and improved
the procedure. I need not enter into details, but the intention was,
and the result would have been, to make it less dangerous, less risky
for a man to go to law upon this matter. In the next place, we put
in this clause. At the present time, as the law now stands, an
employer can contract himself out of the Act. If a man goes to him
and asks for work an employer can say : ££ Yes, I will employ you on
condition you make an agreement with me that I shall not be liable
to you under the Employers’ Liability Act.” It is not a contract
that is very largely made, excepting in certain particular occupations,
but as the law now stands that is a contract which can be made.
We proposed in one clause of that Bill to say that no employer
�28
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.
should be allowed to contract himself out of that Act, unless he had
subscribed to an insurance fund, in which the man was to be insured,
which would provide compensation for all accidents, however occur
ring, and unless also the subscription of the employer to that fund
was equivalent to the liability which would rest upon him if he had
been bound by the Employers’ Liability Act itself.
That is an extremely difficult clause to frame, but the aim and pur
pose of it was to improve the administration of the Employers’ Lia
bility Act, while allowing to remain in existence such great societies
as that society which exists on the London and North-Western Rail
way, in which all the employés of that line are insured. But what
has happened to that Bill ? It was accepted on its second reading
by the House of Commons ; it went down to be discussed in Grand
Committee, and I had the pleasure of assisting the Home Secretary
while the Bill was before that Committee. We discussed it for
several days, and I believe came to sound and reasonable decisions
upon the matters before us. Then it came up again for discussion
in the House of Commons, and then objection was made to it. It
was opposed; there was a long debate; and the result was that
towards the end of the session the Government had to abandon all
hope of passing it, and to content themselves with passing a con
tinuance Bill, which leaves the old Act, with all its defects, in opera
tion, and we have not even the opportunity of taking that Bill up
again at the stage of committee when the House of Commons meets
again next year. If we want to deal with it we shall have again to
introduce the Bill, again have it read a first and second time, and
discussed all over again in Grand Committee or in the House itself,
at an expenditure of time which, I fear, will be so great as may inter
fere with the opportunity of passing that Bill at all. And that is the
result of a rule which treats as waste paper all the work we did not
succeed in finishing.
Printed by Ballantyne, Hanson
London and Edinburgh-
Co.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Parliamentary procedure : the mischief and the remedy
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Clarke, Edward, Sir [1841-1931]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 28 p. ; 20 cm.
Notes: Includes reprint of Report of Committee of 1890, of which Clarke was a member. Printed by Ballantyne, Hanson & Co., London; Edinburgh. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Stevens & Haynes
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1896
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N087
Subject
The topic of the resource
Parliament
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Parliamentary procedure : the mischief and the remedy), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Great Britain-Parliament
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/a35fbe05e1d227e9bbd50ed4c02966c1.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=HX5emtoTyNY0xe%7EHYh2xMbpj4kmZXGiunQFLEjOIX4%7ER-iv3JmZZxgxH4vzv6tEoOPI-SCRqcTFZKSUywQqLJFPUEJz3tiANqsieaY4hs2oYnYTJD4owBu8wsyb94r61V2YLngH68l%7EsP1NIE-PwgnKE51RexF08NjN%7Eog85VD-BKMat2ZPu8lu6uVBVo1EwEJCUei%7Ex11Kml63BLm7EB2YCXD%7EZKSB5JbIPK2kXCxgEtwNO8JTQgA82iXwejJDK86BJffiA-j9KcWcQcXTb-RePIOQCxSg4PUt06J20Z8CK-PLkjGAUBPJdS1U3HG1IBzRUVzmhFhPoFKmAD-3tAQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
73a7bbcac8f4ed308ef30826f903fb82
PDF Text
Text
PROPOSAL
FOR ESTABLISHING
A CHEAP, JUST, AND EFFICIENT MODE
OF
Elating itUnxbirs uf Wrfamtnf,
AND FOR
SECURING THE JUST AND EQUAL
REPRESENTATION OF THE WHOLE PEOPLE.
WILLIAM LOVETT.
LONDON
WATBELOW AND SONS, PEINTEES, CAEPENTEBs’ HALE, LONDON WALL.
1869.
��PROPOSAL, &c.
1. That for the purpose of obtaining an equal repre
sentation of the whole people in the Commons House of
Parliament, and for preventing as far as possible the
undue influence of great and wealthy families, or of
individuals who would seek to control the voter in his
choice, the United Kingdom be divided into a sufficient
number of Electoral Districts, each containing as nearly
as may be an equal number of inhabitants, and each
returning one representative to Parliament and no more.
2. That all persons of legal age, sound mind, and
untainted by crime, who have occupied any house,
lodgings or apartments in a house for three successive
calendar months, be eligible to vote for the repre
sentative to Parliament for the district they live in, and
for no other.
3. That preparatory to every general election the
returning officer of the district should cause a printed
form to be sent round to every householder in the
district, requesting him or her to fill up the same with
the names of all persons, of the age of 21 or upwards,
who have resided there for three months or more ; and
from which forms, when returned, he shall cause a list
of electors to be made out. That after proper publicity
�4
be given to this list, he should hold open courts of adju
dication in his district, for the purpose of hearing and
deciding on all objections, and from the list thus revised
he should cause a Voter’s Certificate to be sent round to
every person qualified to vote.
4. That to secure members of Parliament possessing
high intelligence and good moral character, all persons
seeking this high honour of legislating for a nation (or
for filling other important offices of State) should be
required to pass an examination, showing that they possess
the requisite knowledge and ability, and should hold a
diploma to that effect before they should be entitled to
offer themselves as candidates, or to take their seats in
Parliament, or be appointed to any important office.
5. That the knowledge requisite for members of
Parliament (or for the offices referred to) should be
clearly set forth in a special Act of the Legislature, and
the mode pointed out by which persons seeking such
high honour or place of trust, should present themselves
before Public Examiners, which (roverTi-merit should
appoint to meet at stated times and places ; and persons
who shall prove their ability and fitness before such
examiners, according to the provisions of such Act,
should obtain a diploma to that effect.
6. That every nomination for a member of Parliament
should be made by a written requisition, delivered to the
returning officer, and signed by at least one hundred
electors belonging to the district, who, in recommending
their candidate, should be required to certify to his
�5
moral character, and also that he holds a diploma of
having passed an examination to prove that he possesses
the requisite knowledge and ability required by law.
7. That to prevent all undue influence, bribery and
corruption in the election of members of Parliament,
the votes of the electors should be taken by Ballot;
the present expensive, unjust, and bribing mode of can
vassing for members should be abolished by law, and
persons punished for having recourse to it; and all
Committee or other meetings for the election of mem
bers held at Public Souses be done away with, as having
heretofore been the cause of much undue influence,
riot and disorder.
8. That to do away with the present disgraceful and
costly mode of electing members of Parliament, which
excludes the representatives of the working classes, and of
all persons, however competent, who have not the means
of purchasing their way to power ; it should be the duty
of Parliament to enact, that a sufficient number of
Pistrict Salls, or commodious buildings be erected in
every voting district, to be used as permanent hustings, or
voting places ; the same to contain a sufficient number
of committee rooms, and a large hall for public meetings
and voting place ; the rooms to be used for public meet
ings, lectures, evening schools, or other district purposes,
when not needed for the elections. That all candidates
for seats in Parliament should have the free use of such
halls during the election; such as the use of the large
hall, or balcony in front, from which to address the
electors in their turn, and the use of the committee rooms
�6
and voting place, so that the only expense needed to he
incurred by candidates would be that of printing their
litis and circulars. The erection and repair of such halls
should be paid for by the inhabitants of the district,
and be managed by them.
9. That previous to the day of election, the large
room in each of the said district halls should be fitted
up with moveable fittings, in order to secure secrecy in
voting, and justice and despatch in receiving and regis
tering the votes given for each candidate.
The plan of
the fittings in such voting place is shown in the model
to which this paper is attached.
10. That a sufficient number of lallot loxes be pro
vided for each voting place—one for each of the candi
dates nominated—and formed on a plan for securing
secrecy in voting, and at the same time for registering the
votes given, so that the deputy of the returning officer
might be able accurately to announce the state of the
poll at the end of the election, without the necessity of
any counting of the votes. The model of such a regis
tering ballot box is hereto attached.
11. That the returning officer of the district should
be required to appoint a deputy to set in front, behind the
ballot boxes, at each voting place on the day of election,
to see that the voting is conducted orderly and fairly,
and to cause all persons to be arrested that attempt to
vote unfairly, or seek to promote disturbance. It should
also be his duty to show the accredited friends of the
candidates the register of the ballot boxes before and after
�7
the voting, and to see that the correct numbers given
for each candidate are posted up on the outside of the
building, at the end of the election. In order that the
friends of the candidates should have the opportunity
of seeing that the voting is conducted fairly, they should
be provided with seats immediately behind the deputy
returning officer.
12. That every elector entering the voting place on
the day of election, should be required to show his
voter’s certificate to the registration clerk at the entrance
A ; and if it be found correct, he shall be allowed to
pass on and receive from the deputy returning officer’s
assistant a balloting ball at the entrance B ; when he
should enter the balloting place C, and with all despatch
drop his ball into the box of his favourite candidate ;
the name and colours of the candidate being placed on
each box to guide him. After he has thus given his
vote he should pass out of the balloting place by the
door D. The table before the deputy returning officer
should be inclined outwards, and the arrangements
within so constructed, that the ball, in whatever box
deposited, should roll down the middle of the table
in front of the deputy to be ready for the next voter ;
and thus, should any elector make use of any other
balloting ball than the one given to him, it will
roll out and lead to his detection before he leaves
the room.
The deputy might also be provided with
different coloured balls in the drawers of his table,
so that he might change the colour whenever he
thought proper, and thus more effectually guard against
unfair voting.
�8
13. That any person convicted of registering Ini in self
in more than one voting district; of forging or using
any forged voter’s certificate, or of trying to vote in any
other district than his own; or of going from house to
house, or place to place to canvass for the votes of
electors, or in any other way contravening the electoral
Act, should, for the first offence be subject to one year’s
imprisonment, and for the second the loss of his electral rights. Also that any candidate employing persons
to canvass for him, or should seek to secure his election
by bribery; or by intimidating or using any undue in
fluence over an elector, or otherwise contravening the
Act, shall be subject to one year’s imprisonment and the
loss of his seat for the first offence, and for the second,
the loss of his electoral rights, and to be for ever after
disqualified from having a seat in Parliament.
14. That in order to obtain properly qualified persons
as Legislators ; men disposed to devote their sole time
and attention to their parliamentary duties; instead,
as at present, often dividing their time between their
private business and their parliamentary duties ; or in
regarding the honour of their seats as passports to
fashionable society ; members of Parliament should be
paid for their services by a writ on the Treasury, the
same as any other officers of State.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Proposal for establishing a cheap, just and efficient mode of electing members of Parliament and for securing the just and equal representation of the whole people
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Lovett, William
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 8 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Waterlow and Sons, printers
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1869
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5621
Subject
The topic of the resource
Parliament
Suffrage
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Proposal for establishing a cheap, just and efficient mode of electing members of Parliament and for securing the just and equal representation of the whole people), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Chartism
Conway Tracts
Representative Government and Representation
William Lovett
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/50cf2cf40fb931e977a8c5e8a1170031.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=E-4YK7nO2A6y6pXh6tdOmDsRdQSf-e%7EfrOBTjLGcpLzk4EUwW6njyx8U1bNypi6MSr%7EGxzJACkHfiCyroxFN9E75vIcuVosrRbi5TfsKPCdSk25Igyo2VzYoZ6gmrqAHIQsSKSD7bEbWmPqDwlkzDAMs4jo8ndBDXZaZvcdCtYGCn3PvE0q-TAbTNha4nFQ6U8Wih7e-0C6-FtnyWdTCROnAV1pdetnOFZ22x6QZl8ImOpV2qkpv825qiTwduym00PqkC674I09f10MuES8qxei2chsLa0PP8I09lCxfrDZxeDC66uFodF37STcqfPe8o7Gx5tCDV8wmcrbaXqSdvg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
93d4f534a0457a89a0204bf8b32214d2
PDF Text
Text
*
AFFIRMATION
BILL
. REASONS WHY IT CANNOT BE
PERMITTED TO BECOME THE LAW OF THE LAND
CONSIDERED AND STATED.
IN A PUBLIC LETTER ADDRESSED
TO THE
Right
The Speaker of the House of Commons
Snti to all
T U L L I A N.
Justutn et tenacem propositi virum
Non civium ardor prava j ubentium,
Non vultus instantis tyranni,
Mente quatit solida ;
Hor. hi. Odes iii. I.
LONDON:
DAVID BOGUE, 3, ST. MARTINS PLACE,
TRAFALGAR SQUARE.
��NATIONAL secular society
THE
AFFIRMATION
BILL.
REASON’S WHY IT CANNOT BE
PERMITTED TO BECOME THE LAW OF THE LAND
CONSIDERED AND STATED.
IN A PUBLIC LETTER ADDRESSED
TO THE
Right Hon. The Speaker of the House of Commons,
Slntr in all its fKemtiers.
BY
TERTULLIAN.
Justum et tenacem propositi virum
Non civium ardor prava jubentium,
Non vultus instantis tyranni,
Mente quatit solids ;
Hoe. iii. Odes iii. I.
LONDON:
DAVID BOGUE, 3, ST. MARTIN’S PLACE,
TRAFALGAR SQUARE.
�4
SECTION
EAGE
whose one sole chief end of his being would seem to be to make
himself as widely known as possible as the man who denies the
existence of GOD, and the consequent possibility of any religion.
34
IX. A second brief word touching the horns of a comical dilemma of which
the supporters of Mr. Bradlaugh will be compelled to make the
best that they can................................................................................. 35
X. The near view of the precipice.. ................................................................ 35
A Word in Conclusion.
If every Member of the House of Commons has bound himself to the
duty of defending the Throne by his having sworn his Oath of
Allegiance, how will such Member be able to vote for the removal
of one of the principal safeguards and defences of the Throne in
any other way than by the perjury of his Oath ?
... 39
�THE AFFIRMATION BILL:
REASONS WHY IT CANNOT BE SUFFERED TO
BECOME THE LA W OF THE LAND.
Eight Honourable Sir,
There cannot be a better proof of the honour and
dignity which the Empire of Great Britain confers upon
those who inherit by birth and social standing the privilege
of being its citizens, than the liberty of speech which is their
birthright, and of which it must be their constant solicitude to
prove themselves worthy, by the care they are seen to take
not to overstep in their use of it, the limits of justice and
becoming respect for all its constituted authorities. It is,
then, this privilege of freedom of speech which is the
English citizen's highest honour, so long as he studies not
to abuse it to unworthy ends, that enables one who other
wise would be but a humble and retiring member of the
commonwealth, known only as a person engaged in the
usual pacific employment of his everyday life, to take up
his pen to address the Speaker of the most eminent and
powerful legislative assembly, which is known to the civi
lized nations of the world. How great this assembly is over
which you, sir, so worthily preside in the name of the
Majesty which sits on the time-honoured Throne of Eng
land, the laws emanating from it, whose jurisdiction com
prises a far wider expanse of the territory of the earth than
that which two thousand years ago was subject to the rule
�6
of the far-famed. Senate of Rome, bear their ample and
world-wide testimony.
When St. Paul had the privilege granted to him, by
way of a special favour, that he might have a public hearing
for his cause before the King Agrippa who happened at
that moment to be a distinguished visitor of the Roman
procurator Festus, whose prisoner Paul was, this was to
him a source of the most real rejoicing. Now he knew
that he should be at least able to plead his cause and give
an account of himself in the presence of one whose ears
would be open to listen to him as an obligation of public
justice. But he had even a still stronger reason for re
joicing than this. He knew that he was to plead before
one, who, by reason of his Jewish education and his know
ledge of, and respect for, the Sacred Scriptures, was both
able and willing to give, that which must ever be the
highest good to the public speaker, after that of having
a just and religious cause—the most appreciable boon of a
right-minded and intelligent hearing.
It is in a like
manner a source, to the present writer, of a similar unfeigned
satisfaction to know, that his Englishman’s birthright, his
freedom of speech and his right to raise his voice, in season
and out of season, in defence of the cause of God and of his
country—-procures for him the honour of pleading his cause
in the hearing of one, to whom, as Speaker of the House of
Commons, the true and lasting welfare his country will ever
be the supreme rule and guide of his judgment.
He may not, indeed, hope that it should be given to
him to emulate the eloquence of the Apostle, but he may
hope to be found not to fall too far below the inspired
model that is before him in point of courage and fidelity
to his cause. From the Apostle he may learn that it can be
the duty of a Christian to resist any adversary, even one,
the excess of whose confidence in his own powers stands.
�7
forward in a singularly marked contrast with the infamy
and abjection of the designs which he is pursuing.
The Tertullian whom he ventures to take as the especial
model and pattern of his undertaking, has put before man
kind the example,—that with a view the better to secure a
calm and dispassionate hearing for the many remonstrances
which belong to his cause and its pleading, there may be
circumstances when it will be the wisest course to trust
entirely to the efficacy of what he calls the “ occulta via
tacitarum literarum,” the retiring method of silently advo
cating his cause in writing. This is, then, his choice. His
cause is too grave and sacred for the counter recourse to
a rival antagonist, noisy clamour of street gatherings, and
to further poisoned vehemence of the partizan oratory
specially designed and prepared for them.
Elijah on the Mountain Horeb was witness to the strong
wind that passed over the mountain and its effect, but
“ the Lord was not in the wind’-’—then followed the earth
quake, but “ the Lord was not in the earthquake/-’—then
after the earthquake there came a fire, but “ the Lord was
not in the fire.” After all these had passed, there then came
the “still small voice,” and this was the voice of the Lord
(1 Kings xix. 12).
In the phenomena which have already manifested them
selves in Mr. Bradlaugh’s short career, a very little gift
of discernment is all that is needed to perceive, at least the
first beginnings of the same calamities about to be visited
upon the kingdom and people of England which are wellknown to have desolated the neighbouring land of Erance
for the whole of the present century. In the wind is
figured the storm of atheistic impure and revolutionary
doctrines, which have been desseminated with an evil energy
on purpose to carry away the masses of the population
from all the ancient hereditary landmarks and strongholds
�8
of the Christian religion, as well as to make war on the
boasted belief of the English people in the inspiration of the
Bible as the Word of God.
These atheistic impure and revolutionary doctrines are
planned to prepare the way for the “ earthquake/'’ which
will first manifest itself in the overthrow of the right of all
private property, the fruit of legitimate industry and labour,
and in the sinking of all in one level of indiscriminating
communism. To this will be added the abolition of the
sanctity of family life, and the establishment in its stead
of the brute beast state of promiscuous concubinage, falsely
honoured with the inviting but appallingly deceptive name
of socialism.
But as nothing can subsist any length of time that
presumes to place itself in an attitude of defiance to the
Law and the Will of the Divine Creator and Sovereign
Lord of His Creation, the state of things which will follow
the contemplated earthquake of communism and socialism
is aptly figured by the pregnant term “ fire.’"’ “ Eire^ is a
word that expresses far more if left to stand by itself than
would be gained by attempting a commentary. Nor will
it serve the cause of the profane and impious mockers of
sacred truth to say, that the day for believing in the Bible is
past; mankind has been held long enough in bondage to
its pious and totally vain terrors. Let these impious
scoffers account for the phenomenon of one of the most
distinguished poets of the present or indeed of any century,'
giving the form of his imperishable verse to his perfectly
similar provision of the kind of future which is in store for
the nations where the storm of revolutionary doctrines is
allowed to have its free course to work out their destructive
issues. I may now be allowed in the present state of our
knowledge of German to cite the lines in the original, to
which no translation can render adequate justice :
�9
Da werden Weiber zu Hyiinen
Und treiben mit Entsetzen Scherz;
Noch zuckend, mit des Panther’s Zahnen
Zerreisen sie des Feindes Herz.
Nichts heiliges ist mehr, es losen
Sich alle Bande frommer Scheu,
Der Gute raumt den Platz dem Bdsen
Und alle Laster walten frei.
Schiller’s Lay of the Bell.
Such is the future prospect for human society under the
ascendency of the career, the beginnings of which Mr.
Bradlaughhas,by the sheer strength of the rage which displays
so much power of moving forward to its evil ends, for the
reason which the Scripture gives, because it knows “ that its
time is short.”
The former, Tertullian, it may be easily perceived, had a
very different task before him from that which lies before
the writer who succeeds to his name. The Christian cause
then was comparatively weak in numbers, but it was strong in
mind, and was, in the main, lion-hearted in the presence of
its rival and persecutor—the great Imperial power of Rome.
This power is known to have elected to throw all the weight
of its administrative action to the propping up the falling
cause of the idolatrous popular religion. The present
moment, it must be confessed, appears to have witnessed a
strange phenomenon of a totally contrary kind—a temporary
paralysis of all the ancient Christian statesman-like courage
and discernment of the nation. We wonder what has become
of all the vigorous independent power of thought and
judgment which has, in all great emergencies, been known
as the chief honourable mark and sign of the true English
man. Numbers, whose ruling characteristics are to be
sought for in their feebleness, cowardice, and helplessness,
it must be borne in mind, cannot possibly be the strength
of any cause however good in itself. On the contrary, they
a 3
�IO
are the incurable weakness of their cause, whatever it may
be. Nothing can possibly lead cowards to victory.
We must be extremely careful, however, how we risk a fall
into a most serious error. We must not mistake for cow
ardice what it is incomparably more reasonable to suppose
can be in reality nothing more serious than a momentary
and passing fit of stupor. Such a stupor it is quite easy
to conceive might be for a time occasioned by the unex
pected and unparalleled effrontery of one single man,
destitute of any single qualification other than that of his
present unexampled boldness in daring to offer himself as
the leader of a public cause. It is too terrible a thought to
have to contemplate even the possibility of a cowardice which
renders a whole multitude, comprising the entire wealth,
property, and education of the nation, incapable of stirring
a hand or foot in the defence of all that they are bound to
hold to be dearer to them, even than life.
The moment for waking up must come ! The Roman
poet, indeed, has given utterance to a very undoubted
truth—
Qui sibi fidit,
Dux regit examen.
But Heaven save our country from the depth of its
fall over the precipice which is being prepared for it. It
must be absolutely impossible for it to be true that the
educated classes of Great Britain can have come into the
condition of consenting to be the mindless swarm, helplessly
led in obedience to his will, by the atheist, Bradlaugh.
The task, then, for the Tertullian of the present time is
the quiet, unpresuming labour of a patient remonstrance,
addressed to the higher intelligence of the nation, which
may be most truly said to find its honourable represen
tative in yourself, as the Vicegerent of the Throne, and the
Speaker or President of the chief really great Legislative
�11
assembly of the world at the present time. His work has to
offer itself as the “small still voice” of Divine truth, opposing
itself to the noisy clamour of the streets, and calling all who
love their country and who, as legislators, are responsible to
God and the throne, to seek its true prosperity in the only paths
in which it is to be found, the fear and honour of God. He has
the honourable task of asking them to weigh well and consider
the exceeding great issues about to be placed before them.
It is then with this weighty task resting upon him that the
Tertullian of the present hour ventures to crave your
attention for the truths which he now proceeds to submit
to consideration, in the order in which they are laid out to
view in the Table of Contents.
I. The inevitable degradation, in the eyes of the whole world, which
an Imperial Legislature must submit to incur, if it should be
seen to have legislation forced upon it by a mere mob outcry
confined to a simple handful of its own towns.
The Legislature of Great Britain, as it is almost out of
place in an ordinary citizen of the land to venture to sub
mit to those who are its legislators, is a “ city set on a hill
which cannot be hid.” 'Whatever its legislative acts are—
wise, just, and statesmanlike as every true citizen of the
empire will always desire that they may be ; or extorted
from its unworthy fears, by a noisy and godless clamour
outside—nothing can be more certain, than that such as
the acts of the Legislature of Great Britain may be, they are
passed under the destiny of being carried by the newspaper
press to the knowledge and judgment of all the civilized
nations of the world.
It has again often been said that the Imperial power
of Great Britain stands upright in the world not so
much by the force of its armaments, which are less
than those of other nations, as by the known solid
a 4
�12
character, both of its legislature and of its executive
government.
The virtues of truth, firmness, and justice
are honourably recognized in the world at large as placing
British power above the reach of being swayed by the voice
of faction, or of being misled by mean and unworthy
motives. In this respect the history of the present times
only repeats the lesson of former periods. In the ancient
military Rome, the empire of the city over the nations is
seen in her history to have been firm and stable so long as
the Senate of Rome was able to impress upon the nations
the universal sense of fear, and respect for the justice, capacity,
and inviolable fidelity of its senators. And in proportion
as the respect of the nations for the Senate of Rome, which
appears almost always to have been willingly given, was
rendered no longer possible in consequence of the too
manifestly feeble and unmanly character of the Senate itself
and its public action, the power of Rome over the nations
then began to dwindle away, until it at length died out.
What can be a more fatal sign of the danger of an irrup
tion of a similar spirit of disastrous degeneracy into the
Imperial Senate of the British Empire, than that it should
be universally seen to be willing to suffer itself, even for a
moment, to submit to the disgrace of allowing a mere mob
leader outside itself, to dictate to it what its legislation is to
be or what it is not to be ? How is this manifest proof of
-degeneracy to be possibly concealed from the rest of the
-world ? Will not the other nations at once take up their
parable against Great Britain, and say to her, “ Art thou
-also become weak as we ? Art thou become like to us ?
Thy pomp is brought down to the grave; the worm is
spread under thee; the worms cover thee.’7
Yet it is the boast of Great Britain, that as the Assyrians
■were the Romans of the early civilization of the world, so
’Great Britain is the Rome of the living world. And this
�13
resemblance of the English character to that of the ancient
Romans, the conquerors, legislators, and peacemakers of the
world, has been very remarkably recognized by an extremely
distinguished French writer, the Compte de Champagny.
In the first volume of his history of the Empire of Rome,
he says that John Bull has always appeared to him to
be the younger brother of Romulus. Accepting, then, a
testimony which is as honourable to the giver as it must be
gratifying to the receiver, allow me to pass from my first
point, by citing an example of the manner in which the spirit
of ancient Rome could reject with the sternest indignation
the very thought of accepting the least legislation in obedience
to an external dictation. The passage of history occurs
in the eighth book of Livy, § v. and runs as follows :—
“ A certain Annius, a native of the municipality of Setia
(now Sezza), on the confines of the Pontine marshes, came
to Rome in the year of the city 415, as the legate of the
Latin Confederacy, to demand that one of the consuls of
Rome should be chosen from Latium.” The Senate paid
the Latin envoy the mark of deference to hold a special
assembly for the purpose of hearing and considering his
demand, which it would appear that Annius made in an
extremely confident and peremptory manner. This attempt
to dictate to Rome what its legislation ought to be, so
stirred the Roman spirit of Titus Manlius, the consul, as
to cause him to rise up from his seat there and then, and
to exclaim aloud, “ that if any such madness could come
upon the conscript fathers that they could be ready to take
their laws from a man of Setia, he would come himself
into the Senate house, sword in hand, and with his own
arm slay any man of Latium whom he found in it?"’
The senators of your honourable assembly, Mr. Speaker,
will hardly fail here to perceive that the Lucius Annius
above mentioned as the representative of the entire Latin
�14
Confederacy^ contrasts more than favourably with the man
who has outraged the Christian religion of the entire
nation by his impious denial of the very existence of God.
And yet the Rome which at that time repelled Lucius Annius
was only a city in the Latin Confederacy; without the least
prestige of any sort or kind to maintain in the sight of the
wide world. Notwithstanding this; Rome; the simple isolated
city; standing by herself; is seen to have made it a point of
honour to herself to repudiate so much as the thought of
submitting to the least approach of dictation from without.
II. A great and fundamental change of the law is proposed to be
introduced, subversive of the entire religious constitution of
the empire. Is there one solitary spokesman representing the
property and education of the empire, who is known to have
directly called for this change ?
When Esther; the Persian Queen; fell down before
Ahasuerus; to intercede for the life of her people; the
King in amazement asked her, “ Who is the man, and what
is his power; that he durst presume in his heart to do this
thing
The whole of the education and property of the
entire empire asks itself the question in a perfectly similar
amazement; Who is the man, and what is the secret of
his power; who has been able to prevail so far; as to cause
a formal proposal to be entertained by your Honourable
Assembly; to take the initiative step to bring about this con
templated subversive change in the time honoured constitution
of the kingdom ?
Great legislative assemblies; it is undoubtedly true;
have been known to have been led into their legislative
acts by the voice of one man.
The life of the late
Mr. Wilberforce affords a remarkable example of this kind.
The counsels of the nation unquestionably suffered them
selves in the end to be moulded in conformity with the
�policy of which for some time he stood alone by himself as
the advocate. But between the case of Mr. Wilberforce and
that of Mr. Bradlaugh, where does the shadow of a parallel exist
that can be perceived ? In the one instance we have the man
of piety and religion, pleading the cause of the natural right
of an oppressed race to their liberty, and step by step, through
his assiduity, his patient eloquence and powers of persuasion,
winning over the thoughtful religious men of the nation to
befriend his cause, which indeed was that of suffering and
downtrodden humanity. In the other, we see the man of
impiety and irreligion, by his own avowal the profane dis
believer in God and the despiser of His laws, the advocate
of no known cause, except that of his own wild will to
break through the barrier which the existing immemoria
constitution of the kingdom places in the way of his
ambition. Is this the man to mould the counsels of an
empire ?
Bor the sake of this man, however, it is now proposed that
a sacred, ancient, and immemorial religious landmark of the
Christian religion is to be removed. Can it be shown that
this man has won over so much as a solitary representative of
the independent property and education of the country to
desire the proposed change for its own sake ? The extreme
suddenness, added to the intrinsic impiety and irreligion of
the proposed change, may doubtless have produced a momen
tary sense of stupor and paralysis, and for a time have kept
back the expression of the deep-seated horror that is enter
tained against it. But in the nature of things, the stupor
and paralysis will pass away, while the horror and the
detestation will remain.
�i6
III. The Prime Minister is seen to be reduced to the humiliating
position of the humble slave of Mr. Bradlaugh’s dictation. The
question to come before the Legislature will be, will it elect to
become a participator in the Prime Minister’s humiliation ?
No doubt that it would be perfectly possible fortlie Prime
Minister, if he were honestly to elect to come before the
empire of whose destinies he has been raised to be the chief
arbiter, as a convert of conviction to the denial of God—to
which alone his new protege owes the degree of unhappy
notoriety which he has gained—to make good by such an
avowal his claim to be Mr. Bradlaugh's free, noble, and
most enlightened patron. In this case, nothing could be
more unjust and unfounded than to attempt to breathe a
word about the Prime Minister being the slave of Mr.
Bradlaugh's dictation. He might then say to Mr. Bradlaugh,
Welcome brother in unbelief and in the contempt of God
and his law. Too late in life have I learned the folly and
emptiness of my former belief in the inspiration of the books
of the Bible. What might I not have spared myself if I
could have come earlier to share in your illumination. But
henceforth, at least, I shall be able to walk arm in arm with
you in the light of day, emancipated from all the vain
superstitions and empty dreams of my previous life.” If
Mr. Gladstone would only come before his country with a
full and open avowal of the errors and deceptions of his past
life as a religious man, and profess himself to have become
henceforward a free and enlightened follower of the
“ Fruits of Philosophy” of his new political associate, we
could then perfectly understand his position.
But nothing of this kind is suffered to appear. Mr.
Gladstone is known through the pages of the Graphic as
one who thinks himself honoured by being permitted to
wear a surplice, and to deliver before a lectern in his parish
church the lessons from the books of the Sacred Scripture,
�the reading of which in- the presence of the people is an
appointed part of the public offices of prayer in all the
national sanctuaries. It is, of course, simply intolerable to
associate the name of Mr. Gladstone in such acts as those
described, with the thought of any possible histrionic ritual
exhibition of himself, or any hypocritical performance gone
through for the purpose of acquiring a reputation for
religion. No ; the Prime Minister, like all the still sound
part of his countrymen, is a believer, ex animo, in the books
of the Sacred Scripture, as containing the Word of God
spoken to man for his guidance and direction, and for his
instruction as well in the lessons of wisdom that are good
for the present life, as in the wisdom which teaches and
smoothes the way to the promised heaven of the life that
is future.
But the merest tyro in the knowledge of the truth that
is contained in the books of the Bible knows as well as
possible that nothing in the world can be further removed
than Bible truth from observing the least thought of
neutrality towards the class of men of whom it is Mr.
Bradlaugh-’s boast, not merely that he is an advanced
specimen of their genus, but that he is a distinguished
and foremost champion of their speedy exaltation to political
power and pre-eminence. Mr. Bradlaugh may be a short
lived hero in the eyes of the mob-following which he has
gathered about himself, but before the judgment of the
Sacred Scripture, he is nothing more than “ the fool that
“ saith in his heart there is no God” (Ps. xiv. 1). He
belongs to the class of those of whom God says, “ I will
“ beat them as small as the dust before the wind ; I will cast
“them out as the clay of the streets” (Ps. xviii. 42). He is
but one of the men of whom the inspired word says, “ He
“ loved not blessing, therefore it shall be far from him; he
“ clothed himself with cursing as with a raiment, and it shall
A 3
�18
“ come into his bowels like water, and like oil into his bones”
(Ps. cix. 16). Of such men as he is, the word of God
in the Bible exclaims, (< O my soul, come not thou into
“ their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou
‘‘united” (Gen. xlix. 6).
With such sentiments as the above, which meet our eye
in almost every page of the inspired volume, and with a
Prime Minister who professes in public his belief in the Bible
as the Word of God, what bond of real friendship and mutual
confidence can, by any possibility, unite him and his Govern
ment to the cause of Mr. Bradlaugh ?
Plainly none! If the religious Prime Minister of Great
Britain has consented to espouse the cause of Mr. Bradlaugh,
there can be but one explanation : Mr. Bradlaugh has become
the master by the sheer force of his boldness and firm
tenacity of purpose; and the Prime Minister, fearing for
the security of his own hold of power, has consented to
become the servant. Mr. Bradlaugh holds the instruments of
torture, and says—
If ihou ncglcctest or dost unwillingly
What I command, I’ll rack thee with old cramps, &c.
And the Prime Minister of the greatest of existing empires
replies—
No pray thee,
I must obey; his art is of such power.
Tempest, Act i. sc. 2.
IIow far more noble would have been the Prime Ministeps
position—what an infinitely more lasting title to the grati
tude of his country he would have earned—had he taken the
following all but inspired lines of the Roman poet for his
rule of policy :—
Ac veluti magno in populo qtium ssepc cooi'ta cst
Seditio, sajvitque anirnis ignobile vulgus,
Jamquo faces et saxa volant, furor arma ministrat.
Turn pictatc gravem et meritis si forte virum quern
�19
Congpexere, silent, arrectisque auribus adstant.
Iste regit animos dictis et pectora mulcet.1
BEneid i. 148.
Alas, then, we have but to say, alas for the fall of a great
man—Would that charity could throw a veil over his fall !
But his fall is the danger of the constitution of the kingdom.
To minor political adversaries who may be disposed to mock
at his fall, it might justly be said, “ Howl, fir tree, for it
is the cedar that is fallen.”
But still, if the cedar is
fallen, it is a matter of the highest import that the tree
should lie where it has fallen, and that it should not be
allowed to draw others after it to be the partakers of its
fall.
IV. An atheist faction conspiring to undermine the ancient religious
constitution of the kingdom could not hope to succeed in open
warfare. To gain their ends, therefore, its leaders have been
compelled to take recourse to a juggle and fraud of words.
The atheist faction having to their great joy, in all
probability not a little mingled with surprise, gained over
an adherent in the Prime Minister, practically fallen from
his religious belief, has still to encounter an obstacle of no
ordinary magnitude, which by some means or other has to
be overcome before any benefit can possibly be derived from
their unlooked for conquest in the surrender of the Prime
Minister.
To awaken the dormant religious energies of the nation
3 “ As oft when micl’st the multitude has ris’n
Sedition, rage in heart the ignoble crowd ;
And now stones, torches fly—what fury finds—
If chance some venerated sage they view,
In sober sanctity severe, at once
Mute, motionless, they stand around,
He rules with salutary words their minds,
And mollifies their breasts.”
Beresford’s Version.
�20
and to call these into life by the faction letting their
scheme come to be discovered before its time, would be
totally to shipwreck their design.
There is even yet an
energy of religion in the land and a vigour of action sur
viving among the people who still retain their old traditional
veneration for the sacred volume, that it would be perilous
in the extreme for the faction to do anything whatever
calculated even to awaken suspicion, much less to rouse these
up into wakefulness and action.
For this end the leaders of the faction in question propose
to have recourse to a manifestly unscrupulous, if not, after
all, so very crafty a fraud and juggle of words. The fraud
is really not so surpassingly profound but that it may be
quite readily seen through and detected, even by any
ordinarily attentive observer. Nevertheless, its devisers
evidently rely upon its being accepted by what they
appear confidently to expect will be, the imperturbably
guileless and unsuspecting simplicity of the great multi
tude of the good and peace-loving people whom it is
their intention to deceive by it. That the Prime Minister
himself should be held to be a bona fide participator in this
guileless unsuspecting simplicity of the multitude, on which
the faction place so much reliance, this not even his most
deeply fascinated admirers, will find it a very easy task to
persuade themselves. But let this pass, and let us have
the intended juggle and the fraud of words, on which all
their hopes are to be embarked, placed before us in the light
of day.
This, then, consists in their purpose of attempting to
palm off the ordinary common affirmation of daily life (the
only affirmation which an atheist can possibly have the
power of making) for the “ solemn” affirmation which is in
its very nature an act of religion, and therefore not capable
of being performed by any man who does not profess his
�2I
belief in God; as St. Paul says, as “ existing and as being
the rewarder of those who seek Him” (Heb. xi. 6).
Their trick, then, is to dress up their jackdaw atheist
affirmation in the feathers of the jay, and to try to pacify
the religious people, always well disposed to ease and quiet,
by saving to them, What would you have more, you good
religious people ? Have we not given you, for your com
fort, a SOLEMN affirmation ?
Loes any one, however, in his senses, suppose for a single
moment that the Prime Minister is deceived by this jack
daw atheist affirmation ? Singular, it certainly is, that the
atheist faction should have ever proposed to dress up their
jackdaw in the feathers of the jay to try even to make
it pass off with the simple people ; just as if after being thus
dressed up, it could possibly in the nation of things be the
real solemn affirmation which is the exclusive act of the man
of religion ! Have they, then, really thought all the world
to be nothing but absolute simpletons ?
Or have they,
perchance, been so lifted up with the conceit of the towering
height of their own intelligence, that it has never occurred
to them that compliance with their fraud could be by
any possibility refused.
V. A reason briefly stated, why it can never be anything else than a
conscious act of the most deliberate, barefaced fraud to attempt
to palm off the affirmation of an atheist as even capable of hav
ing any thing in common with the SOLEMN affirmation of the
man of religion.
A gulph or chasm, it is nevertheless true, and this of an
impassable width, separates the affirmation of the atheist
(which nothing that he has at his command can by any pos
sibility cause to become solemn) from the affirmation of the
man of religion, which is made solemn by the fact of its
being an act of his religion.
�22
A very few words will suffice to make it clear in what
this impassable gulph consists. Let us take for our test
case the oath of allegiance. This is what is known in law
as the “ juramentum promissorium.” It is a sworn promise
of true allegiance to the person and prerogatives of the
monarch, confirmed by the formula, “So help ms God,”—
Or, as the same would be expressed more fully—So help me
God as I truly keep my promise, and so avenge Thyself
against me, God, as I may forswear my promise.
Between this oath and the true “ solemn affirmation”
there is virtually no difference whatever. The religious
man affirming solemnly has the form of words which he
scruples on grounds of religion to utter remitted; but the
understanding is nevertheless clear on both sides—viz., on
the side of the proponent of the affirmation and on that of
the person who makes it—that the person affirming appeals
to God to reward or to punish him according as he promises
or affirms truly or falsely. The “ solemn affirmation” is thus
perceived to be lifted up above the ordinary affirmation by
the appeal made in it to God, which differs only in the par
ticular form of words used from the similar appeal made to
God in the ordinary oath.
Now everyone must see there is nothing of this nature to
be found in the atheist’s affirmation to lift it up above the
level of the affirmation of ordinary life.
The atheist can
know of nothing in the whole of creation higher than him
self. The God of Heaven and the Creator of the Earth can
indeed swear by Himself, because He alone can know nothing
higher than Himself by which He can swear, as St. Paul
tells us (Heb. vi. 13). But if the forlorn and abject atheist,
in the judicial blindness of his pride, were to claim the
right to say, “ I also am able to make a solemn affirmation,”
all that he could possibly hope to gain thereby would be to
exhibit himself to the derision of every man of understanding.
�23
No man of sense could see in liim anything but a contemptible
caricature., trying as a perishable worm of the earth to put
himself on a level with the Eternal Sovereign of the Universe;
while hoping to be able to make himself the passing wonder
of the moment, for the few fools who for the time being
might be deceived into a little shortlived marvel at his daring.
But this is somewhat to anticipate.
A brief survey of
the practice of swearing the oath of religion in the past
history of mankind must now engage our best attention. It
is indispensable to the completeness of our subject, and not
impossibly it may bring to light some few details of antiquity
not commonly known, and not without their own claim to
prove of interest to their readers.
VI. A brief survey of the reasons which render the swearing of an
oath of religion indispensable to the well-being of all civilized
society, with a rapid glance at the history of its immemorial
practice at every known period of the world.
The reason why the practice of swearing the oath of reli
gion is indispensable to the well-being of civilized society,
as well in public or political as in private life, is very easily
given. It is seen at once to come under the rule of St.
Vincent of Lerins, “ Quod ubique/’“ quod semper/-’ “ quod
ab omnibus?'’ That which exists everywhere, which has
always been, and is received and accepted by all, is placed
thereby beyond the reach of controversy or doubt. The
oath of religion is no invention of yesterday, but is as
old as the civilization itself, which, from our earliest records,
is known as simply unable to exist in a condition of well
being without it.
The reason of this inability to dispense with the oath of
religion, which is understood and known all over the
world, is found in the necessity for truth as the basis of all
the human society which aspires to lift itself up to any
�^4
degree of civilization. The Word of God says : “ Who shall
dwell upon Thy holy hill?—even he that speaketh the truth
from his heart (Ps. xv. 2); and, as regards public life, the
same Word says, “ Open ye the gates that the righteous
nation that keepeth the truth may come in” (Isaiah xxvi. 2).
Precisely the same sound is that which is echoed back from
all the great voices of the Gentile world. Pythagoras being
asked, “ In what men in their actions can become like to the
gods,” answered “ If they speak the truth” (Stob. Fiori, xi.
25). Pindar says—
AX«0«a Svyarijp Awe.—(01. xi. 4.)
Truth the daughter of God.
Cicero says that the foundation of justice is good faith—•
that is, the firmness and truth of all that is said, and of every
thing that is matter of compact (Off. i. 7). Csecilius, the
jurisconsult, in his dispute on the subject of the laws of
the Twelve Tables with Favonius the philosopher, says:
“ The Roman people, by the sedulous practice of every kind of
virtue, rose from a very small beginning to their marvellous
extent of power; but above all their virtues they ever
studied, in the first place, to cultivate good faith, and
always held good faith to be most sacred and holy in both
public and private life” (A. Gell. xx. i. 39.) Quintilian
says : “ Fides supremum rerum humanarum vinculum est
good faith is the supreme bond of human business.
But this truth and good faith, thus pronounced to be so
supremely needed, exists now no longer by nature in
human society, since the footing which the devil, the father
of lies, has been permitted to gain for himself in our world.
David says: “ I said in my ecstasy, all men are liars”
(Ps. cxvi. 12), which St. Paul confirms in the words : “ Let
God be true, but every man a liar.” It is under this
supreme need of truth, beset as it is by the ever present
peril of falsehood, that the entire human family, from the
�25
earliest existing record up to the actually present hour, in
every known civilized nation under the sun, has discovered
no other recourse than the invocation of the Supreme God
of heaven—not, however, excluding the lesser celestial
powers—to which invocation we now give the name of an
OATH, known to the Greeks as op/coc, and to the Komans
as “ juramentum, or jusjurandum?'’1
The oath, then, consists in the solemn formal invocation of
God as witness of the truth and good faith of all that
is spoken, and as the avenger of any falsehood or breach of
faith that may subsequently be committed. The oath,
consequently, is at one and the same time both a prayer for a
blessing and the imprecation of a curse; it is a declaration of
the love of truth and of the hatred of a lie. It is a calling upon
God, who is believed to be present, to the effect that He
should deign to prosper the speaker in so far as he speaks the
truth, and to punish him in the same degree as he may speak
falsely. An oath, says Cicero, is “a religious affirmation
of which God is the witness” (Off iii., 19); a little
after adding, Nullum vinculum ad adstringendam fidem,
jurejurando majores arctius esse voluerunt; id indicant leges
in duodecim tabulis, indicant sacratse,” &c. (Off iii., 31).
Our ancesters have provided by law no power more binding to
secure good faith than an oath. This is shown in the laws of
the Twelve Tables, and in those known as sacratae, (i.e., to
the non-observance of which a ban was attached).1
To create the binding force, then, of the oath, it becomes easy
to perceive in what way two distinct motives have to concur.
1 The following are Greek testimonies to the necessity for the Oath as the
binding power of political society:—
To avvsxov -n}v Sr)p.oK.paTiav opKOQ sari. “That which holds the State
together is the oath?’ “ Lycurgus adv. Leocratem,” p. 79. povov in op leaped a
ffyvXaK-njpiov rov opicov Kai tt]v e7riKX7]ffiv riSv deZv.—We have provided for our
only protection the oath and the invocation of the Gods.—(Themistius Orat.
XXI.)
�26
And these, indeed, equally concur in the case of every human
virtue. There must be as the foundation—faith in the ex
istence of God and of His presence and power—to which
succeed, in due order (1) the wish to please Him and to
earn His promised reward by acting with loyal truthfulness;
and (2-) the desire to escape the penalty to be incurred from
His anger against deception and false swearing.
Without
these two grounds there can be no oath.1
If an objector should here attempt to argue that the
great facility, added to the incessant actual occurrence of
the perjuries which have been known in all ages, abun
dantly proves the futility of trusting to the protection of
any oath, nothing could be more absurd. Fidelity to the
obligation of an oath is the virtue to which perjury is
attached as its correlative vice.
But then, in the
same way, drunkenness and incontinency are the vices
attached to the virtues of sobriety and continence. Yet to
what man in his senses could it ever occur that the
practice of sobriety and continency were to be abandoned as
superfluous because of the existence of the vices opposed to
them.
The perfect love and fear of God would doubtless
suppress all perjury, and give increased value to the binding
power of an oath for the great improvement of human
life. But then it would do exactly the same for the
suppression of all the other vices, and give a wonderful
1 The accustomed form of the conclusion of the oath among the Greeks as
numerous inscriptions which have been found upon various public monuments,
was the following:
“ evopicovvTi p'tv pot ev eh], ttycopKouvri Se e£<i>Xeia Kai aiirip Kai ytvei
Tip
spoil.”
(May it be well with me if I am true to my oath, but if I forswear myself, may
utter ruin come upon me and all my race).
This is the formula of the oatn which Demosthenes swears in his Oration de
Corona.
�27
impulse to the contrary virtues. Only our world is without
the perfect love and fear of God, and yet we do not there
fore abandon all thought of the practise of virtue as an
impossible chimera.
The ordinary economy of the government of God in
dealing with both the virtues and the forfeits of those who
swear His oaths, may be easily seen to be conspicuous in
an eminent degree for its efficacy and considerate wisdom.
His rewards for the faithful observance of the obligations
contracted are neither so openly manifest as to assume the
character of a bargain, nor are the punishments for falsehood
so certain as to provoke impious and daring contumacy and
resistance. There is sufficient concealment of both the one
and the other to leave men on the one hand in full possession
of their liberty, and on the other to try and prove their
fidelity and attachment. It is clearly his perceiving the
above truth that has caused Solomon to say: “ Because
sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily,
therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them
to do evil; nevertheless, though a sinner do evil a hundred
times, and his days be prolonged, yet surely I know that it
shall be well with them that fear God, and which fear before
Him : but it shall not be well with the wicked, neither shall
he prolong his days, which are as a shadow; because he
feareth not before God^ (Eccles, viii. 11).
With the above judgment of Solomon the voice of man
kind in general has never been otherwise than in the most
complete accord. It has ever borne witness that a marked
prosperity has, on the whole, been well-known to attach to
the faithful observance of an oath, while a contrary marked
career of mishap and misfortune has always, on the whole,
followed in the wake of false swearing and perjury. Pindar
says ;—
IloXXai 5’ oSol
Suv S'eotf evirpaliiag.
�28
The favour of the gods is the way to every sort of good
fortune; and in the extravagant caricature which Aristo
phanes appears to have been prompted to make of Socrates,
Strepsiades, in questioning him upon the subject of the
nature of thunder, expresses the universal sense of the
Athenian world that the perjured man was the certain object
of the anger of the gods :—
tovtov
yup Sr) <j>avep&£ 6 Zei>£ iija’ erri tovq STriopicovQ ("Nub.” 397.)
At least it is clear that Jupiter hurls this (thunder)
against those who forswear their oaths.1
Cicero again admits that the Greeks were possessed of ex
cellent doctrines as regards the obligation of an oath, but they
had to come to the Romans for examples of their doctrines
being carried out into practice
De Oratore,’-’ iii. 34), and
Quintilian says the same: “ Quantum Grseci praeceptis valent
tantum Romani, quod est magis, exemplis” (xii. 2, 30). And
the corresponding result is patent on the face of history. The
Greek cities soon lost their autonomy and independence,
while the Roman power, founded on its love for truth, came
to be so firm and stable that it advanced in the world at
large, without any effort at seeking this, to acquire from all
the nations the attribute and character of eternity.1
2
Herodotus, in his history, happens to relate an anecdote
of a certain Glaucus, which sums up in so singularly de
scriptive a manner the vivid sense that has pervaded the
whole human race, that perjury cannot possibly go un
punished, that I must ask leave to relate it in the words of
Herodotus’ own narrative. “ One Glaucus, a citizen of
1 Compare “Iliad IV.” 166 and “JEneid XII.” 894.
2 Cicero has the following testimony concerning the faithlessness of the Greeks
to their oaths :—Hoc dico de toto genere Graecorum; tribuo illis litteras, do
multarum artium disciplinam, non adimo sermonis leporem; ingeniorum acumen,
dicendi copiam, denique si qua sibi alia sumant non repugno ; testimoniorum
religionem et fidem nunquam ista natio coluit, totiusque hujusce rei quae sit vis
quae auctoritas, quodpondus, ignorat.—(Orat. pro. Flacco, iv. 9.)
�29
Sparta, had a great reputation for justice, which induced a
citizen of Miletus to deposit a large sum of money in his
care, to be given to whoever later on should present the
tokens agreed upon • Glaucus received the money on these
conditions. After a long time had elapsed the sons of the
man who had deposited the money came to Sparta, and
having addressed themselves to Glaucus, and having shown
the tokens, demanded back the money. Glaucus repulsed
them, answering as follows : I neither remember the cir
cumstance, nor does it occur to me that I know anything
of the matter you mention, but if I can recall it to my
mind I am willing to do everything that is just; and if,
indeed, I have received it, I wish to restore it correctly ;
but if I have not received it at all I shall have recourse to
the laws of the Greeks against you. I therefore defer
settling this matter with you for four months from this
present time. The Milesians, therefore, considering it a
great calamity, departed as being deprived of their money.
But Glaucus went to Delphi to consult the oracle; and
when he asked the oracle whether he should make a
booty of the money by an oath, the Pythian assailed
him with the following words : “ Glaucus, son of Epicydes,
thus to prevail by an oath and to make a booty of the
money will be a present gain; swear, then, for death awaits
even the man .who keeps his oath. But there is a name
less son of perjury, who has neither hands nor feet, but he
pursues swiftly, until, having seized, he destroys the whole
race, and all the house. But the race of a man who keeps
his oath is afterwards more blessed., The Pythian also said,
that to tempt God and to commit the crime was the same
thing.
“ Glaucus, therefore, having sent for the Milesian strangers,
returned them the money. With what design, O Athenians,
this story has been told you shall now be mentioned. There
�/
30
is at present not a single descendant of Glaucus, nor any
house which is supposed to have belonged to Glaucus, but
he is utterly extirpated from Sparta. Thus it is right
to have no other thought respecting a deposit than to
restore it when it is demanded (“ Erato” 86, Cary’s transla
tion).
The visitor to the quiet little market town of Devizes, in
Wiltshire, who takes his stroll into the market place, may
there have his attention drawn to a remarkable record engraved
on a metal plate stating the year and the day of the occur
rence. It relates the judgment of sudden death inflicted by
the hand of God, on a market woman, who falsely took God
to witness, something in the manner that Glaucus had only
turned over in his mind, that she had duly paid her share
of a joint purchase, when the money was found fraudulently
concealed in her hand.1
1 The subjoined extract gives the full details of this striking instance of the
divine punishment of a perjury :—
“ The Mayor and Corporation of Devizes avail themselves of the stability of
this building (the market cross) to transmit to future times the record of an
awful event which occurred in the market place in the year 1753, hoping that
such a record may serve as a salutary warning against the danger of impiously
invoking Divine vengeance, or of calling on the holy name of God to conceal
the devices of falsehood and fraud.
“ On Thursday, the 25th of January, 1753, Ruth Pierce, of Potterne, in this
county, agreed with three other women to buy a sack of wheat in the market,
each paying her due proportion towards the same. One of these women, in
collecting the several quotas of money, discovered a deficiency, and demanded of
Ruth Pierce the sum which was wanting to make good the amount. Ruth
Pierce protested that she had paid her share, and said, she wished she might
drop down dead if she had not. She rashly repeated the awful wish, when, to
the consternation and terror of the surrounding multitude, she instantly fell
down and expired, having the money concealed in her hand.
“ The narrative of this solemn event was, by order of the authorities, recorded
on a tablet and hung up in the market house (a row of sheds near the cross).
When the building was taken down, Mr. Halcombe, who kept the Bear Inn, in
order that the remembrance might not be lost, caused it to be inscribed on the
pediment of a couple of pillars which stood opposite liis inn, supporting the sign
of the Bear.
“ The sign was removed in 1801, and a few years after, Lord Sidmouth, having
presented to the town the new cross, which forms the central ornament of the
�31
Between the date of the judgment which brought total
extirpation upon Glaucus and his family and that which
brought the visitation of sudden death on the market woman
of Devizes, who shall say how many and how signal have
been the similar acts of the judgment of God falling on the
heads of the perjurers of their oaths ? Who, then, will very
easily dare to maintain that an oath which calls upon the
God of Heaven to be the witness to the truth with which
it is spoken is a thing devoid of sanction, notwithstanding
that the general rule of the Divine Government is well
known to be-one of long proved patience and forbearance,
under which the perjurer is permitted often for years, and
sometimes for the whole of the present life, to be seen to go
unpunished.
It is beyond doubt, then, that the interests of the truth
which human society needs as the basis of its well-being,
and for the securing of which the recourse to an oath has
remained the uninterrupted practice of nearly four thousand
years standing in every civilized nation of the earth, may,
as constant experience shows, be defeated and undone in
the particular case, by the sin and crime of perjury. Who
does not know this perfectly well ? Nevertheless, remove
the extremely real sanction and protection of truth, which
the most just fear of visitation from the anger of God and
of infamy in the sight of man necessarily strikes into the
soul of the intending perjurer, and you will have inflicted
a most deadly wound upon the welfare and happiness of
human life. Does not an apostle say to us, “ Men swear
by the greater, and in every dispute of theirs, the oath is
marketplace, the Mayor and Corporation ‘availed themselves,’ to use their own
language, ‘ of the stability of the new structure to transmit to future time a
record of the awful death of Ruth Pierce, in hope that it might serve as a
salutary warning against the practice of invoking the sacred name to conceal
the devices of falsehood and fraud.’ ”—“The Other World; or, Glimpses of the
Supernatural. By F. G. Lee. Pp. 289, 290. London. 1875.
�32
final for confirmation.” (Heb. vi. 16.) 'Wherever we turn,
to the pages of inspiration or to the histories of Gentile and
Christian writers, to the books of j urists and the homilies of
the Divine, we always hear one and the same concordant
testimony, bearing its witness to the indispensable need of
the maintenance of the oath of religion, in the full measure
of the religious honour and solemnity which is due to it.1
What, then, must be the inevitable conclusion from this
brief and rapid survey of the reasons of this immemorial
recourse to the oath of religion ? The first conclusion will
be that Mr. Bradlaugb/s impious denial of the existence of
God necessarily takes away the possibility of this indispen
sable recourse to the oath of religion “in radice/'’ in its
very root. Where no God is held to exist, what can be
more idle and absurd than to say that there can be any
appeal for the guarantee of truth to that which, according
to Mr. Bradlaugh s doctrine, is pure and simple vacuum,
mere negation of being, absolute nothing ?2
And, again, further, in the same degree in which the
preceding survey, brief and imperfect as it has been, has
succeeded in bringing to light the truth that the oath
of religion is an indispensable condition of the well-being of
civil society, and this equally in its public as in its private
life, the conclusion must be just as inevitable—that Mr.
Brad laugh, by his open denial of the existence of God, is to
be held by all reasonable men, to be not only a very bad enemv
1 The Roman Jurisconsults re-echo St.Paul’s testimony:—Maximum remedium
expediendar um litium .in usum venit juris jurandi religio, qua, vel ex pactione
ipsorum litigatorum, vel ex auctoritate judicis deciduntur controversial—Gaius,
fragm. (xii. 2).
a The following are the testimonies of Juvenal to the little credit to be
attached to the oath of an atheist, and still less to his affirmation:—
Sunt qui nullo credunt mundum rectore moveri
Atque ideo intrepide queecunque altaria tangunt.—Sat. XIII. 89.
Falsus erit testis vendens perjuria summit
Exigua, Cereris tangens aramque pedemque.—Sat. XIII. 218.
�of God; but likewise also in the same degree,, an equally bad
enemy of the social well-being of his fellow-men.
Are the above-mentioned truths, then, it is to be asked,
things that are wholly unknown to the Prime Minister?
Ask, rather, are they things that can by any possibility be
unknown to whoever possesses even the ordinary education
which is the necessary preparation to entering into any ODe
of the learned professions ? Certainly not! To what honest
ordinary man, indeed, can they be unknown, seeing that
they are the elementary traditions of the original primitive
revelation [made to man in the beginning of the world?
The Gospel has but gathered them together from the wreck
of the Old World, and rehabilitated them with new and still
stronger sanctions for the light and guidance of the Chris
tian people.
How is it, then, it is to be asked, that the Prime Minister
and his Government are found openly espousing the cause
of a man, whom on this showing it would be an insult to
their understanding, to suppose that they do not recognize
in him equally the enemy of God and the enemy of his
fellow-man ?
Singular fascination of the hope of being able to gain
a little political support which appears to have the power to
blind their eyes to the reality of what they are doing.
Experience, nevertheless, has shown that precarious political
support may at times be bought too dear even for the transi
tory ends for which the price for it has to be paid.
When the great Divine truths on which human society is
known to have been built from the beginning of the world
are to be made the price of a few paltry votes, the outcome
of the bargain may disappoint the calculation on which
it was made. The hoped-for gain may find itself simply
struck down to the ground with a sudden terror at the
very magnitude of the forfeit about to be consummated.
�34
VII. The designs of the atheist faction may, in the meanwhile, be
most effectually resisted, by the unsparing exposure of their
fraud, in attempting to palm off the common affirmation of the
atheist, for the solemn affirmation of the man of religion.
The legislator here who is determined to discharge the
duty of his conscience to God, and not to suffer himself to
be hoodwinked by mere words, may be asked to say to himself, Before I will vote I will insist upon an explicit formal
definition being embodied in the bill, “ sine dolo malo,” de
claring in express words, what it is to be—that is, to make
the affirmation of a man declaring himself to be an atheist
become a solemn affirmation. I will not be consciously a
party to any fraud or deceit on this point. I will resist to
the last and protest against any ambiguity or obscurity
on this head. Ambiguity or obscurity in this matter carries
with it—the guilt and shame of conscious fraud upon the
religious conscience of the nation. It also involves open
derision of the Majesty of God by the Legislature appearing
to be willing to try to palm off an affirmation in the face of
day as solemn, in which there cannot possibly be any act of
religion. The fraud is recommended under the false guise
of the equivocal use of the Name of “ solemn/"’ It
will be in effect the saying to God, we are going to deceive
you with the use of a name, that cannot have any meaning
whatsoever, which will be to your honour.
VIII. A brief word on the comic absurdity of the pretence which,
proposes to give the name of an act of religion to the act of a
man, whose one sole chief end of his being would seem to be to
make himself as widely known as possible as the man who
denies the existence of GOD, and the consequent possibility of
any religion.
The best generally received definition of the word “ reli
gion” derives it from the word religare, to reunite or to bind
together, and therein points to the rehabilitation of the
�35
union, of friendship between God and man, which it is the
mission of religion to restore. If so extremely serious a
subject could be allowed to have its comic side, this would
be certainly found in the singularly burlesque spectacle
which Mr. Gladstone and his Government now propose to
introduce on to the arena of public life, and to exhibit to
the astonished eyes of all the nations and people of the
world.
This new and unexpected spectacle, then, is Mr. Bradlaugh,
the Atheist, the profane scorner of God and the denier of
the mere possibility of such a thing as any religion, intro
duced into the British Parliament, as quite capable in the
judgment of Mr. Gladstone and his Ministry, making of the
solemn affirmation of the man of religion ! The nineteenth
century is certainly fruitful in wonders !
IX. A second brief word touching the horns of a comical dilemma of
which the supporters of Mr. Bradlaugh will be compelled to
make the best that they can.
The absolutely open and avowed atheist platform is not yet
a possible thing in Great Britain and the United Kingdom.
Mr. Bradlaugh, consequently, atheist as he avows him
self to be, and as he seeks to be universally known, cannot,
nevertheless, for the present hope to be able to enter the British
Parliament in any other way than as a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Atheist, as he persists in calling himself, he has no chance
whatever of being admitted, except under the disguise of a
man of religion. He must be held to be capable of perform
ing the act of religion, known as a “ solemn affirmation.”
His supporters, in consequence, find themselves in the
following dilemma :—
This solemn affirmation, which Mr. Bradlaugh hopes by
their aid to be allowed to make, and so to enter to take his
seat, is compelled to be one or other of two things—
�36
(I.) Either it is the fraud already exposed, invented and
designed by malice prepense, to deceive religious people,
and to throw dust in their eyes; or
(II.) It is in itself a real, true, and genuine solemn
affirmation, “ sine ullo dolo malo,” without a shadow of
deception.
In the first case, the British Legislature will expose
itself to the whole world, as has been pointed out, as
lending itself to a proceeding of simple fraud. In the
second case, if the affirmation is to be maintained to be
“ solemn,” then there must needs be something special
which can be the root and cause of this solemnity. This
something will of necessity have to be sought for in the
person of Mr. Bradlaugh himself for the obvious reason that
it is not to be found anywhere else. On his own reiterated
averments he knows of nothing in creation greater than
himself. So that in order to make good the claim that his
affirmation is to be held to be solemn, the British Legisla
ture will have to exhibit him to the wide world as a little
pseudo divinity of their own making, as in short a very
small comic caricature of the God of Heaven, who swears
by Himself because He knows of nothing greater than
Himself by whom he could swear.
X. The near view of the precipice.
It is, of course, possible for a man to be found walking
close upon the very edge of a precipice, without his, for
the moment, adverting to the fact that the precipice is
there, and that to take only a single step more in the
direction of the precipice will be to fall over it and to be
afterwards taken up dead.
Let none of the members of your honourable House,
together with yourself, shut their eyes to the real facts of
�37
the case that will shortly come before them. Your Legis
lative Assembly is now actually brought to the edge of such
a precipice., the fall over which involves the being after
wards taken up dead. Of course dead,, in the sense of
having the seeds of future death deeply planted in its con
stitution. The Legislative Assemblies of great Imperial
Powers require a considerable time before they can actually
die, but unhappily for them they can plant the seeds of
future death in themselves in a very short time.
It is proposed, then, by the Affirmation Bill, to remove
the oath of religion, promising true allegiance to the throne
under the sanction of an appeal to God, from its being the
necessary legal condition of a legislator taking his seat and
exercising his functions as a maker of the laws and as
guardian of the public purse of the Empire. Henceforward
the law is to stand that it is to be a simple matter of per
sonal option, to swear this oath or not to swear it, the law
providing an open alternative in the form of a nominally
“ solemn affirmation/’
What this “ solemn affirmation” is to be and what is to
be the power generative of its solemnity, if any,—nothing
as yet appears to be known.
The solemnity of it, however, is, as has been said, hope
lessly discredited by the fact that, whereas the Oath of
Religion for which it is to be substituted is so solemn a
thing that Mr. Bradlaugh the atheist cannot by any possi
bility be permitted to profane it, the solemn affirmation will
be so unsolemn a thing that there will be no objection at
all, of any sort or kind whatsoever, to Mr. Bradlaugh the
atheist being permitted to profane it. Let this proposed
substitution of a nominal fictitious solemn thing, which any
atheist may profane at his own perfectly free will and
pleasure, without rendering himself liable to any sort of
penalty or ill consequence whatsoever, either from God or
�man, for the immemorial Oath of Religion be effected, and
then see what must inevitably follow.
It must inevitably follow, that if the Oath of allegiance
to the Throne is not necessary, and may be replaced at the
mere will or fancy of each individual by a purely nominal
and fictitious substitute as the sole guarantee to be demanded
from a legislator of the Empire, neither in this case, as has
been already said publicly, will the oath remain necessary,
but may be replaced by the same purely nominal and
fictitious substitute
for the monarch on the throne,
for the judges who administer the laws of the land,
for the witnesses who give testimony in courts of law,
for the soldiers serving in the army and their officers,
for the sailors serving in the navy and their officers.
The entire body politic of the empire will thus find itself
on the high road to be constituted in a condition of open
and avowed denial of God, and the contempt of His sove
reignty of the world of which He is the Creator.1
' The true safety of the Christian religion is not to he sought in proofs of the
existence of legal enactments in its favour, but in the solid and fervent attach
ment of the people to its altars and its doctrines. Nevertheless, in an appeal to
the legislature of the United Kingdom it will not be wholly out of place to lay
before them legal testimonies to the truth that Christianity is even yet the law
of the land.
“ A sound, solid, contention might be had that any enactment of Parliament,
in which Christianity were renounced and repudiated, was ipso facto null and
void”—p. 37. Life of the worthy and illustrious Thomas Holt, Knight,
Recorder of the borough of Abingdon, and one of the King’s Serjeants, &c.
Oxford: L. Litchfield. 1706.
“ No administration of the oath............ taken by common jurymen, or by
any other, either as witness or testifying, could be too reverent or too solemn ;
for such are bound to tell the whole truth who so call the Almighty God notably
to witness that it be the truth.”—“ State Trials,” in Seven Parts. Vol. III.
p. 140. London: G. Strahan. 1720.
“In Cowan v. Milbourne (L. R. Q. Ex. 230), Kelly, L.C.B., said that
Christianity was part of the law of the land. This case, tried in 1867, contains
the latest judicial utterance on the matter. In R. v. Williams (1797), a cele
brated case, where the man was tried for publishing Paine’s “Age of Reason,”
�39
Such is the precipice!
Let every member of your
assembly look at it, and study it well. Now, what can be
the claim of this single man, Bradlaugh the atheist, the
daring and profane denier of the existence of God, to push
the chief legislative assembly of the world over such a
precipice as this must be seen to be ?
A Word in Conclusion.
If every Member of the House of Commons has bonndhim
self to the duty of defending the Throne by his having
sworn his Oath of Allegiance, how will such Member be
able to vote for the removal of one of the principal safe
guards and defences of the Throne in any other way than
by the perjury of his Oath ?
No statesman or legislator of the kingdom will very easilv
dare to say that the Throne of the United Kingdom with
the person of the Monarch has not its just rights under the
constitution of the Empire, which as true statesmen they
are bound to maintain and defend. Again, no statesman
or legislator of the Empire will very easily dare to deny
that the oath of true allegiance to the throne, which every
one has sworn under the formula SO HELP ME GOD,
does not bind the legislator who has sworn it positively to
maintain and to uphold,—and that it does not likewise strictly
prohibit him from any act whatever calculated even to weaken,
let alone remove,—that which is acknowledged and confessed
to be the mainstay of the rights of the throne and the pre
rogatives of the person of the Monarch.
On this point there cannot be a doubt raised.
On the question that the oath of allegiance is and always
has been held to be the mainstay and bulwark of the rights
and to be found 26 St. Tr. 653, Lord Kenyon told the jury that “the Christian
religion is part of the law of the land.” Kelly’s exact words in Cowan v. Mil
bourne were “ There is abundant authority for saying that Christianity is part
and parcel of the law of the land.”
�of the throne, only open and avowed atheists can take the
side of negation. Every one who believes in the Person of
a Divine Creator and Sovereign Ruler of the world, and
who, sine dolo malo and bond fide has sworn his oath
promising true allegiance to the throne, by the very fact of
such belief stands on the side of the affirmative.
How, then, will those members of your honourable assem
bly, who confess this oath of allegiance to be under God the
mainstay of the rights of the throne, and who at the same
time confess that their oath of allegiance binds them to the
firm upholding of this same acknowleged indispensable main
stay be able to give their vote for its removal ? How can
they do this without directly forswearing the terms of the
oath by which they have bound themselves, and without
subjecting themselves to all the penalties attached to such
an act of perjury.
Public perjury under the laws of the twelve tables was
dealt with thus. “ Perjurii, poena divina exitium, humana
dedecus“The punishment with which God visits perjury
is destruction, man inflicts infamy/'’ Time and the belief
of the Christian world has added to, and has not taken any
thing away, from the force of the ancient Roman law.
I remain,
Right honourable Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
TERTULLIAN.
PRINTED AT THE BALLANTYNE PRESS, CHANDOS STREET, W.C,
��
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The Affirmation Bill : reasons why it cannot be permitted to become the law of the land considered and stated, in a public letter addressed to the Right Hon. the Speaker of the House of Commons and to all its members by Tertullian
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Tertullian
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 40 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Date of publication from British Library record. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
D. Bogue
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1883]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N636
Subject
The topic of the resource
Parliament
Secularism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The Affirmation Bill : reasons why it cannot be permitted to become the law of the land considered and stated, in a public letter addressed to the Right Hon. the Speaker of the House of Commons and to all its members by Tertullian), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Charles Bradlaugh
Freedom of Speech-History
NSS
Oaths and Affirmations
William Ewert Gladstone
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c9e96a1eb03583237ff5af1c226679d3.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=MSj9VkHFrBzKX7QMXaVJOuCjxI7HB0SMrWcJPronW164qQxoi59FfRl83RcQsQM6JwMvyhuUZzM1l2Q7PL5%7EesRNiDWwjOPLgwHTINOz8Rf6%7Ek3RCmzFSDGGKRFhMm5hwEg8icFPbRWZ2Tx6HzQRhMq-v6dZd1GzObcLNx5Eb5in-jA7HNfGcblEJCLgMMwsPtAIojVn%7EUnmJzVilQyJTE48%7E-jc6NLyxI6uPePFwNmdcD1JA-XryIJ-I3FRaF1Bez7WyKvKoeqXOu-4zGNo72v54qyNWMLFtPVdpj1Vfo-gexaD6V8CFPKhBHGyTbB7VdNemrb85KHjSG58ZUUELQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
03d8b39f5765b7d253961a5fd8df73e1
PDF Text
Text
B'xrs’V
N^O
NATIONALSECULAR SOCIETY
THE LATEST
CONSTITUTIONAL STRUGGLE:
A REGISTER OF EVENTS
Which have occurred since April 2nd, 1880.
BY
W.
MAWER.
“ No, not an oath........... ..
Swear priests, and cowards, and men cautelous,rt--Ul‘I
Old feeble carrions and such suffering souls
That welcome wrongs; unto bad causes swear
Such creatures as men doubt; but do not stain
The even virtue of our enterprise,
Nor the insuppressive metal of our spirits,
To think that or our cause or our performance
Did need an oath.”—Julius Cxsar, Act II., Scene 1.
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY
63, FLEET STREET, E.C.
1883.
PRICE
TWOPENCE.
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY ANNIE BBSANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH,
63, FLEET STREET, E.C.
�THE LATEST
CONSTITUTIONAL STRUGGLE.
——♦—
1 8 8 0.
April 2nd.—After twelve years’ fight and three repulses, Mr.
Charles Bradlaugh is elected member of Parliament for North
ampton. The polling was as follows:—
Labouchere (L.)
4,158
Bradlaugh (JR.)
3,827
Phipps (C.) ................................................ 3,152
Merewether (C.)
2,826
The Weekly Dispatch said: Mr. Bradlaugh’s achievement of the
position he has been aiming at so long and so zealously is a
notable sign of the times. Whatever his critics may think of
him, he will enter Parliament as the representative of a vastly
larger constituency than the whole electorate or the whole popu
lation of Northampton.
The Birmingham Daily Mail: Mr. Bradlaugh holds extreme
views on some subjects, but he will none the less be a useful
man in Parliament, his unflinching courage in the exposure of
abuses being unquestionable.
The Standard: Mr. Bradlaugh, now that he has got to the
House of Commons, is not likely to efface himself in speechless
obscurity.
The Southampton Times: The most signal and portentous
triumph is that which has been achieved by Mr. Bradlaugh. His
election shows what the unity of the Liberal party must have
been.
The Christian World: His contributions to the discussions of
the House may not be without value.
During the election Mr. Samuel Morley telegraphed to Mr.
Labouchere as follows: I strongly urge necessity of united effort
in all sections of Liberal party, and the sinking of minor and
personal questions, with many of which I deeply sympathise, in
�4
Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
order to prevent the return, in so pronounced a constituency as
Northampton, of even one Conservative.
April 15th.—Mr. S. Morley, speaking at Bristol, said, respecting
his telegram to Northampton: He made no reference to candi
dates, nor did the friend who wrote the telegram go into detail,
but he advised union. Those who had known him all his life
would believe that he viewed with the intensest repugnance
the supposed opinions, both social and religious, of one of the
candidates. Afterwards, writing to the Record, Mr. Morley said
he deeply regretted his telegram.
The Weekly Dispatch, commenting on Mr. Morley’s conduct,
said: Let the bigots who have taken him to task for his temporary
aberration from the path of pharisaism make what they can of
his pitiful excuse. Other people can only regret that a man so
useful in many ways, both as a politician and a philanthropist,
should show himself so narrow-minded.
The Edinburgh Evening News: In their disappointment, the
defeated party have eagerly caught at the election of Mr. Brad
laugh as supplying the most pungent taunt that can be thrown
at their victorious opponents.
The Sheffield Telegraph: Bradlaugh is an M.P................. the
bellowing blasphemer of Northampton.
Mr. Bradlaugh announces that he considers he is legally en
titled to avail himself of the Freethinkers’ affirmation, and that
there is some reason to hope that other members will join him
in that course.
April 17th.—Sheffield Independent's “ London Correspondent ”
says : Tenets which constitute the religious faith of Mr. Brad
laugh are understood to constitute an insuperable difficulty in
the way of his being sworn a member of “the faithful Commons.”
April 29th.—Parliament opens.
May 3rd.—At the table of the House Mr. Bradlaugh handed
in a written paper to the Clerk of the House; on this were
written the words: “To the Right Honorable the Speaker of the
House of Commons. I, the undersigned Charles Bradlaugh, beg
respectfully to claim to be allowed to affirm, as a person for the
time beingbylawpermittedtomake a solemn affirmation ordeclaration, instead of taking an oath. Charles Bradlaugh.” Asked if he
desired to state anything to the House, Mr. Bradlaugh said : I
have to submit that the Parliamentary Oaths Act, 1866, gives the
right to affirm to every person for the time being permitted by
law 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.
At the request of the Speaker Mr. Bradlaugh then withdrew,
in order that the House might consider the claim, and Lord F.
�Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
5
Cavendish, urging that it would be manifestly inconvenient that
when any hon. member had applied to take his seat in the House,
any unnecessary delay should intervene, moved the appointment
•of a committee of inquiry which should lay before the House the
material on which the House itself should found its decision.
Sir Stafford Northcote seconded. Several other members spoke,
and Mr. Beresford Hope said that the grievance of one man was
very little compared with a great principle ; at present the House
of Commons was only a half-hatched chicken. The committee
was then agreed to.
May 11th.—Appointment of committee carried by 171 votes
against 74, after a two hours’ debate.
May 20th.—The committee report: “ that in the opinion of the
committee, persons entitled under the provisions of ‘the Evi
dence Amendment Act, 1869,’ and ‘ the Evidence Amendment
Act, 1870,’ to make a solemn declaration instead of an oath in
courts of justice, can not be admitted to make an affirmation or
declaration instead of an oath in the House of Commons, in persuance of the Acts 29 and 30 Viet., c. 19, and 31 and 32 Viet.,
•c. 72.”
The draft report, proposed by the Attorney-General, was to
the effect that “ persons so admitted,” etc , may be admitted, etc.
This was lost by the casting vote of the chairman (Mr. Walpole),
the other members of the committee voting as follows. Ayes:
Mr. Whitbread, Mr. John Bright, Mr. Massey, Mr. Sergeant
Simon, Sir Henry Jackson, Mr. Attorney- General, Mr. SolicitorGeneral, Mr. Watkin Williams. Noes : Sir John Holker, Lord
Henry Lennox, Mr. Staveley Hill, Mr. Grantham, Mr. Pemberton,
Mr. Hopwood, Mr. Beresford Hope, Mr. Henry Chaplin.
Mr. Bradlaugh makes a public statement of his position with
regard to the oath. He considered he had a legal right to choose
between the alternatives of making an affirmation or taking the
oath, and he felt it clearly his moral duty, in that case, to make
an affirmation. The oath included words which, to him, were
meaningless, and it would have been an act of hypocrisy to
voluntarily take this form if any other had been open to him.
He should, taking the oath, regard himself as bound not by the
letter of its words, but by the spirit which the affirmation would
have conveyed, had he been allowed to make it, and as soon as
he might be able he should take steps to put an end to the pre
sent doubtful and unfortunate state of the law and practice on
oaths and affirmations.
May 21st.—Amid a tumult of cries from the Conservative
benches Mr. Bradlaugh goes to the table for the purpose of being
sworn. Sir H. D. Wolff objecting, the Speaker requested Mr.
Bradlaugh to withdraw. He (the Speaker) was bound to say he
knew of no instance in which a member who had offered to take
the oath in the usual form was not allowed by the House to do
�6
Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
so. Sir H. D. Wolff then moved that Mr. Bradlaugh should not
be allowed to take the oath, alleging against Mr. Bradlaugh his
repute as an Atheist, and his authorship of “ The Impeachment
of the House of Brunswick.” Mr. Aiderman Fowler seconded
the motion, stating that he held in his hand a petition praying
the House not to alter the law and the custom of the realm for
the purpose of admitting an Atheist to Parliament. Mr. Glad
stone, in the course of replying, said : “ it was not in consequence
of any regulation enforced by the authority of this House—of a
single branch of the legislature, however complete that authority
may be over the members of this House, that the hon. member
for Northampton presents himself to take the oath at the table.
He presents himself in pursuance of a statutory obligation to
take the oath in order that he may fulfil the duty with which, as
we are given to understand, in a regular and formal manner his
constituents have entrusted him. That statutory obligation im
plied a statutory right.” He moved that it be referred to a
select committee to consider and report for the information of
the House whether the House has any right to prevent a dulyelected member, who is willing to take the oath, from doing so.
A long debate ensued, characterised by the fierceness with
which Mr. Bradlaugh’s admission to Parliament was opposed.
Mr. John Bright, however, asked if the House were entitled
thus to obstruct what he called the right of a member to take his
seat on account of his religious belief, because it happened that
his belief or no belief had been openly professed, what reason
was there that any member of the House should not be ques
tioned as to his beliefs, and if the answer were not satisfactory
that the House should not be at liberty to object to his taking his
seat ? After two or three adjournments of the debate the Pre
mier’s amendment was virtually withdrawn, and a motion by the
Attorney-General was carried to the effect that a committee
should be appointed to report whether it was competent to the
House to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh, by resolution, from taking the
oath.
May 28th.—Committee nominated—twenty-three members.
Mr. Labouchere gives notice to ask leave to bring in a Bill to
amend the law of Parliamentary Oaths, to provide that any
member may, if he desire, make a solemn affirmation in lieu of
taking the oath.
June 2nd.—Mr. Bradlaugh gives evidence before Select Com
mittee, in the course of which he said: “ I have never at any
time refused to take the oath of allegiance provided by statute
to be taken by members; all I did was, believing as I then did
that I had the right to affirm, to claim to affirm, and I was then
absolutely silent as to the oath ; that I did not refuse to take it,
nor have I then or since expressed any mental reservation, or
stated that the appointed oath of allegiance would not be binding
�Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
7
upon me; that, on the contrary, I say, and have said, that the
essential part of the oath is in the fullest and most complete
degree binding upon my honor and conscience, and that the
repeating of words of asseveration does not in the slightest degree
weaken the binding effect of the oath of allegiance upon me.”
[It had been persistently represented that Mr. Bradlaugh had
refused to take the oath.] “ Any form that I went through, any
oath that I took, I should regard as binding upon my conscience
in the fullest degree.”
June 16th.—The committee report that the compliance by Mr.
Bradlaugh with the form used when an oath is taken would
not be the taking of the oath within the true meaning of the
statutes ; that if a member make and subscribe the affirmation
in place of taking the oath it is possible by means of an action
in the High Court of Justice, to test his legal right to do so ;
and that the committee recommend that should Mr. Bradlaugh
again seek to make and subscribe the affirmation he be not
prevented from so doing. (Majority in favor of his being
allowed to affirm—four.)
June 21st.—Mr. Labouchere moved in the House of Commons
that Mr. Bradlaugh be admitted to make an affirmation instead
of taking the oath, seconded by Mr. M’Laren. Sir H.
Giffard moved a resolution seeking to debar Mr. Bradlaugh
from both oath and affirmation. Aiderman Fowler seconded,
a man who did not believe in a God was not likely to be a man
of high moral character. The majority of the people were
opposed to an Atheist being admitted to Parliament. Many
other members spoke. General Burnaby said the making of
the affirmation by Mr. Bradlaugh would pollute the oath. Mr.
Palmer said Mr. Bradlaugh had a legal right with which the
House had no power to interfere. The Attorney-General said
he had come to the conclusion that Mr. Bradlaugh could not
take the oath, chiefly on the consideration that he was a person
entitled to affirm. Mr. John Bright said it was certainly open
to any member to propose to take either oath or affirmation;
probably if Mr. Bradlaugh had had any suspicion that the
affirmation would have been refused him, he would have taken
the oath as other members take it—very much, he was afraid,
as a matter of form. Debate adjourned.
June 22nd.—Mr. Gladstone said that the House, by agreeing
to the amendment, would probably be entering on the commence
ment of a long, embarrassing, and a difficult controversy, not
perhaps so much within as beyond the limits of the House,
perhaps with the result of ultimate defeat of the House. The
more he looked at the case the stronger appeared the arguments
which went to prove that in the essence of the law and the
constitution the House had no jurisdiction. In interfering
between a member and what he considered his statutory duty,
�8
Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
the House might find itself in conflict with either the courts of
law or the constituency of Northampton. No doubt an action
could not be brought against the House, but he was not so
clear that an action could not be brought against the servants
of the House. He was still less willing to face a conflict with
the constituency. The House had commonly been successful
in its controversies with the Crown or House of Lords, but
very different was the issue of its one lamentable conflict with
a constituency.—Sir Henry Tyler, with execrable taste, dragged
in the name of a lady with whom Mr. Bradlaugh is associated
in business. At last, by a majority of 45—the numbers voting
being 275 and 230—another triumph against liberty was scored.
The Christian World regretted that some Nonconformists helped
to swell the Tory majority.
The Jewish World held it as a reproach to Judaism, that mem
bers of their community should have gone over to the party
which once strove to detain them in bondage.
In 1851, Mr. Newdegate protested againBt the idea “that they
should have sitting in the House, an individual who regarded
our redeemer as an impostor,” and yet Baron de Worms voted
with Mr. Newdegate for the exclusion of a man with whose tenets
he disagreed.
The Whitehall Review headed an article “ God v. Bradlaugh,”
and said the majority had “ protected God from insult.”
June 23rd.—Mr. Bradlaugh again claimed at the table of the
House of Commons to take the oath, and the Speaker having in
formed him of the resolution passed the previous evening, re
quested his withdrawal. Mr. Bradlaugh thereupon asked to be
heard, and after some debate the demand was complied with.
Mr. Bradlaugh spoke from the bar of the House, asking no
favor, but claiming his right, and warning hon. members against
a conflict with public opinion.
Mr. Labouchere moved, and Mr. Macdonald seconded, the re
scindment of the resolution of the 22nd, which was lost on
division.
Mr. Bradlaugh was then recalled and requested to withdraw
from the House. Standing by the table, he said : “I respectfully
refuse to obey the order of the House, because the order is
against the law.” The raging of the bigots and Tories recom
menced. Mr. Gladstone declined to help them out of the pit
into which they had leapt: “ Those who were responsible for the
decision might carry it out as they chose.” After a sharp discus
sion Mr. Bradlaugh was, on the motion of Sir Stafford Northcote,
“ committed to the Clock Tower.” In the division the numbers
were 274 for and 7 against, the Radicals having left the House.
June 24th.—On the motion of Sir Stafford Northcote, Mr.
Bradlaugh is released from custody, “ not upon apology, or re
paration, or promise not to repeat his offence, but with the full
�Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
9
knowledge and clear recollection of his announcement that the
offence would be repeated toties quoties till his object was
effected.”
June 25th.—Mr. Labouchere gives notice of motion to rescind
the resolution of the 22nd, and Government agreed to give an
early day for the discussion of the same.
June 28th.—Baron de Ferrieres announced his intention to
move that the seat for Northampton be declared vacant, and that
a Bill be brought in providing for the substitution of an affirmation for the oath at the option of members. Mr. Wyndham
(Conservative) asked Mr. Gladstone whether the Government
would bring in a Bill to remove all doubts as to the legal right
of members to make a solemn affirmation. Mr. Gladstone said
the Government did not propose to do so, and gave notice for
Thursday (1st July) to move as a standing order that members
elect be allowed, subject to any liability by statute, to affirm at
their choice. Mr. Labouchere then said he would not proceed
with his motion. On another motion, however, by the same
member, leave was given to bring in a Bill for the amendment
of the Parliamentary Oaths and Affirmations, which was read a
first time.
July 1st.—After a futile attempt made by Mr. Gorst to show
that Mr. Gladstone’s resolution was a disorderly one, the Pre
mier, in moving it said, in the course of an extremely fair speech,
that the allegation of members that Mr. Bradlaugh had thrust
his opinions upon the House was untrue. His (Mr. Bradlaugh’s)
reference to the Acts under which he claimed to affirm had only
been named in answer to a question from the clerk of the House.
Sir Erskine May, in his evidence before the recent committee,
stated that Mr. Bradlaugh simply claimed to affirm.
Sir Stafford Northcote admitted that when Mr. Bradlaugh was
called upon to affirm he was not disrespectful, but firm. He
opposed the resolution as humiliating to the House. Several
members protested against any course for facilitating the admis
sion of Mr. Bradlaugh. General Burnaby stated that in order to
obtain “ authoritative ” opinions on the matter he had obtained
letters or telegrams from the Moravian body, the Bishop of
London, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Ossory, the Bishop
of Ratho, the Archbishop ot Dublin, the Bishop of Galway, and
the Bishop of Argyle and the Isles, and the Secretary of the Pope
of Rome, all of whom expressed themselves in the strongest
terms against the admission of an Atheist into Parliament. Mr.
Spurgeon, who was unfortunately from home, had expressed his
opinion strongly adverse to it, and the Chief Rabbi—(loud
laughter)—although refusing to interfere with political questions,
felt very deeply on the subject. (Laughter, and cries of “the
Sultan,” and “Shah.”)
�10
Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
When the House divided the numbers were 303 for, and 249
against.
July 2nd.—Mr. Bradlaugh takes the affirmation of allegiance,
and his seat.
During the struggle several hundreds of indignation meetings
were held in London and the provinces, and petitions, letters,
telegrams, etc., in immense numbers, poured in upon the Govern
ment and the House, in favor of Mr. Bradlaugh’s rights.
July 2nd.—Mr. Bradlaugh gives his first vote, and was there
upon served with a writ to recover against him a penalty of £500
for having voted and sat without having made and subscribed
the oath, the plaintiff being one Henry Lewis Clarke, who, as
subsequently appeared, was merely the tool of the actual common
informer, Charles Newdigate Newdegate, M.P. This writ was
ready so quickly that, if not issued actually before Mr. Bradlaugh
had taken his seat, it must have been prepared beforehand.
July 8th.—Mr. Norwood asks the first Lord of the Treasury
whether, considering the Government declined to introduce a
bill to amend the Oaths Act, it would instruct the law officers of
the Crown to defend the junior member for Northampton against
the suit of the common informer. Mr. Callan asked whether the
Government would remit the penalty. Mr. Gladstone said no
application had been received for remission of the penalties, and
that his reply to Mr. Norwood must be in the negative.
July 14th.—Read first time in the House of Commons, a bill
“ to incapacitate from sitting in Parliament any person who has
by deliberate public speaking, or by published writing, systemati
cally avowed his disbelief in the existence of a supreme being.”
It was prepared and introduced by Sir Eardley Wilmot, Mr.
Aiderman Fowler and Mr. Hicks. Owing to an informality the
Bill could not come on for second reading.
The Rev. Canon Abney, of Derby, speaks of Mr. Bradlaugh as
“the apostle of filth, impurity, and blasphemy.”
July 16th.—Parliament indemnifies Lord Byron against an
action, he having sat and voted without being sworn.
July 20th.—Sir Eardley Wilmot gives notice of moving that it
is repugnant to the constitution for an Atheist to become a
member of “ this Honorable House.” He afterwards postponed
his motion.
At a meeting of the Dumfries Town Council, a member said :
“If the law courts should decide that it was legal for an Atheist
to sit in the House of Commons, he should feel it is duty to give
notice of petition to Parliament to have the law altered; he
would not allow Mr. Bradlaugh to go into a hundred acre field
beside cattle, let alone the House of Commons.”
The Rev. Chas. Voysey writes, that he feels disgraced by the
�Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
11
people of Northampton electing Mr. Bradlaugh, and declares
that “ most of the speeches in the Bradlaugh case in favor of his
exclusion, strike me as singularly good, wholesome and credit
able.” He repeats the myth of Mr. Bradlaugh forcing his objec
tions to the oath upon the House.
July 21st.—Sir John Hay, M.P., speaking about Mr. Bradlaugh
at New Galloway, made a most infamous, cowardly, and uncalled
for attack on Mrs. Besant. The Scotsman refused to print the
remarks, as “the language was so coarse that it could hardly
have dropped from a Yahoo.”
Aug. 1st.—The Nineteenth Century prints “An Englishman’s
Protest,” written by Cardinal Manning, personally directed
against Mr. Bradlaugh.
Aug. 24th.—Mr. Bradlaugh gives notice that early next session
he will call attention to perpetual pensions.
Sept. 7th.—Parliament prorogued. Hansard credits Mr. Brad
laugh with about twenty speeches during the Session. (Mr.
Newdegate told the Licensed Victuallers that Mr. Bradlaugh
“had made one speech, and proved himself a second or thirdrate speaker,”)
1881.
Jan. 6th.—Parliament reopens. Mr. Bradlaugh renews his
notice as to perpetual pensions. Great interest in the question
throughout the kingdom,
Jan. 24th.—Mr. Bradlaugh makes a speech in the House of
Commons against Coercion in Ireland.
Jan. 31st.—Mr. Newdegate, speaking in the House, described
Northampton as an “ oasis in the Midland Counties.”
Feb. 4th.—Mr. Bradlaugh makes a speech against the second
reading of the Coercion Bill, and concluded by moving that it
be read that day six months.
Feb. 15th.—Date of motion for inquiry into perpetual pen
sions fixed for March 15th. (When the day arrived Mr. Brad
laugh, on an appeal from Mr. Gladstone, allowed the motion to
be postponed, in order to allow supply to be taken. 848 petitions
had been presented to the House, with 251,332 signatures in
favor of the motion.)
Feb. 17th.—Mr. Dawson, M.P. for Carlow, said that Irish
members were much indebted to Mr. Bradlaugh for what he had
done on the Coercion Bill.
Feb. 25th.—Mr. Bradlaugh made final speech against third
reading of the Coercion Bill.
March 7th.—The case of Clarke v. Bradlaugh heard by Mr.
Justice Mathew.
�12
Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
March 10th.—Mr. Bradlaugh brought before the House the
case of the imprisoned Maoris.
March 11th.—Judgment in the case given, which was for the
plaintiff, that he was entitled to recover the penalty, subject to
appeal. Mr. Bradlaugh gave notice of appeal.
Mr. Gorst gave notice to move that Mr. Speaker issue his
warrant for new writ for the borough of Nottingham [!].
March 14th.—Upon Mr. Bradlaugh rising to present petitions
against perpetual pensions, signed by over 7,000 persons, Mr.
Gorst rose to order, on the ground that the seat for Northamp
ton was vacant. After discnssion the Speaker called upon Mr.
Bradlaugh to proceed with the presentation of his petitions.
March 15th.—At request of Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Bradlaugh
postponed his motion for enquiry into perpetual pensions.
March 23rd.—Mr. Bradlaugh moved the Court of Appeal to
expedite the hearing of his appeal, and also to expedite the trial
of the issues in fact. The Court gave the appeal priority over
other cases.
March 28th.—Mr. Bradlaugh made his last speech in the House
against flogging in the Army.
March 30th.—Appeal heard.
March 31st.—Judgment given against the defendant. Plain
tiff not yet entitled to execution, but seat vacated, Mr. Bradlaugh
undertaking not to appeal so far as the affirmation was con
cerned.
Mr. Bradlaugh again seeks the suffrages of the electors of
Northampton.
April 6 th.—The Tories serve notice on the Mayor not to accept
Mr. Bradlaugh’s nomination, which the Mayor disregarded. Mr.
Edward Corbett nominates by Tories.
April 9th.—Mr. Bradlaugh re-elected by 3,437 votes to Corbett
3,305.
April 26th.—Mr. Bradlaugh, accompanied by Mr. Labouchere
and Mr. Burt, came to the table of the House, and, “ the book ”
having been handed to him, was about to take the oath when
Sir Stafford Northcote interposing, he was requested to with
draw, in order that the House might consider the new conditions
under which the oath was proposed to be taken. Mr. Bradlaugh
withdrew to the bar of the House, and Sir Stafford Northcote
moved that he be not allowed to go through the form of taking
the oath. Mr. Davey moved and Mr. Labouchere seconded an
amendment to the effect that where a person who had been duly
elected presented himself at the table to take the oath he ought
not to be prevented from doing so by anything extraneous to the
transaction. Other members spoke, and Mr. Bright regretted
“ the almost violent temper with which some hon. gentlemen
came to the consideration of the question.”
Mr. Bradlaugh, speaking at the bar, claimed that his return
�Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
13
was untainted, that it had not been brought about by the Liberal
party, but by the help of the people, by the pence of toilers in
mine and factory. He begged the House not to plunge into a
struggle with him, which he would shun. Strife was easy to
begin, but none knew where it would end. There was no legal
disqualification upon him, and they had no right to impose a
disqualification which was less than legal.
Mr. Gladstone made a lengthy and fine speech in favor of
Mr. Bradlaugh, the text of which was Mr. Bradlaugh’s own
words given above as to imposition of a new disqualification ; on
a division, however, the bigots again had it.
Mr. Bradlaugh again stepped to the table, and demanded the
administration of the oath, refusing to obey the Speaker’s order
to withdraw. Sir Stafford Northcote asked the Prime Minister
whether he proposed to offer the House any counsel. Mr. Glad,
stone said he should leave it to the majority to carry out the
effects of their vote. Eventually the Speaker called upon the
Sergeant-at-Arms to remove Mr. Bradlaugh, who during the
debate had been standing at the table. Mr. Bradlaugh with
drawing with the Sergeant three times to the bar, as often re
turned to the table. After further passages at arms between Mr.
Gladstone and Sir Stafford Northcote, the House adjourned.
April 27th.—Mr. Bradlaugh again found at the table of the
House claiming to be allowed to take the oath. At the bidding
of the Speaker the Sergeant-at-Arms again caused Mr. Brad
laugh to withdraw to the bar, where he remained during the dis
cussion which followed.
_ Mr. Labouchere asked the Prime Minister whether he would
give him reasonable facilities to introduce his Affirmation Bill, if
so Mr. Bradlaugh would not interfere with the resolution passed
last night.
Mr. Gladstone said the giving facility for that purpose, meant
the postponement of very serious and very urgent business, and
he had no assurance as to the disposition of the House. He
could not see his way to consent if it was to be an opposed
Bill. After further discussion, however, Mr. Gladstone said it
might be possible to test the feeling of the House by one or more
morning sittings.
April 29th.—Mr. Gladstone announces the intention of the
Government of bringing in a bill amending the Parliamentary
Oaths Act.
May 2nd.—The Attorney-General moved that the House re
solve itself into committee with a view of his asking leave to in
troduce the Bill. Debate on motion adjourned to the 5th with
the view of fixing the time on the 6th, when the discussion should
be resumed.
Mr. Maclver gave notice to ask the Prime Minister whether he
was prepared to reconsider his decision of last session, and will
�14
Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
introduce “ a short measure ” for the partial disfranchisement of
Northampton. (The question was never put.)
May 6th.—Further obstruction of the Bigots.
May 10th.—After 1.15 a.m. the Government proposed a morn
ing sitting for that day (Tuesday), to discuss the introduction of
their Bill. Further obstruction, wrath, and bitterness, and the
Government abandoned the intention to hold a morning sitting.
At the afternoon sitting a resolution was arrived at, which
authorised the Sergeant-at-Arms to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh from
entering the House.
Lord Selborne (Lord Chancellor) in reply to a letter relative
to Mr. Bradlaugh and the oath, says equal justice is due to
Christian and infidel; he saw no possibility of refusing to afford
by legislation to all who scruple to take the oath, the same option
in Parliament as they have in courts of law, to make an affirma
tion.
May 25th.—Mr. Newdegate formally blocked the Bill, of which
Mr. Labouchere gave notice, for indemnifying Mr. Bradlaugh
against penalties for having sat and voted on affirmation.
June 19th and 20th.—The common informer’s action tried at
Nisi prizes before Mr. Justice Grove. Verdict against Mr. Brad
laugh for penalty and costs.—Rule nisi for new trial afterwards,
granted by Justices Grove and Lindley; this rule was made
absolute by Justices Denman and Hawkins, but was set aside by
Lords Justices Brett, Cotton and Holker.
Mr. Bradlaugh appeals to the country. The country answers.
Aug. 3rd.—Mr. Bradlaugh, acting on his right to enter the
House of Commons, is seized at the door of the House by four
teen men, police and ushers (Inspector Denning said ten), and
roughly hustled out into Palace Yard, Mr. Bradlaugh protesting
against such treatment as illegal. “ In the passage leading out
to the yard Mr. Bradlaugh’s coat was torn down on the right
side ; his waistcoat was also pulled open, and otherwise his toilet
was much disarranged. The members flocked down the stairs
on the heels of the struggling party, but no pause was made
until Mr. Bradlaugh was placed outside the precincts and in
Palace Yard.”—Times. Aiderman Fowler was heard to call,
“ Kick him out.” This he afterwards denied, but there is evidence
that he did so. (Mr. Bradlaugh suffered the rupture of the
small muscles of both his arms, and erysipelas ensued).
Many thousands of people went up to the House with petitions,
urging the House to do justice to Northampton and Mr. Brad
laugh.
In the House Mr. Labouchere moved a resolution condemn
ing, as an interference with the privilege of members, the action
of the authorities in expelling Mr. Bradlaugh from the lobby.
�Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
15
This was rejected by 191 votes against 7, and a motion of Sir
Henry Holland, declaring the approval of the House of the
course taken by the Speaker, was agreed to without controversy.
At a crowded meeting at the Hall of Science the same evening
Mr. Bradlaugh stated that he had told Inspector Denning in
Palace Yard that he could come back with force enough to gain
admittance, but that he had no right to risk the lives and liberties
of his supporters.
Aug. 4th.—The Times declares, in an article favorable on the
whole to Mr. Bradlaugh’s claims, that the House of Commons
was yesterday the real sufferer in dignity, authority, and repute.
It says : “ the question contains within itself the baleful germ of
a grave constitutional contest between the House of Commons
and any constituency in the land ; ” and “ such a conflict can but
have one conclusion, as all history shows.”
The Daily News, in a similar article, concludes thus : “ Sooner
or later it will be generally acknowledged that Mr. Bradlaugh’s
exclusion was one of the most high-handed acts of which any
legislative body has ever been guilty.”
The following unique paragraph from The Rock is worth pre
serving in its original form : “The question now is whether the
Christian people of this realm will quietly allow clamorous
groups of infidels, Radicals, and seditionists, by organised
clamor, bluster, and menace, to overawe the legislature, and by
exhibitions of violence—not at all unlikely, if permitted ta
develop into outrage and riot—to cause an organic and vital
change to be made in our Constitution and laws, in order that
brazen-faced Atheism might display itself within the walls of the
British Parliament.”
Mr. E. D. Girdlestone writes: “If the present Cabinet does
not secure your admission to the House in some way or other, I
can only wish they may soon be turned out of office. I don’t
know what more I can do than say, ‘ Go on ! and go in ! ’ ”
Aug. 5th.—Mr. Bradlaugh’s application at Westminster Police
Court for summons against Inspector, for having assaulted him
at the House of Commons on the 3rd inst., refused.
Mr. Bradlaugh confined to the House with severe erysipelas in
both arms, resulting from the injuries inflicted. Attended by
Drs. Ramskill and Palfrey. The latter, on August 12th, ordered
his immediate removal from town, to prevent yet more dangerous
complications.
Aug. 13th.—Mr. Bradlaugh went to Worthing to recruit his
health. Outside the station there, weary and exhausted, both arms
in a sling, he was rudely stared at by a clergyman, who, having
satisfied himself as to Mr. Bradlaugh’s identity, walked away
saying loudly: “ There’s Bradlaugh ; I hope they’ll make it warm
for him yet.”
�16
Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
The Northern Star (a Tory paper) suggested that Mr. Brad
laugh was malingering—“simply carrying on the showman
business.”
Aug. 24th.—Sir Henry Tyler, in the House of Commons,
attempts to discredit the South Kensington department for
allowing science and art classes at the Hall of Science. Mr.
Mundella gives those classes great credit.
Aug. 27th.—Parliament prorogued.
Further appeal to England.
1882.
Jan. 9th.—The Earl of Derby, in a speech at the Liverpool
Reform Club, says: “For my part I utterly disbelieve in the
value of political oaths. ... I should hope that if Mr. Brad
laugh again offers to take the oath, as he did last year, there will
be no further attempt to prevent him.”
Feb. 7th.—Reopening of Parliament. Mr. Bradlaugh again
attended at the table to take the oath, and Sir Erskine May, the
clerk of the House, was about to administer the same when Sir
Stafford Northcote, interposing, moved that Mr. Bradlaugh be
not allowed to go through the form. Sir W. Harcourt, in moving
the previous question, said the Government held the view that
the House had no right to interpose between a duly-elected
member and the oath.
Mr. Bradlaugh, addressing the House from the bar for the third
time, begged the House to deal with him with some semblance and
show of legality and fairness. He concluded: “I want to obey
the law, and I tell you how I might meet the House still further,
if the House will pardon me for seeming to advise it. Hon.
members had said that an Affirmation Bill would be a Brad
laugh Relief Bill. Bradlaugh is more proud than you are. Let
the Bill pass without applying to elections that have taken place
previously, and I will undertake not to claim my seat, and when
the Bill has passed I will apply for the Chiltern Hundreds. I
have no fear. If I am not fit for my constituents they shall
dismiss me, but you never shall. The grave alone shall make
me yield.”
When a division was taken there were for the previous ques
tion 228, against 286. Mr. Samuel Morley voted with the
majority against the Government. Sir Stafford Northcote’s
motion was then agreed to without a division.
Feb. 8th.—Mr. Labouchere, in committee of the whole House,
proposed for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law of Par
liamentary Oaths and Affirmations. The Bill was afterwards
formally blocked by Mr. Molloy.
�Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
17
Feb. 17th.—Mr. Labouchere asked the Attorney-General
whether the resolution of Feb. 7th had not vacated the seat.
Sir Henry James answered that it had not.
Feb. 18th.—Mr. Gladstone writes Mr. Bradlaugh that the
Government have no measure to propose with respect to his
seat.
Feb. 21st.—Mr. Bradlaugh of himself takes and subscribes the
oath, and takes his seat.
Feb. 22nd.—Mr Bradlaugh expelled the House of Commons.
Mar. 2nd.—Re-elected for Northampton. For Bradlaugh,
3,796 ; for Corbett, 3,688.
Mar. 6th.—On the motion of Sir Stafford Northcote, the
House reaffirms its motion of the 7th Feb., Mr. Gladstone sup
porting an amendment moved by Mr. Marjoribanks, by which the
House would have declared the desirability of legislation, for the
purpose of giving members an option between oath and affirma
tion.
Mar. 7th.—Lord Redesdale introduces in the House of Lords
a Bill, requiring every peer and every member of the House of
Commons before taking the oath or making the affirmation, to
declare and affirm his belief in Almighty God. The Bill, intro
duced “from a sense of what was due to Almighty God,” was
afterwards withdrawn “ in deference to Lord Salisbury.”
To this date, 317 petitions with 62,168 signatures had been
presented against Mr. Bradlaugh being allowed to take his seat;
while in favor of the same 1,051, with 250,833 signatures, had
been presented.
Mr. Labouchere’s Affirmation Bill blocked by Earl Percy.
18 8 3
Jan. 11th.—Mr. Justice Field gave judgment that the privileges
of the House of Commons prevented Mr. Bradlaugh from
obtaining any redress for the assault upon him on August 3rd,
1881.
Feb. 15th.—Great demonstration in Trafalgar Square; from
eighty to one hundred thousand people present. (Evening Stan
dard says 30,000; Daily News, 50,000 an hour before the meeting.)
Mr. Adams, chairman; Rev. W. Sharman, Jos. Arch, and Mr.
Bradlaugh, speakers.
Opening of Parliament. (Mr. Gladstone at Cannes.) Govern
ment give notice for to-morrow for leave to introduce bill to
amend the Oaths Act, 1866. Sir R. Cross gives notice of opposi
tion on second reading of same. Mr. Bradlaugh consents, with
the approval of his constituents, expressed on the 13th inst., to
await the fate of the measure.
�18
Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
Feb. 16th.—Sharp succession of frantic speeches in the House
of Commons by Mr. Newdegate, Aiderman Fowler, Mr. Warton,
Mr. Henry Chaplin, Mr. Onslow, Mr. Grantham, Mr. Beresford
Hope, Lord H. Lennox, Lord C. Hamilton, Mr. A. Balfour, Mr.
Ashmead Bartlett, and Mr. A. O’Connor. Divisions : from two
to three to one for Government. The Marquis of Hartington
consents to adjourn the motion for Bill until Monday at twelve.
Feb. 18th.—The Observer says that when Conservatives ask
Liberals whether they really mean to alter the law for the purpose
of admitting Mr. Bradlaugh, it is fair for Liberals in turn to ask
Conservatives whether they really mean to maintain an admitted
abuse and injustice for the mere purpose of excluding Mr. Brad
laugh.
Feb. 19 th.—First reading of Bill carried on division by 184
votes to 53 ; second reading formally fixed for that night week.
Feb. 20 th.—Daily News says Bill will be carried by large
majorities, and will be regarded by the House and the country
as the appropriate settlement of an unfortunate controversy.
The Times says the leaders of the opposition will not
succeed in finally preventing the Bill from becoming law.
Its real concern is that Mr. Bradlaugh has been substantially in
the right; that he has been unjustly excluded from taking the
seat which belongs to him.
The .k orm'm? Advertiser thinks the Government may yet find it
difficult to persuade the House to adopt the Bill.
The Morning Post justifies the irregular opposition to the first
reading of the Bill, and thinks notice of the measure should have
been given in the Queen’s Speech. No measure had created
more excitement or raised more indignation in the country, which
desired to see it rejected by a decisive majority.
March 5th.—Appeal case Bradlaugh v. Clarke part heard before
the House of Lords.
March 6th.—Case concluded ; judgment deferred.
March 9th.—Action for maintenance—Bradlaugh v. Newdegate
—tried before Lord Coleridge and a special jury. Henry Lewis
Clarke, the common informer, swore that he had not the means
to pay the costs, and would not have brought the action if he
bad not been indemnified by Mr. Newdegate. Case adjourned
for argument of legal points.
March 17th. — Maintenance action argued; four counsel
appearing for Mr. Newdegate. Lord Coleridge reserved judg
ment.
March 20th.—The Solicitors to the Treasury compelled Mr.
Bradlaugh to pay the costs of the House of Commons in the
action against the deputy Sergeant-at-Arms.
��PRICE
SIXPENCE.
The True Story
OF
My Parliamentary Struggle.
BY
CHARLES BRADLAUGH.
Containing the whole of Mr. Bradlaugh’s evidence before the Select
Committee; his letter to the Times, May 20th, 1880; and his three
Speeches at the bar of the House of Commons.
London: Freethought Publishing Company, 63, Fleet Street, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The latest constitutional struggle : a register of events which have occurred since April 2nd, 1880
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Mawer, W.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 18 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Concerns Bradlaugh's election to Parliament as MP for Northampton. Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1883
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N480
Subject
The topic of the resource
Parliament
Atheism
Secularism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The latest constitutional struggle : a register of events which have occurred since April 2nd, 1880), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Charles Bradlaugh
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/37680daf10aa80780266307203b4f63a.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=osgjBPfgGdp8QEWdHpdFYtrHp7oOp%7EXgA74J9p7EpBkbRGFbkWdNr0FAfkgRWQY58NQe16va2KXglxyB6CMYj4ydoA8oK7ra-kHDEeI4tt1SCNJHvJas5ldAjywk0pPT9Z8IO9f%7EHlU0InU4SDi%7EZOLzjFnVHlZy3-pEAjNW7H-BttlxbYgQwF3cyzSb3GoqI5EpCjJoMici5JsPLbZLusriUSkDsUXybkuX3z86nsWHr5avknavdYdq-PagqVyfZor%7EfVlc7DBjbmEKltjzfTeHz6x9SIWaPawOpe0RWNi01xNCC9BH3cXcgLNgzRnNmhInX7%7EQI0gPnFs5wq3V7w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
8c0523572d0b5419ae64ea3b0d64f1e2
PDF Text
Text
����������������
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The votes of the bishops in the House of Lords
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Society for the Liberation of Religion from State-Patronage and Control
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 15 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Annotations in pencil. Includes bibliographical references. Publisher's list of new publications on back page.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Society for the Liberation of Religion from State-Patronage and Control
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[189-?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5784
Subject
The topic of the resource
Secularism
Parliament
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The votes of the bishops in the House of Lords), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Bishops-Christian Church
Church and State
Great Britain-Parliament-House of Lords
Secularism-Great Britain
Voting Systems