THE RETURN OF MR BRADLAUGH.

Evening Star, Issue 5966, 26 April 1882, Page 4

THE RETURN OF MR BRADLAUGH.

Mr Bradlaugh has been again returned for Northampton by a diminished majority, but by a larger vote, and at a cost, it is said, of only L2OO. He re-appeared the next day in his old place under the gallery of the House of Commons; but the writ certifying his election had not then arrived. Sir Stafford Northoote was resolved to lose no time, and on Monday, having ascertained from the Speaker that the writ was in cognisance, and that the new election had cancelled the sessional order, moved that the order prohibiting Mr Bradlaugh from taking the oath should be re-affirmed. His proposal, supported by a brief speech only, was met by an amendment moved by Mr Marioribanks, to the effect that the law should be bo modified as to permit every elected member to take the oath or to affirm at his own option. Mr Labouchere supported the amendment. Mr Gladstone accepted it. The debate which followed was chiefly interesting as indicating the difficulties which beset the question. On a division, the amendment was lost by 257 to 242. Sir Stafford Northcote's resolution was then carried. Mr Bradlaugh, afterwards addressing a meeting of working men, said that he had another surprise in store for the leader of the Opposition. The general feeling is one of growing impatience at the loss of time involved in this controversy. Mr Marjoribankß has since given notice of his intention to bring in a Bill amending the law. If the Commons accepted the principle of affirmation, it is doubtful whether the Lords would agree. Lord Redesdale, with the object of providing "against atheists taking part in legislation for this country," has given notice of a short Bill, which requires that every member of Parliament, on taking his seat, shall before taking the Parliamentary oath of allegiance or i affirming the same subscribe the following declaration :—" I, A.8., do solemnly, sin- | cerely, and truly declare and affirm that I ! believe in an Almighty God." [This Bill was lost by a large majority.] Mr Labouchere proposes to make war in a more radical fashion, and gave a notice of a motion declaring that the House of Lords was "useless and dangerous, and ought to be abolished." An appeal was made to the Speaker as to whether this was in ordef. Mr Labouchere, half jocosely, pleaded that the words of his resolution were precisely those submitted to a former Parliament, the Long Parliament. As the word "useless" might give pain to some people, he would substitute " unnecessary," a conccession made amid much laughter. The Speaker accepted this modification, and the words now run "unnecessary, obstructive, and dangerous." In answer to the inquiry whether it was competent for that House to raise the question of the abolition of the other House, the Speaker replied that the proposition had been frequently submitted. Let it not be supposed that Mr Labouchere is dealing with practical issues. There is, however, a certain amount of latent feeling against the Lords j and there can be no doubt thatthe cry for reform would be energetically raised if many more Bills were thrown out by them.—'Argus' correspondent.