South Canterbury Times, WEDNESDAY MAY 4, 1881.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2533, 4 May 1881, Page 2

South Canterbury Times, WEDNESDAY MAY 4, 1881.

The Bradlaugh oath squabble is of comparatively trifling importance to the people of New Zealand. Beyond indicating from the severely divided aspect of the House of Commons that heathenish intolerance has not quite died out it is of little value. Still it is not desirable that trifles, even if they are remote, should be misrepresented. An attempt has been made in this colony to mislead public opinion respecting this teapot storm. The difficulty that has arisen over the admission of Mr Bradlaugh to the seat for which he has been returned flu the House of Commons, is alleged to possess no religious aspect. It is said to be a political rather than a theological question. Mr Bradlaugh is rabidly denounced as a rebel as well as an atheist and it is alleged that the reason why he is excluded from participation in the common political privileges of British subjects is because he refuses to acknowledge the Queen’s sovereignty. We do not propose taking the slightest notice of the rancorous language that has been indulged in by the petty imitators in this colony of the jingo party in Great Britain. It is a notorious fact that a weak cause begets bad language. We may state, however, that as usual the vendors of malignity are, in this instance, true to their traditional instincts, entirely in error. The obstacle in the way of Mr Bradlaugh’s admission to the House of Commons is a purely theological one. Not being a hypocrite or dissembler, and in this respect we are assured that he differs from some of his traducers, Mr Bradlaugh freely admits that the conventional oath is not binding on his conscience. Of course it follows that, lacking the faith of the ancients, Mr Bradlaugh is sceptical respecting the divine right of Kings and Queens. He is not able to so compound with his conscience and. reasoning faculties as to believe that “ the King can do no wrong.” But the fact that his faith does not come up to the requisite

standard does not constitute him a rebel. Mr Bradlaugh is just as likely to be a loyal subject as the writers that meanly malign him. He obeys the laws of his country, —he is not an assassinator of character, ho refrains from venomous attacks and disgraceful language, and hence, unlike our modern Pistol, he is not in the habit of eating the leek. Apostate though he may be it is quite possible that be has a far higher regard for the present Sovereign of Great Britain than the creeping things who glory in parading their obsequiousness in her colonies. Obscene, as he has been termed, his inner life is probably far purer than that of men who believe that their blemishes, however heinous, can never acquire so fast a dye as not to be discharged by an occasional visit to the sanctuary. It is a bad sign when the habitual slanderer has to betake himself to speaking ill of people at a distance, for it proves that bis accustomed scurrility is being diverted into pusillanimous channels. The best answer to Mr Bradlaugh’s detractors in New Zealand is to' be found in the fact that bis cause has found advocates in the leading lights of the British Parliament, If Mr Bradlaugh were the apostate and rebel that be has been designated, would he possess the support and sympathy of the present British Premier ? Would such men as Mr John Bright come forward to bis assistance ? Would the House cf Commons with its exuberant loyalty be nearly divided on the question that has been raised ? We maintain that as regards Mr Bradlaugh’s loyalty as a British subject there can be no doubt and that the writer who terms him a rebel is a self, acknowledged slanderer. We further contend that to hold up to contumely, and insult, a gentleman who has been twice returned by the same English constituency, who is fighting as be believes a conscientious battle, whose greatest offence is that he believes the ruled should be the rulers, whose great desire is the social elevation of his fellow men, and who has nearly one half of the House of Commons including its best and most prominent men on his side, is excessively mean and contemptible.