MR BRADLAUGH.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2813, 30 March 1882, Page 2

MR BRADLAUGH.

The “European Mail” gives the following, account of a scene at the opening of Parliament:—Mr Bradlaugh stood, hat in hand, before the table ;'but at the Speaker’s request, now withdrew to the bar, in accordance with custom. So promptly had he stepped into the arena, that the’ Premier had not yet arrived. Sir W. Harcourt apologising for hie accidental absence—his apology being received with ironical laughter by the Opposition—then advanced the legal view of the question, and contending that it should be left to bo decided by a court of law, moved the previous question,- Mr Gladstone, who was to have done this, entered while, he was speaking, and was received with loud cheers, Mr Newdegato still further pursued the case against Mr Bradlaugh, The latter, at the call of the Speaker, then stated the facts from his own point, of view. In a speech of considerable power, he contended that the 1 House could not deal with the circumstances previous to his second election, on April 9, and protested that he had scrupulously abstained from obtruding bis opinions. Did the House mean that it was a party to each oath taken ? Was it so when John Stuart Mill sat there; “ I say, sir,” said Mr Bradlaugh, coming to the main issue, “ with all the solemnity man can command, I know the words of the oath the statute requires me to take, that I am .ready to take that oath according to lawj and that I will not take an oath without intending it to be binding upon me, and that if I do take the oath it will be binding upon my honor and conscience Members of- the House who are ignorant of what is honor and conscience—H (Loud cries of ‘.Order,’ ‘ Oh, oh,’ and 'Withdraw’ from Opposition.) If members will allow me to finish my sentence ——- (Cries of ‘ Withdraw,’) Members of this House who are ignorant of what is-—(Renewed cries from the Opposition of ‘Withdraw.’) These (Mr Bradlaugh pointed ito the Opposition benches) are ,ray judges. Members of this House who are ignorant of what is the honor and conscience of the man who stands before them—(‘ Ob’ and laughter from the Oppositson)— have a right to shout ‘ withdraw,’ but they must beware lest a greater voice outside—(‘ Oh, oh,’ and laughter from the Opposition)—at the .ballot box, where it has a right to express it, may not only say ‘ withdraw,’ but make withdraw all' those who infringe the constitutional rights of the nation as they seek to infringe them now. v ; . I presume this House will repeat its vote of April 26. What then ? Will it have the courage of its opinions, and vacate my seat? (Hear, near.) If it does not, this House loaves me in an un. fair position before the law. I am bound to come to this table, and will come to'tbis table, as long as the mandate of ;my constituents sends me here, unless the House vacates the seat. If so, it is my duty to bow to the House, and appeal to my constituents again ; and then the verdict rests with them. But to take away part of the right, and deal with it in this fashion, leaving me with the full legal responsibility and no'kind of legal authority, I submit is not generous. Well, will this House repeat its vote of May 9? Will it substitute force for law ? At present the law is on my side. (Hear, hear.) Jfnot let me sit and sue me.' (Hear, hear.) If not, try my petition. If not, bring an action, but shouting ‘No ’ won’t decide .the law even with united wisdom of members of this Hpuse who shout it. I know that no man is a good advocate for a great principle unlesshe himself be worthy of the principle he advocates, and I have felt acutely the judgment properly passed upon me by many members of this House, who, knowing their superiority to me, say how unworthy I am that this question should be fought in my person’ I admit lam unworthy, but it is not my fault. I remind you of the words of one of the greatest statesman who sat in this House more than 100 years ago, that whenever an infringment of constitutional right was attempted it was always attempted in the person of some obnoxious man. (Hear, hear.) . . . It is said it is the oath and not the man; but others more frank say it is the man and not the oath. Is it the oath and not the man ? lam ready to stand aside, say for four or five weeks, without coming to that table if the House within that time, or within such time, as its great needs might demand, would discuss whether an Affirmation Bill should pass or not. 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 have said that would bo a Bradlaugh Belief Bill. (Hear, hear.) , Bradlaugh is more proud than you are. (Hear, hear.) 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 Chilccrn Hundreds. (Cheers) I have no fear. If lam not fit for my constituents they shall dismiss me, but you never shall. The grave alone shall make mo yield.”