The Daily Telegraph. FRIDAY, APRIL 29, 1881.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3070, 29 April 1881, Page 2

The Daily Telegraph. FRIDAY, APRIL 29, 1881.

" Whoever has had an opportunity of becoming acquainted with the mental condition of the intelligent classes of Europe and America must have perceived that there is a great and rapidly increasing departure from the public religious faith, and while among the more frank this divergence is not concealed there is a far more extensive and far more dangerous secession private and unacknowledged. So wide-spread and so powerful is this secession that it can neither be treated with contempt nor with punishment. It cannot be extinguished by derison,by vituperation, or by force. The time is rapidly approaching when it will give rise to serious political results." Thus wrote Dr Draper in the preface to his well-known work, " The Hiotory of the Conflict between Religion and Science." And from our cablegram published in our last issue reporting the reception, of Mr Bradlaugh by the House of Commonß on his re-election for

Northampton, it would appear that the time has almost arrived when those serious political results referred to by Dr Draper will be vieible in the action of the British Parliament. On his first election it will be remembered that Mr Bradlaugh openiyexpressed the little faith he had in received religious belief as to state that to his mind there was nothing peculiarly binding so far as he was concerned in the form of oath administered to newly elected members of Parliament. He declined to take such an oath, but was perfectly willing: to make an affirmation of loyalty to the Crown and Constitution. During a considerable portion of the session Mr Bradlaugh was permitted to sit and take part in the proceedings.of the House, without having taken the oath. An action having been taken against him under some old statute, Mr Bradlaugh resigned his seat for Northampton, but immediately afterwards sought re-election, and that important constituency returned him to Parliament. Our cablegram new informs us that by direct vote of the House he has been refused permission to take the oath, and this implies that he has not been allowed to take his seat. Thus the populous | borough of Northampton loses one of its representatives. Little as we know of the circumstances of the case, it is clear that Mr Bradlaugh on his re-election applied to take the oath, but on the motion of Sir Stafford Northcote, the House, by a majority of thirty-three, refused permission for its administration to him. The decision of the House is the more remarkable from the fact that it was in direct opposition to the wishes ;of the leaders of the dominant party in Parliament. It would seem to have been the result of an alliance between the .Conservatives and the religious bigots amongst the Liberals. The result is. to_ be regretted, as it is calculated to bring about a political struggle between forces that should have been kept out of the political arena. It is impossible to suppose that English electors will pause before giving their votes to consider the religious convictions of candidates for their representation. But if the House refuses to allow none but the orthodox to sit, either this consideration must have weight at an election, or else Parliament must become more secular in its requirements. In either case a new element has been introduced in representative government that cannot but lead to consequences directly opposite to those desired by the evangelical party in England. The martyrdom of an otherwise insignificant man may be peculiarly acceptable to the orthodox, but it gives the principles he has enunciated a Vitality and an importance, perhaps, unworthy, of such-distinction. But, as it happens, the views held by Mr Bradlaugh. are very little more advanced than j those entertained by the great bulk of the ipeople, who, indeed, for the most part have not the courage of their private eonjvictiorisi We opine, however, that the, ■enemies of the established religion in' lEngland will rejoice over the precipitate and ill-advised action on the part of the majority in the House of Commons. It is likely to lead the people to give a marked expression of disapproval of such a proceeding at the next generaielections, and, smarting under a sense of persecution, it may become the aim of every radical constituency in the country to find a man of the stamp of Mr Bradlaugh to return to Parliament. Should such an unfortunate state of things be brought about, the constitution of the House of Commons would be radically changed, and all the friends of existing institutions, both religious and political, may have occasion to bitterly regret the unwise step that, produced such a result.