The Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR P.M. Resurrexi. FRIDAY, MAY 6, 1881.

Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 3854, 6 May 1881, Page 2

The Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR P.M. Resurrexi. FRIDAY, MAY 6, 1881.

That feelinfc of respect and admiration in wliich the House of Commous is held by the English people cannot hare been much increased bj the transactions of the present and late sessions, nor-its reputation advanced as being the most learned aud liberal chamber of legis. lature iv the world. The uoune

pvrsned by the Irish members in their obstructive policy cairnot be wholly approved of, but that aft Assembly of the most intelligent men of the English nation, Whose proud boast is that reason and soundafgumont alone influences its decisions," should be compelled to use coercive mean, to secure the acceptation of the wishes of the majority is anything but creditable. And such means had to be had recourse to in restraining the 'Homew^Jukwr - The cleverness-ot -the leaders of the obstructionists took advantage of the forms of the House and with a eertainobject, retarded the business and embarrassed the Government. But it may be advanced on the other hand if the liberty allowed by the ruleß of debate were of advantage to the obstructionists the same advantage might have been taken %! those who were influenced as i they stated, by constitutional usage's: and ' custom. Again, in the present session, the treatment of Bradlaugh is not only unconstitutional, but is puerile and inconsistant. The member for Northampton for no fault of his own, and for no disrespect paid the House, breach of trust, or unparliamentary conduct, lost his right to sit in in the chamber; yet upon being again elected by his con* stituency, the House refused to accept him upon any terms; His desire to comply with the custom, taking the oath as prescribed by law, instead of being accepted in the spirit in which it was expressed, appears to have been used as an argument against him. The illiberally displayed is a disgrace to the intelligence of the House of Commons. The Times, speaking upon this subject on March the 15th, before Mr Bradlaugh's re-election, says:—" It is doubtful whether, if he should be: re-elected and should then profess his readiness to take the oath, his right to do so can be disputed. No question can be raised as. to his present religious belief except by his own act, and any evidence as to what it was a year ago would cease to be applicable. The resolution of June 22, which disallowed Mr Bradlaugh's claim either to take oath or to make affirmation, was personal and devoid of [general application. It might, of course, be re affirmed on a subsequent occasion, but^even then its validity would be open .to question at law, and Mr Bradlaugh would remain a member of Parliament, though debarred from taking his seat, as Baron Rothschild was for eleven years after he was first elected. Thus, as it seems to us, there is no alternative but for Parliament to deal with the whole question by frank and explicit legislation. Mr Bradlaugh's personal opinions no longer enter into the discussion one way or the other. The House of Commons has virtually affirmed the principle that the right of an elected representative to take his seat is independent of all such questions, and it will best consult its own dignity and the public interest by giving full effect to that principle without further delay." Not. withstanding such sound . advice the House has disgraced itself by its refusal to allow Mr Bradlaugh to take his seat, and, we believe, acted unconstitutionally. Even, it would appear, the example set by Mr Gladstone and the most prominent members of Parliament was of little effect upon a majority, who, led away by party feelings and an uncalled for display, of religious zeal, carried, a motion, the like of which has never been carried by. the English House of Commons. A Junius is wauted to vindicate the rights of the man elected by his fellow-citizens to represent them in the Councils of the Nation, but refused ad. mission .'because his views upon certain subjects are not in accordance with those of the majority ia that assembly. One would think the inconsistency displayed would have been sufficient to influence even men carried away with religious zeal; for, although the same men allowed Mr Bradlaugh to sit and vote with them while there upon a simple affirmation, yet they refused to accept him when he offered to be sworn by the usual oath. If Mr Bradlaugh had been guilty of conduct imputed to Mr Walpole, or a John Wilkes, we could have understood the action of the House; but in this liberal age, when the greatest latitude is allowed in religious as well as in the ordinary matters of every day life, the spectacle of the House of Commons carrying a resolution to eject a man who a few days previous they admitted to equality, is unaccountable and discreditable. It is, however, gratifying to find that the Prime Minister of the day at once rose to the occasion, and by his notice of an intention to introduce a bill to meet the requirements of the case, in some manner removed the stigma and saved the reputation of a Legislature the admiration of every nation under the sun, and the pride of the English people.