'^^\ 
 
 ' ' ) 
 
 mm 
 
 
 
 i!**i 
 
 'Jimi\ 
 
 '.;> ::^*t^" 
 
 Ji!}j^^
 
 /
 
 PARLIAMENTARY OATHS. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 DELIVERED BY THE 
 
 RIGHT HON. W. E. GLADSTONE, M.P., 
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, 
 
 ON THE 
 
 Second Reading of the FarHamentary Oaths Act Amendment Bill, 
 On Thursday, the 26th April, 1883. 
 
 Printed for the Liberal Central Association^ 41 and 42^ Parliament 
 Street, Westminster, S. W, 
 
 PUBLISHED BY 
 
 THE NATIONAL PRESS AGENCY, LIMITED, 
 7j, Whitefriars Street, E.C. 
 
 PRICE ONE PENNY.
 
 PARLIAMENTARY OATHS. 
 
 Mr, Gladstone, who on rising was received with loud cheers, 
 said : Strictly speaking, it is no part of my duty to do more than 
 to follow, as well as I can, the arguments which have been used 
 against this Bill. It appears to me, however, that w^hile the real 
 issue to be dealt with is not a very wide one, the debate has been 
 •extraordinarily prolonged by the introduction into it of extraneous 
 matter. The debate has undoubtedly been an animated one. On 
 the other side of the House all that sarcasm and invective can do, 
 -especially by assaults upon the Government, involving lengthened 
 'details of its iniquitous proceedings, has been called into requisi- 
 tion, I will not say for the purpose, but at all events with the 
 effect of very greatly widening the field of contention, without, I 
 think, having the compensating effect of clearing the judgment of 
 ;hon. membeis. The hon. member who has just sat down has made 
 a most temperate speech, and consequently it was much less 
 animated than many other of the speeches that have fallen from 
 lion, members opposite on this question. I may say, however, that 
 K do not defend my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. 
 I leave him subject to the whole weight of the censure 
 which has been pronounced by the hon. member, although, it being 
 an argumentative censure, it might, perhaps, have not been diffi- 
 cult to defend the noble and learned lord. The hon. member has 
 said but two things that really bear upon the question at issue, or 
 whicli could possibly be held to be in the nature of an argument 
 against the Bill. One is that the petitions shew that the voice 
 of the nation is against the Bill, and the other is that by the law 
 at this moment an atheist cannot sit in this House. 
 
 Sir H. D. Wolff explained that he had asserted that by the 
 present law an avowed atheist could not sit in that House. 
 
 <Mr. Gladstone : Of course I do not speak of persons whose 
 opinions are concealed. On that point, then, my contention is 
 exactly the reverse of the hon. member's. I will not say what is 
 the intention of the law, because with that I have nothing to do ; 
 but I say that there is no legislative power whatever that can 
 prevent atheists duly elected from sitting in this House. And I 
 think, moreover, that the lion, member himself will see that it 
 was mainly through an accident that the disclosure of his 
 religious opinions effected Mr. Bradlaugh's exclusion from this 
 House. What I am prepared to maintain is this — that even 
 where a man's atheism is notorious, and where it has been pub 
 lished in the newspapers, there is no power, when he has been 
 duly elected, that can exclude him if he chooses — whether well 
 advised or ill advised is not the quastion — to take the oath. Many 
 matters have been introduced into this debate, some of which it 
 will be my duty to notice. Ill the first place, it has been said 
 that this Bill ought to have been mentioned in the Queen's 
 Speech^ and the Government have been complained of for not 
 having givoi it a place in that Speech. In my view, however, 
 this was a Bill which ought not to have been mentioned in the
 
 Queen's Speech. It is the duty of the Government, before they 
 advise Her Majesty as to her Speech, to make choice, accordmg to- 
 the legislative requirements of the country, of certain measures 
 which they think it is within the power of the House of Commons 
 and the most for the interest of the country to deal with ; and 
 they should make this choice upon grounds of broad and general 
 interest. This Bill, however, is one which comes within quite a 
 different category. The noble lord the Secretary for War.. 
 suggested, Avith perfect truth, I think, that this was not a 
 question to which, upon grounds of legislati\e urgency, it 
 would have been our duty to give precedence over the 
 multitude of those proposed to be dealt with by the 
 measures indicated in the Queen's Speech. This measure is of 
 a totally different character from those. With regard to it, it 
 was our duty to consider what was the position of the House of 
 Commons, just as last year it became our duty to consider the 
 position of the House with regard to the rules of procedure. 
 We thought that it did appertain both to the dignity of the 
 House of Commons and to the interests of the country that this 
 painful controversy, which has existed for so long, should be brought 
 to a close, and that there should be no longer the temptation which 
 has existed in this House to deal with matters strictly judicial in 
 a temper and with indications not always presenting the best 
 features of the judicial character. We thought that such scenes, 
 as have been witnessed here, when the dignity of the House and 
 the directions of the House have had to be supported by physical 
 force, ought not to be repeated, especially when we had reason to 
 believe that increased pain and increased scandal might attend 
 their repetition. It was therefore upon the ground especial to the 
 position of the House of Commons in this matter that we thought 
 that this question was entitled to take precedence of certain other 
 measures, and to be a primary one in reference to the procedure 
 of this House, although it might be secondary in point of dignity 
 as far as the order of legislation was concerned. I may perhaps 
 just remind the House that a precisely similar course to that 
 which we have adopted in this case was followed in 1854:. Lord 
 John Russell, who was then the leader of this House on behalf 
 of the Government of Lord Aberdeen, introduced a Bill for alter- 
 ing the Parliamentary Oaths Act, Avith a view to the further re- 
 lief of the Roman Catholics and to the general simplification of 
 the oath. That Bill was of much wider scope than the present 
 measure, because it went to recast the law ^\■ith. regard to 
 the duties of hon. members generally, and it corresponded 
 in substance with the Act on the subject that was sub- 
 sequently passed in 1866, and yet that Bill was never 
 mentioned in the Speech from the Throne in 1854. 
 I am afraid that after what we have heard from some hon. gentle- 
 men opposite, and especially from the right hon. gentleman the 
 late Home Secretary, I shall make but a dull, unexciting, and un- 
 interesting speech, because I do not intend to accuse, anybody of 
 anything. Neither can I refer to all the numerous points in the 
 attack which the right hon. gentleman made upon the Government. 
 I must, however, refer to one single point in that attack. The 
 
 t:#V
 
 risjht lion, fientloman said that our determination to take the retro- 
 spective action which we proposed to include in it in 1880 out of 
 the Bill was " a despicable trick." Let mo explain how that came 
 to pass. In 1880 the law had never been determined on the 
 question of the optional right of the hon. member for Northamp- 
 ton to affirm, and consequently Mr. Bradlaugh had been returned 
 by his constituency without any knowledge on their part that he 
 was precluded from taking his seat in this House. That being so, 
 when we tliought it expedient to ask the House to change the 
 existing law, we thought it right also that that change should be 
 made retrospective, so that the constituency which had committed 
 no oftence agai^ist the known law might not suffer, and that it 
 should be given the benefit of its election. The case now, liow- 
 ever, stands on a very different footing, because the law has since 
 been declared, and the constituency has again returned Mr. 
 Bradlaugh, this time Avith a full knowledge of what the law is, 
 and therefore it is that we do not now ask the House to make the 
 present Bill retrospective in its action. Thus we propose to deal 
 with the warned constituency in a different way from what we 
 should ha^e dealt with the unwarned constituency.* 
 
 Sir R. Cross said that he was referring to the Bill as brought 
 in this year. After the constituency had learnt that Mr. Brad- 
 laugh could not take his seat they elected him again, and after 
 that the Bill of this year was brought in. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone : It seems to me an extraordinary thing to 
 say that if the Government, upon a full consideration of the 
 different bearings of a point of that kind, sees cause to come to 
 a certain conclusion it is "a despicable trick." Is the conclu- 
 sion a right one or a wrong one"? The right hon*. gentleman 
 will not say the conclusion is a wrong one. I want to know 
 what title he has to characterise it in his moderate lan- 
 guage as '- a despicable trick." The ground upon which we have 
 made, or propose to make, an alteration in the Bill is the ground 
 which I have stated. But then it is said you ought not to alter 
 the law^ for the sake of one person. That is a favourite argu- 
 ment. But it so happens that these laws are commonly altered 
 for the sake of one person. It is in the case of some one person 
 that the question is raised and the matter brought to an issue. 
 Was not the case of O'Connell the case of one person ? 
 ("No," from the Parnellite Members). I say. Sir, that 
 upon the Parliamentary history of the question there is 
 nothing more clear or better known than this — that it was the 
 election of O'Connell for the county of Clare that brought the 
 Boman Catholic question to an issue. Now the allegation is not 
 that Mr. Bradlaugh had nobody behind him, but that his is the sole 
 case presented. Certainly I must say that this is a curious objection 
 
 * Later in the evening Mr. GLadatone made the following' statement :— I wish 
 to make an observation. I stated inaccurately to the House a matter I am 
 anxious to set right. I was under the belief that the Bill introduced by my hon. and 
 learned friend the Attorney-General was introduced before the re-election of Mr. 
 Bradlaugli. I find that it was after hi;i re-election ; conse(iuentIy the only explanation I 
 have to give now in lieu of what I said before is that upon full consideration of the 
 rights of the case we think the Bill ought not to be reti'ospective, especially as the prece- 
 dent of 31r. O'Connell and the principles applicable to the case recommend it as our duty 
 to propose a non-retrospective measure.
 
 6 
 
 to proceed from the party opposite, because the party opposite has- 
 had to deal Avith the question of the removal of religious disa- 
 bilities. After having stoutly opposed the admission of Jews to* 
 Parliament, upon principles quite as- high and for motives quite 
 as conscientious as those upon Avhich they are now acting, 
 when they came into office they introduced a Bill for the relief o£ 
 the Jews. How does that Bill run 1 In this precise form. It* 
 makes provision for altering the law and rules of this House of 
 Parliament upon the presentation of one person. I will not read 
 the whole clause, but it runs thus: "When it shall appear to- 
 either House of Parliament that a Person " — a Person — " is*- 
 prevented from taking his seat," by the then condition of the 
 law, "such House may resolve that thenceforth any person" may 
 come in and take his seat, upon the conditions therein specified. 
 So that the fixing of the law was thereby committed to each 
 House, and it was deliberately arranged by the action of a*. 
 Government representing gentlemen opposite that when one Jew 
 was found to be excluded by the state of the law, as it then was, 
 this House should once for all, if it thought fit, admit that Jew 
 and every other Jew who should apply to be admitted. Now we 
 are asked what is to be done about the peers, about aliens, about 
 felons. I am not sure whether that objection did not proceed 
 from some legal authority. It is said that if we pass this Bill we 
 shall be placed in a difficult position with regard to aliens, felons,^.. 
 and peers. (Lord P. Churchill : The clergy.) The case of the 
 clergyman I put upon an entirely different footing. It is thought 
 to be a matter of very high duty, or of rigid constitutional 
 principle, to exclude clergymen from this House ; but I consider- 
 it is a matter exceedingly open to discussion, and to involve no- 
 constitutional question at all. With regard to peers (thouglx 
 I am sorry to place peers in such company), aliens and 
 felons, their disqualifications rest upon the intelligible and well- 
 understood principles of the common law of England. But the 
 disqualification of an unbeliever rests upon nothing of the sort- 
 I think my hon. and learned friend the other night distinctlyr. 
 demonstrated that by the common law of England there was no- ■ 
 disqualification of this character. It is commonly said that Chris- - 
 tianity is part of the common law. But can that statement be taken 
 in the sense that if a man is not a Christian, he is an offender 
 against the common law 1 That would be an extraordinary mode o£r 
 applying the principle. But it has been shewn that no oath or 
 test of any kind was ever used on the part of this House as a 
 condition precedent to entrance into the House until the reign of:. 
 Elizabeth ; and that when an oath was then introduced it was- 
 not introduced in, the slighest degree as a religious test. (Mr... 
 Newdegate expressed dissent.) I will shew my hon. friend — if 
 he will allow nie to call him so, and I think, after having satx^^ 
 opposite to him for forty years, I am entitled to use that term — 
 I will shew my hon; friend that it is so. My proof is tliis — that 
 the oath was applied to commoners only, and not to peers; and i 
 the Act expresseiy declares the reason why it was 
 applied to commoners and not to peers. " Because," so-* 
 ran the Act, "we are otherwise persuaded by sufficient 
 means of the loyalty of the Peers." Therefore it was<
 
 a simple mode of ascertaining loyalty to the institutions 
 of the country, and not the imposition of a religious dis- 
 ability. That as a matter of history, was the principle 
 of our law down to the year 1828. If that be so, it will 
 be found perfectly sound doctrine that there is no disqualifi- 
 cation of the unbeliever by the common law. You may tell me 
 that it was not then merely a question of admitting atheists to* 
 this House, but of permitting them to live. That is true, I think, 
 down to the year 1614. The ancestors of those of us of English 
 blood burned a certain person for insufficiency of religious belief. 
 But that case was not the case of an atheist, but of an Arian. 
 The fact is, however, that the country gradually adopted the 
 principles of toleration. But where it tolerated it never erected 
 barriers to prevent entrance to this House. Well, Sir, hon. 
 gentlemen opposite say that there are a great many petitions 
 against this Bill, and that the number is much greater against 
 than in favour of the Bill. I think there has been some exaggera- 
 tion in this matter. The late Home Secretary said that the Presi- 
 dent of the Wesleyan Conference had expressed himself against the 
 Bill. I understand the fact is directly the contrary. He disclaims 
 having done so, and I have a letter in my hand on the subject. 
 
 Sir R. Cross was understood to say that on Monday evening 
 he had in his hand a copy of the petition of the committee which 
 sat with the President in the chair, and that the words which he 
 read were the words of the secretary of the committee. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone : IS^ow, sir, I have received myself a letter, 
 signed by Dr. Kennedy, the hon. secretary of the Three 
 Denominations of Dissenters. The letter says : "I have the 
 honour of forwarding to you a petition of the general body of 
 the Three Denominations of Protestant Dissenting Ministers 
 in favour of the Bill." I think it is only just to read an 
 additional extract. The writer says : " The personal associations 
 which are at present connected with the question are so painful 
 and offensive to the body which we represent that nothing but a 
 strong sense of duty would have induced them to sign this 
 petition to Parliament." Do you suppose that we feel no pain 1 
 Do you suppose that we are unaware how difficult, how all but im- 
 practicable, it has become to do what we believe to be strict justice 
 in the face of such associations ? If you do not know this you 
 ought; and if you do know, you should not, from your place in this 
 House, sarcastically deride us and advise us to subscribe on our 
 banner, " Brad laugh and Blasphemy." I believe that every one 
 of those intendinor to vote for this Bill feels that it is indeed 
 difficult to do justice under such circumstances; but the difficulty 
 is the measure of the duty and of the honour ; and, just as if we 
 were in a jury-box and a prisoner stood before us on a criminal 
 charge, we will put a strong hand of self-restraint upon our- 
 selves, and we will take care that full justice, nothing more and 
 nothing less, shall be awarded to every citizen of England. In 
 these considerations, as I believe and am persuaded, is to 
 be found the reason why so many who feel it their duty to 
 support this Bill have, notwithstanding, shrunk from ex- 
 posing themselves to the odium so very freely cast upon 
 the supporters of this measure by those Avho oppose it.
 
 8 
 
 But I am bound to say a little more than that. The people who 
 have subscribed petitions against this Bill are very numerous — I 
 think about four times the number of those who have petitioned 
 in favour of it. I am persuaded that the former have acted under 
 the influence of what are justly called religious instincts. In my 
 opinion, upon broad questions of principle which stand out 
 disentangled from surrounding facts, the immediate instincts and 
 sense of the people are very generally right. (Opposition 
 cheers.) I am heartily glad to find that there is an echo to that 
 sentiment in the quarter from which those cries proceed. But I 
 cannot say that this is a uniform and an unbending rule, and it 
 does undoubtedly sometimes happen that when broad principles are 
 disguised by the incidents of the case, the momentary judgment, 
 the momentary opinion, guided by the instincts of a population, is 
 not a safe guide. If I were to make an exception to the general 
 justice of the instincts of the people — and it is an exception not 
 dishonourable to them — I say I should trust them far more on 
 questions where their own immediate interests are concerned 
 than on questions where the prepossessions of religion are 
 concerned. The latter is a class of questions on which we must 
 be careful against taking momentary indications of public feeling 
 for our guide. These indications are opposed in many instances to 
 the judgment of mankind. This is no assumption of mine. I would 
 ask those who have studied the history of the year 1829, when 
 the great Act for Homan Catholic emancipation was passed, do 
 they believe that the Act at that moment represented the feelings 
 of the majority of the people of Great Britian ? No, Sir, it was 
 distinctly against them. It was a combination of the guides 
 of the people, it was the leaders, not on one side, but 
 on both sides, who, superior to the temptation of gathering 
 momentary profit from an appeal to religious prejudice 
 guided the people, and took upon themselves the responsibility 
 in their capacity as legislators of doing that which they 
 believed and knew to be right, trusting to the people 
 to do them justice and to recognise their motives. If 
 I were to go back further into history I might quote 
 other cases of a gross character, when popular risings under the 
 influence of not untrue, though misguided, religious instincts 
 disgraced the annals of this country. I will give one mstance. 
 It will be remembered that about 130 years ago this House and 
 the Legislature passed an Act for the purpose of naturalising 
 the Jews. A great popular movement immediately took 
 place against it. Are you to look back upon that movement and 
 say. " Poor ignorant wretches, what compassion we feel for you ?' 
 No, Sir ; these men, according to the feelings and the knowledge 
 of their day, were acting upon exactly the same principles and 
 under exactly the same impulses as the petitioners of to-day. 
 They thought that to admit a professor of a religion founded upon 
 or absolutely involving the denial of Him who is the Alpha and 
 Omega of our religion — they thought, or at least their instincts 
 told them, that there was in that Act something which tended to 
 impair the Christianity of the country. And there is precisely the 
 same feeling now, if allowance be made for the progress in the 
 political education of the country. It is notliing but the com-
 
 bination of the leaders of parties that can direct aright questions 
 of this kind, where religious prepossessions are involved, where 
 the facts are but very partially known out of doors, and where 
 the people have no means of sounding the difficult legal questions 
 and complicated arguments that puzzle even many members of 
 this House. If these leaders of parties do not see their way to 
 the performance of that duty, or think that their duty lies in an 
 opposite direction, then I, for my part, cannot be surprised that 
 large numbers of people should, under the influence of senti- 
 ments which I regard with the highest respect and honour, 
 take an action which I believe is wrong, and which I 
 am convinced is unjust. The other night the right lion, gen- 
 tleman the late Home Secretary spent more than half an hour 
 by that clock in detailing the guilty conduct of the Govern- 
 ment in regard to Mr. Bradlaugh. (Opposition cheers.) 1 did not 
 require that assurance to shew that hon. gentlemen opposite were 
 pleased. They shewed me on Monday night that they were 
 extremely pleased. They would have been pleased if, instead of 
 half-an-hour, he had taken an hour and a-half upon topics so 
 inviting and racy in their character. The question I humbly put 
 to hon. gentlemen opposite is this : " What in the world has that 
 conduct to do with the -matter 1 " Supposing it were all true, and 
 supposuig the Bill were the best Bill upon earth, it ought to pass 
 if the conduct of the Government were ever so bad ; and if 
 the Bill is a bad Bill it ought not to pass if the conduct of the 
 Government were ever so good. 
 
 Hon. gentlemen opposite seem to ascribe to me a peculiar feeling 
 of sympathetic enthusiasm in the course we have taken, and 
 they seem to imagine that I am possessed with a* missionary 
 zeal in driving forward with all my might the admission 
 of Mr. Bradlaugh into this House. What I wish to point 
 out is that we have rendered no assistance whatever to Mr. 
 Bradlaugh. Did the House of Lords assist Mr. Bradlaugh last 
 week 1 Did Lord Coleridge assist him yesterday 1 The House of 
 Lords has no more assisted Mr. Bradlaugh than the two Courts 
 which declared one after another that he had no right to affirm 
 in this House have opposed him. What we have endeavoured 
 to do has been to keep the proceedings of this House within the 
 bounds of law and constitutional order ; and it is no secret to you 
 that in our opinion they have not been kept within those bounds, 
 owing to the voice of a majority which required from us a respect- 
 ful obedience, but which required and was entitled to nothing 
 more. The right hon. gentleman opposite says that I abdicated 
 the position of leader of this House. Sir, if the words are to be 
 used at all, it is not a case of abdication, but of deposition. But 
 I am astonished at the doctrine of the right hon. gentleman. He 
 knows our ground. He knows that we were insisting on what 
 Ave thought our judicial duty, and yet he affirms that when a view 
 of judical duty opposite to ours has been taken, we, who had 
 been acting in the name of judicial duty, were to devise the 
 means of giving effect to that opposite view. Well, Sir, I repel 
 .and repudiate with all my soul that servile proposition. I am 
 willing to part with the place I hold and with the seat I hold, 
 but I am not willing for a moment to give in to such a doctrine.
 
 10 
 
 We have endeavoured to support, to the best of our power, the- 
 executi\'e authority of the House. (An hon. Member : That is. 
 what you have not done.) That murmur only shews that the facts- 
 have not been carefully watched ; but as to taking upon ourselves, 
 the responsibility of applying votes of this House, that we believe 
 to involve radical injustice, and that I believe — I repeat for- 
 myself without hesitation or scruple — to be such as in the case of 
 any minor authority would be termed illegal ; to ask me to make 
 myself the instrument of devising means for carrying such votes- 
 into effect, that, Sir, is a demand which I utterly reject, and 
 which I hold to be totally unsupported by any fact that has 
 occurred in the .best ages of our Parliamentary tradition. 
 
 I must say I think it is very strange that these accusations, 
 should be brought. It may be that gentlemen opposite have 
 something to bias them towards a particular course, which 
 brings them political profit. I am making no accusation. I 
 only say it may be that they have something to bias them 
 in that direction. But Avhat could we have to bias us in 
 the direction that we have taken? Do you suppose that we 
 are ignorant that in every contested election that has happened 
 since the case of Mr. Bradiaugh came up you have gained votes 
 and we have lost them 1 You are perfectly aware of it. We are 
 not less aware of it. But is not some credit to be given to us — we 
 giving you the same under circumstances rather more difficult — 
 for presumptive integrity and purity of motive 1 Sir, the Liberal 
 party has suffered and is suffering on this account. It is not the 
 first time in its history. It is the old story over again. In every 
 controversy that has arisen about the extension of religious tolera- 
 tion, and about the abatement and removal of disqualifications — 
 in every controversy relating to religious toleration and 
 to religious disabilities, the Liberal party has suffered 'before, 
 and is now suffering again. And yet it has not been 
 the party which upon the whole has had during the last half 
 century the smallest or the feeblest hold upon the affections and 
 the approval of the people. Who suffered from the Protestantism of 
 their country *? It was that party, with valuable aid from indi- 
 viduals, but only from individuals, who forfeited their popularity 
 on that account — it was that party who fought the battle of 
 freedom in the great Homan Catholic controversy, when the name of 
 Protestantism was invoked with quite as great an effect — and when 
 the petitions poured in quite as freely — as the name of Theism is 
 now. Protestantism stood the shock of the Act of 1829. Then 
 came on the battle of Christianity, and the Christianity of the 
 country was said to be sacrificed by the Liberal party. There are 
 gentlemen on the opposite side of the House who seem to have for- 
 gotten all that has occurred, and rather to plume themselves on the 
 admission of Jews to Parliament, as if they had not resisted — (and^ 
 with perfect honesty ; I make no charge against their honour, 
 and impute no unworthy motive) — as if they had not resisted it 
 with quite as much resolution as they are exhibiting on the present 
 occasion. Sir, what I hope is this, that the Liberal party wilL 
 not be deterred by fear or favour from walking steadily onwards- 
 in the path which it believes to be the path of equity and 
 justice. There is no greater honour to a man than to;
 
 11 
 
 suffer for the sake of what he thinks to he righteous ; 
 and there is no greater honour to a party than to suffer in the- 
 endeavour to give effect to principles which they believe to he- 
 just. 
 
 Sir, I ha^e occupied the House all this time on what I 
 consider to be extraneous and collateral matter, but matter which 
 has been introduced largely into every speech we have heard 
 from the other side. Now let us try to get at the heart of: 
 the argument on what, after all, is not a very complex 
 subject, but w^hich is an exceedingly interesting one. The business 
 of every man in controversy is to try to find out what is the main,. 
 the governing contention of his adversary. I have laboured 
 to find it out, and I think I have probably found it : I hope so. 
 As I read it, the governing contention is this, that the main 
 question for the State is not what religion a man professes, but 
 whether he professes .some religion or none. I was in hope o£' 
 receiving some affirm atory testimony to that from the hon. 
 gentlemen opposite. I might dispense with proofs, but I will 
 give them. The right hon. gentleman who led the opposition to 
 this Bill said that this Avas not a question of difference of 
 religion l>ut wan a question between religion and irreligion 
 — between religion and the absence of all religion ; and clearly 
 the basis of the right hon. gentleman's speech was that we were 
 to tolerate any belief, l^ut that w^e were not to tolerate- 
 no belief. I mean Ijy tolerate, admit to the House of 
 Commons. My hon. friend the member for Finsbury, in an able 
 speech, expressed still more clearly similar views. He referred 
 to the ancient controversies, and he said those controversies were 
 all very well ; they touched, he said, excresences,* and not the 
 vital substance. Now, Sir, I want to examine what is the vital 
 substance and w^hat are the excrescences. My hon. friend went 
 further than this, and used a most apt, appropriate, expressive 
 and still more significant phrase ; for he said, " Yes, it is true 
 you admit religions, some of which may go near the precipice, but 
 now you ask us to go over the precipice." Gentlemen opposite 
 cheered that loudly when it was said by my hon. friend behind 
 me; they will not give me a single cheer now. They 
 suspect I am quoting this with some e"\il intent. The 
 question is, am I quoting them fairly 1 or is it the fact 
 that some gentlemen have really not considered their attitude 
 towards this Bill except that they mean to oppose whatever is 
 suggested by the Government 1 However, I know my hon. 
 friend has considered very well what he said when he used 
 the simile about going near the precipice. Now I wish to ascer- 
 tain what is the value of this main and jDrincipal contention ? The 
 hon. and learned gentleman, the member for Launceston held 
 exactly the same language. Adopting a phrase which had f aliens 
 from the hon. memlier for Portsmouth, and which he thought hael 
 been unfairly turned and applied, he said he wished that there 
 should be some form of belief or other, some recognition of belief,, 
 something of what is called in the world of philosophical discus- 
 sion a recognition of the supernatural. 1 believe that is a- 
 phrase which goes as near to what hon. gentlemen opposite mean 
 as anything can. That is the main contention of the party-
 
 12 
 
 opposite, and what I -want to know is whether that proposition 
 -otfers us a good solid standing ground for legislation. Whatever 
 test is applied, the test of the Constitution, the test of civil and 
 political freedom, or, al)Ove all, the test of religion and reverence 
 for religious feeling — I do not hesitate to say that, confidently as 
 I support this Bill, there is no one ground on which I support it 
 with so much confidence as because of what I think the utter 
 hollowness and falsity of the arguments expressed in the words 
 I have just cited and in the idea at the bottom of these words, 
 •and the danger of making them the basis of our constitutional 
 action. Now, Sir, what does this contention do^ In the first 
 place it evidently violates civil freedom to this extent^ — ^that, in 
 the words of Lord Lyndhurst, which are as v*'ide as anything any 
 gentleman on this side could desire, there was to be a total 
 divorce between the question of religious differences and the 
 question of civil privilege and power ; that there was to be no 
 .religious test, no test whatever applied to a man with respect to 
 the exercise of civil functions except the test of civil capacity and 
 a fulfilment of civil conditions. Those Avere the words of Lord 
 Lyndhurst, those are the words on which we stand. But it is now 
 •proposed to depart from this position, and to say that a certain 
 class, perhaps a very narrow class, is, because it has no religion, to 
 •be excepted, and alone to be excepted, from the operation of that 
 great and broad principle. In my opinion it is in the highest 
 vdegree irrational to lay down a broad principle of that kind, and 
 to stop short, after granting 99-lOOths of all it means, in order 
 to make an invidious exclusion of any handful of persons whom 
 the exception may possibly affect. 
 
 Hon. gentlemen may perhaps be startled when I make 
 any next objection to the contention of the opponents of the 
 Bill, which is this, that that contention is highly disparaging to 
 •Christianity. Hon. gentlemen opposite invite us to do that 
 which, as a Legislature, we ought never to do — namely, to 
 travel over theological ground ; and now, having taken us upon 
 that ground, what is it they tell us ] They say this, that you 
 may go any length you please in the denial of religion, provided 
 only you do not reject the name of the Deity. They tear religion 
 into shreds, so to speak, and say that there is one particular shred 
 with which nothing will ever induce them to part. They divide 
 religion into the dispensable and the indispensable, aiid among 
 that kind which can be dispensed with — I am not now speaking 
 of those who declare, or are admitted under a special law,' I am 
 not speaking of Jews or of those who make a declaration, I am 
 speaking solely of those for whom no provision is made except 
 the provision of the oath — they divide, I say, religion into Avhat 
 can and what cannot be dispensed with, and then they find that 
 Christianity can be dispensed with. There is something, however, 
 that cannot be dispensed with. I am not Avilling, Sir, that 
 Christianity, if the appeal is made to us as a Christian Legislature, 
 shall stand in any rank lower than that which is indispensable. 
 I may illustrate what I mean. Suppose a commander has to 
 despatch a small body of men on an expedition, on which it is 
 necessary for them to carry on their backs all that they take with 
 them ; the men part with everything that is unnecessary, and take
 
 13 
 
 only that which is essential. That is the course that you ask us^ 
 to take in drawing us upon theological ground ; you requiie us to 
 distinguish between superfluities and necessaries, and you tell us 
 that Christianity is one of the superfluities, one of the excrescences, 
 and has nothing to do wdth the vital substance, the name of the 
 Deity, which is indispensable. I say that the adoption of such a 
 proposition as that, which is in reality at the very root of your 
 contention, is disparaging in the very highest degree to the 
 Christian faith. I pass to another point. My hon. friend the 
 member for Finsbury made a reference to Mr. O'Connell, whom 
 he knew personally. I will not say that I had so intimate a, 
 personal knowledge of him as my hon. friend, but when I was a 
 very young man, in the second year of my sitting in Parliament,, 
 in the old House, about half a century ago, I heard a speech from 
 Mr. O'Connell, which, though i was then bound by my party 
 allegiance to receive with distrust anything he said, made a deep 
 impression on me and by which I think I have ever since been 
 guided. It is to be found, not in " Hansard," but in a record 
 which for a very few years was more copious even than 
 " Hansard," and went under the name of the " Minor of 
 Parliament." Mr. O'Connell used these words in a speech on the 
 law of libel : — 
 
 *' When I see in this country the law allowing men to dispute 
 the doctrine of the Trinity and the Divinity of the Redeemer, I 
 really think if I had no other reason I should be justified in saying 
 that there is nothing beyond that which should be considered 
 worth quarrelling for, or which ought to be made a subject of 
 penal restrictions." 
 
 I am convinced that on every religious ground^, as well as 
 on every political ground, the true and the wise course is 
 not to deal out religious liberty by halves, quarters, and fractions,, 
 but to deal it out entire, and make no distinctions between man 
 and man on the ground of religious difference from one end of tlie- 
 land to the other. But I go a little further in endeavouring to 
 probe this contention which has been put forward by hon. gentle- 
 men opposite, and I w^ant to know is your religious distinction a 
 real distinction at all 1 I will, for the sake of argument, and 
 for no other purpose whatever, go with you on this 
 dangerous ground of splitting theology into slices, and I 
 ask you where you w^ill draw the line. You draw your line at 
 the point where the abstract denial of God is severed from the 
 abstract admission of the Deity. My proposition is that the line 
 thus drawn is worthless, and that much on your side of the lino 
 is as objectionable as the Atheism on the other. If you call upon 
 us to make distinctions, let them, at least, be rational ; I do not 
 say let them be Christian distinctions, but let them be rational. 
 I can understand one rational distinction, that you should frame 
 the oath in such a Avay as to recognise not only the existence of 
 the Deity, but the Providence of the Deity, and man's responsi- 
 bility to the Deity : and in such a way as to indicate the 
 knowledge in a man's own mind that he must answer to 
 the Deity for what he does, and is able to do. But is that 
 your present rule ? No, Sir, you know very well that from 
 ancient times there have been sects and schools that have admitted
 
 14 
 
 in the abstract as freely as Christians the existence of a Deity, but 
 Jiave held that of practical relations between Him and man there 
 <3an be none. Many members of this House will recollect the 
 aioble and majestic lines — 
 
 " Omnis enim per se Divom natura necesse est 
 ' ' Immortali tevo sumina cum pace frualur, 
 " Sejuncta a nostris rebus, seniotaque longe. 
 •' Nam privata dolore omni, privata periclis, 
 " Ipsa suis pollens opibus, nihil indiga nostri 
 " Nee bene promeritis capitur nectangitur ira." 
 
 " Divinity exists " — according to these, I must say, magnifi- 
 •€ent lines — " in remote and inaccessible recesses ; but with us it 
 lias no dealing, of us it has no nee^?., with us it has no relation. " 
 I do not hesitate to say that the specific evil, the specific form of 
 irreligion, with which in the educated society of this country you 
 have to contend, and with respect to which you ought to be on your 
 •guard, is not blank Atheism. That is a rare opinion very seldom 
 met with ; but what is frequently met with is that form of opinion 
 which would teach us that, whatever may be beyond the visible 
 things of this world, whatever there be beyond this short span of 
 life, you know and you can know nothing of it, and that it is a 
 bootless undertaking to attempt to establish relations with it. 
 That is the mischief of the age, and that mischief you 
 <lo not attempt to touch. What is more, you glory in 
 the state of the law that now prevails ; you wish 
 to tolerate all differences of religion, you wdsh to allow every 
 one to enter into your Chamber who adr^.its the existence of the 
 Deity. You would seek to admit Yoltaire. That is a specimen 
 of your toleration. Voltaire was not a taciturn foe of 
 Christianity. He was the author of that painful phrase which 
 goes to the heart of every Christian, and of many a professor of 
 religioi'i wlio is not a Christian — ecrasez Vinfdme. And yet that 
 is the state of the law for which you are working up the country 
 to madness, endeavouring to strengthen in the minds of the 
 people the false notion that you have got a real test, a real safe- 
 guard, and that Christianity is still safe, with certain unavoidable 
 exceptions, under the protecting aegis of the oath, within the walls 
 of this Chamber. And for this you excite a great religious war ! 
 I hold that this contention of our opponents is disparaging to 
 religion ; it is idle, it is irrational. For if you are to have a 
 religious test at all, a test of Theism, which was ^vhat the hon. 
 member for Portsmouth frankly said he wished to adopt, it ought 
 to be a test of a well ascertained Theism ; not a mere abstract idea 
 .dwelling in the air and the clouds, but a practical recognition of 
 a Divine governing Power to which we are to account for every 
 thought we conceive, for every word we utter. 
 
 I fear I have detained the House too long. But after all that has 
 been said, and after all the flood of accusation and of invective that 
 has been poured out, I have thought it right, at great length and 
 very seriously, to show at all events that we do not decline the battle, 
 and that we are not going to allow it to be said that the interests 
 •oi religion are to find defenders only on the opposite side of the 
 House. That sincere and conscientious defenders of the 
 interests of religion are to be found there I do not ques-
 
 15 
 
 "tion at this moment ; but I do contend with my whole heart and 
 «oul that the interests of religion as well as the interests of civil 
 liberty are concerned in the passing of this Bill. My reason for 
 saying that may be given in a very few words. If I were asked 
 to put a construction upon this oath I should probably give it a 
 higher meaning than most gentlemen opposite. It is my opinion 
 that the oath has in it a very large flavour of Christianity. I am 
 -well aware that the doctrine of my lion, and learned friend, 
 the Attorney-General, is that there are other forms of posi- 
 tive attestation, recognised by other systems of religion, which 
 may enable the oath to be taken, by the removal of the words, 
 *'so help me God " and the substitution of other words, or of some 
 other symbolical act, involving the notion of the Deity and re- 
 sponsibility to the Deity. I do not now refer to cases 
 of that kind but to cases where the oath is taken in 
 the usual form. Now remember the oath does not con- 
 sist of spoken words alone. The spoken words are accompanied 
 by the corroborative act of kissing the Book, which, accord- 
 ing to the intention of the Legislature, ought to import the 
 acceptance of the Divine revelation. There have been other 
 forms in other countries. I do not know whether there is still 
 in Scotland the form of holding up the hand. In Spain, I 
 believe, the form is that of kissing the cross ; in Italy, that of 
 laying the hand upon the Gospel. But in this, according to the 
 original intention, there is something which involves the accept- 
 ance of Christianity. You do not mean that the law is, or can be, 
 applied in this sense. A law of this kind is like coin spick and 
 span new from the Mint, carrying upon it all its edges in their 
 sharpness and freshness. But it wears down in passing from 
 hand to hand ; and, though there is a residuum, yet the distin- 
 guishing features disappear. So it is with the oath. Whatever my 
 opinion may be as to the original vitality of the oath, there is very 
 little ditference of opinion as to what it has now become. It has 
 become a theistic test. It does, as I think, involve a reference to 
 Christianity, but while this is my personal opinion it is not recog- 
 nised by authority, and at any rate does not prevail in practice ; 
 for some gentlemen in the other House of Parliament, if not in 
 this also, have wiitten works against the Christian religion, 
 and yet have taken the oath. But undoubtedly it is not 
 good for any of us to force this test so flavoured, or even not so 
 flavoured, upon men who cannot take it with a full and cordial 
 acceptance. It is bad to do it ; it is demoralising. It is all very 
 well to say, "Oh, yes, but it is their responsibility." That is not 
 in my view a satisfactory answer. A seat in this House is to an 
 ordinary Englishman in early life, or, perhaps, in middle or 
 mature life, when he has reached a position of distinction in his 
 career, the highest prize of his ambition. If you place between 
 him and that prize not only the necessity of conforming to certain 
 civil conditions, but the adoption of certain religious words, and 
 if these words are not justly measured to the conditions of his 
 conscience and convictions, you give him an inducement — nay, I 
 do not go too far when I say — you ofler him a bribe to tamper 
 with those convictions, to do violence to his conscience in order 
 that he may not be stigmatised by being shut out from what
 
 16 
 
 is In Id to be the noblest privilege of tlie English citizen, that of 
 representing his fellow- citizens. Therefore I say that besides 
 our duty to vindicate the principle of ci\'il and religious liberty, 
 it is most important that the House should consider the moral 
 effect of this test. It is — as the hon. member for Portsmouth is 
 neither more nor less than right in saying — a purely theistic test. 
 Viewed as a theistic test, it embraces no acknowledgment of 
 Providence, of Divine government, of responsibility, or retri- 
 bution. It involves nothing but a bare and abstract admission, 
 a form void of all practical meaning and concern. This is not a 
 wholesome, but an unwholesome lesson. Yet more. I own, 
 although I am now, perhaps, going to injure myself by 
 bringing the name of Mr. Bradlaugh into this controversy,. 
 I am strongly of opinion that the present controversy should 
 come to a close. I have no fear of Atheism in this House. 
 Truth is the expression of the Divine mind, and, however little 
 our feeble vision may be able to discern the means by which God 
 may provide for its preservation, we may leave the matter in His 
 hands, and we may be sure that a firm and courageous application 
 of every principle of equity and of justice is the best method we 
 can adopt for the preservation and influence of truth. And I 
 must painfully record my opinion that grave injury has been 
 done to religion in' many minds — not in instructed minds, but 
 in those which are ill-instructed or partially instructed, and 
 which have large claim on our consideration — in consequence of 
 steps which have, unhappily, been taken. Great mischief has 
 been done in many minds through the resistance offered to a man 
 elected by the constituency of Northampton, which a portion of 
 the people believe to be unjust. When they see the profession 
 of religion and the interests of religion ostensibly associated with 
 what they are deeply convinced is injustice, they are led to 
 questions about religion itself, which they see to be associated- 
 with injustice. Unbelief attracts a sympathy which it would not 
 otherwise enjoy, and the upshot is to impair those convictions 
 and that religious faith the loss of which I believe to be the 
 most inexpressible calamity which can fall either upon a man or 
 upon a nation.
 
 -^''^j'M 
 
 '^■^ 
 
 ^';*. ^ 
 
 
 '^W 
 
 'M- 
 
 *im%t 
 
 ^k 
 
 .M^im 
 
 m .-w 
 
 i'Mi^. 
 
 >^' ■sit-.,.>^w 
 
 n^^M 
 
 ■J 
 
 y.-4, 
 
 m 
 
 ^i|^ 
 
 m 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 *.*«,';'" '*' 
 
 W' 
 
 ^'i;^ 
 
 
 
 i^ 
 
 r A^^ 
 
 f^ 
 
 
 V '.-''8, 
 
 1%^