RANDOM NOTES

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 241, 8 July 1938, Page 10

RANDOM NOTES

Sidelights On Current

Events

(By

KICKSHAWS.)

The Onekaka project, it is stated, is regarded in Australia as a huge joke. Evidently Australians think it is something ironic. >

Privilege or no privilege, we can well believe that the evidence of Mr. Sandys before the select committee was not so 'dusty.

Although the memorandum to Mr. Chamberlain regarding air defence in Britain has not been disclosed, those in the know declare that the public can rest assured that it contains some plane words.

Recent discussion in. the House regarding the taking of the oath by members o-f Parliament would make Mr. Charles Bradlaugh turn in his grave if he has not done so already. This gentleman was elected to the House of Commons in 1880. When the time came for him to be sworn in, he claimed that, as he was an atheist, the oath meant nothing to him. A select committee rejected his claim despite the fact that, under the “Evidence Amendments Act” of 1869, a recognised type of affirmation was prescribed in -the courts of law for those who had no God, and to whom, therefore, the words, “so help me God,” meant nothing. A second committee reported that Bradlaugh could not sit if he did not take the oath. The second committee, in fact, stated that the House should prevent Mr. Bradlaugh “going through the form” of taking an oath that meant nothing to him. Against the Government of the day a motion to this effect was carried by a majority of 275 to 230, after two nights’ debate.

In spite of the rebuff concerning the taking of the oath mentioned in the previous paragraph, Mr. Bradlaugh, who was nothing if not persistent, presented himself at the House next day. He was requested to withdraw. He refused to withdraw and was turned out by the Sergeant-at-Arms. A month or two later Parliament adopted a resolution proposed by Mr. Gladstone that an affirmation be recognised in place of an oath under certain specified conditions. Mr. Bradlaugh duly took his place in Parliament. But his troubles were by no means over. Mr. Bradlaugh’s legal status regarding the right to take an affirmation was tried by law. It was decided in 1881 that he was not qualified to make an affirmation in lieu of taking the oath. He had, therefore, been admitted to Parliament under false pretences. Mr. Bradlaugh, therefore, lost his seat He was immediately re-elected for Northampton. He again presented himself at the Bar of the House. A motion was carried against the Government by 208 votes to 175 that Mr. Bradlaugh “be not permitted to go through the form of repeating the words of the oath.” His constituents were, therefore, deprived of representation.

Trying to sit in Parliament had become almost a wholetime occupation with Mr. Braudlaugh after the various setbacks that occurred as a result of his attitude toward taking the oath. Although he was subsequently willing to take the oath, it was argued that in view of his atheistic principles the oath was meaningless to him. It/ had been legally ruled that be was unqualified to affirm—therefore au impasse had occurred. This did not deter Mr. Bradlaugh from attempting to take his seat a few days after his last setback. lie was ordered to be excluded from the House and not to disturb its proceedings. He subsequently attempted to force his way into the chamber, but was prevented. In fact, he was forcibly removed by police constables. Nevertheless, at the next session in 1882, Mr. Bradlaugh again presented himself. Again he was turned out A fortnight later he turned up again, administered the oath to himself, and was duly kicked out. He was expelled from the House on a formal motion, and was duly re-elected for Northampton. Two lawsuits followed of a technical nature. Bradlaugh issued a writ against the Sergeant-at-Arms for assault. In fact, two such writs were tried at law. This state of affairs continued until 1886. The House had the “jitters” by then. It was decided by means of technical hairsplits to let bygones be bygones. Mr. Bradlaugh took the oath when the House met in January, 1886. He died a year or so later.

“Could you, with your vast experience of answering questions, throw some light on that very old and very vexing question, who was Cain’s wife?’’ asks “J.D.H.” Where did he get her from? Wise people tell us he married his sister, but that is far too simple a way out. The Bible doesn’t mention anything about sisters at that time. Cain, after slaying his brother Abel, went into the Land of Nod. In the very next verse the Bible tells us: ‘And Cain knew his wife and she bare him a son.’ Did he take a wife with him?”

[ln the strict interpretation of the first family tree this is naturally a poser that can have no answer. Although Cain and Abel are represented as the sons of Adam and Eve, it has become accepted that they represent an epoch rather than a lifetime. After all, there cotild have l>een no pastoral life if there had been nobody in the world except Cain and Abel, Adam and Eve. Cain's fear of being slain seems to suggest that there were other human beings in the world. His building of a city indicates that a long period of time must be represented in ids life story. The locality of the Land of Nod i.s not known, but it is thought that it means that he adopted a wandering life aud became a wanderer, for which the original word is "nad." A clergyman puts the matter clearly when he says:—“l regard the early stories of Genesis as Hebrew myths and folk tales. They are the attempts to give an account of the origins of things by a people illequipped with the scientific knowledge and outlook necessary to arrive at anything like the correct answers. Their author or authors, also, did not always realise the difficulties and contradictions involved in these answers. Thus the difficulty of accounting for Cain's wife was not appreciated, and it has remained to puzzle those dpvoted readers who take the Bible literally and believe that it gives a complete aud correct account of the beginning of things. Of course, if Adam and Eve were the first and only human beings to be created then Cain must have married another child of this couple—a woman who was, therefore, his own sister. But the Bible speaks of other peoples, one of which Cain married, but it tells us. nothing as to where they came from.”]

In this dim*world of clouding cares, We rarely know, till ’wlldered eyes See white wings lessening up the skleo. The angels with us unawares. —Gerald Massey.