Welsh Newspapers
Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles
17 articles on this Page
HOUSE OF LOKDS,—MONDAY.
HOUSE OF LOKDS,—MONDAY. Their Lordships met at five o'clock. THE DISARMING OF THE BASUTOS. The K.rl of KIMBEIILEY, in reply to the Earl of Cadogan, said the Government had re- ceived an offici 1 telegram continuing the state- ment which had appeared in the Times relative to tie disarmament of the Basutos. It was as folio.vs:—"Tetsia accepts the decision of Her Majesty's Government regarding disarmament as final orders. All his people to suriender arms. Will surrender his own. Asks extension of time for voluntary surrender, which has been granted." TRAFFIC IN CHILDREN. In renly to Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY, who c died attention to differences of opinion between the Attorney-General and the Governor and Ciiief Justice of Hong Kong as to the pur- chase and detention of children is so-called domestic servitude at Hong Kong, as well as the reLort of the Commissioners on the working of Contagious Diseases Ordinance of 1867, The Earl of KIMBERLEY stated that if it could be shown that there was anything in the nature of slavery going on the Government would of course interfere, but that was a matter depend- ing entirely on the facts, and it would be nects- sa. y that care should be exeicLed to prevent too Rrec.t an interference with the habits and institu- tions of the Chinese people, which should not be co.ffoun ;e with those of other parts of the world. As to the second part of the question, there had no doubt been a (ood deal of kidnapping of women and a system of brothel inspection, and spies ha i b.'fn resorted to butit being found that this had led to revolting practices, it had been abandoned, an 1 the Government were glad to find that a u'.mber of Chinese gentlemen had come forwar to forin themselves into a society to put down kidna; ping. The v. hole matter was being made the subject of inquiries, but at present he was not in a position to produce auy papers on the subject, THE HIGHWAY ACIS, Earl DE LA WARR moved for the appoint- ment of a Select Commitee to enquire into the operation of the Hierhuay Act. After some remarks from the Marquis of HGNTLY, Lord ENFIELD said there was no objec: ion on the part of the Government to the appointment of a Committee. The motion was agreed to. THE DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER. The Earl of CADOGAN, in reply to Lord Brabouine, stated that the Bill legalising marri; ge with a deceased wife's sister received from Natal in 1877, w.;s a mistake, and was said to have been carried by the casting vote of the Speaker of the Natal legislature, whereas it was carried by seven or eight votes, and the Earl of Kimberley added that that Bill, and a similar one since carried by the same legisla- ture had waited for a year without the Royal Assent, and had consequently lapsed. THE IRISH DISTRESS. On the motion of Lord VENTRY, a return of the number of agricultural holdings in Poor-law anions, scheduled under the Relief of Distress (Ireland) Act, 1880, was agreed to, with the assent of the Government as expressed by Earl Spencer. IRISH COUNTIES. Lord SPENCER, in reply to the Earl of Leitrim, said the counties he had referred to as those which form the charges of the judges at the Spring Assizes (not as declared by the judges) he con- sidered to be in a bad state, were Cavan, Clare, Galway, Leitrim, Limerick, Mayo, and Sligo. UNSKILLED IRISH WORKMEN. Lord LEITRIM, in moving for a return of the number of unskilled workmen employed during the week ended on the 12th of June, by landlords or sani: ary authorities, or on works undertaken by baronial sessions in the scheduled districts of Ireland under the Relief of Distress Act, com- plained that the action of the landlords had been scandalously misrepresented, and maintained that he and others were doing all they could to carry out the spirit of the Act. After a few words from Lord ORANMORE and BROWNE, Earl SPENCER said he could not accede to the motion, but the Lord Lieutenant had given directions for a return of the number of persons employed on different kinds of relief works. The motion was withdrawn. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY. Earl SPENCER, in reply to a question put by tl e Earl of Leitrim, said it was intr." de; 1 by the Government to afford protection to Mr Acheson and his property, and if it was believed that the ordinary police would not suffice, a force would be sent from t e re-erve, and a moiety of the ex; ense charged on the district. The House adjourned at 7.5.
---V HOUSE OF COMMONS.-MONDAY.
V HOUSE OF COMMONS.-MONDAY. The Speaker took the chair at four o'clock. STROUD ELECTION. < The SPEAKER announced that he had re- ceived the certificate from the Election .J udges, stating that they had allowed the petitior against the return for Stroud to be withdrawn. LAND TENURE. Sir W. V. HARCOURT, in reply to Mr Waugh, said that the abolition of copyhold, cus- tomary, aud other tenures, II ere a part of the general question of law tenure which Her Majesty's Government would have to consider in dealing with it. The manner in which they ought to be dealt with would requiie much consideration, and he could not now possibly state what steps might be taken. He make the same reply with respect to the extinc- tion of the rights of free warden, &c., over land. not belonging to the possessor of such rights. He had no power to give directions to the Inclosure Commissioners, but he was informed that they made it a condition of inclosure that no such rights should be reserved by the lords of the manor over arable lam Is. STANDARD WEIGHTS. Mr CHAMBERLAIN, in reply to Mr II. Fowley, said that the highest standard weight now legalised was 561b?., and he did not think it desirable to multiply standard weights by creating another of 1121bs., on account of the expense en- tailed upon the local authorities, w ho had to ob- tain copies of the standards. UETEWAYO, Mr GRANT DUFF, in reply to Sir D, Wed- derburn, said that he had no information at pre- sent to enable him to say whether Cetewavo n as or was not allowed to see his jjersonal friends, but he believed that permission was refused to two members of the family of the Bishop of Natal. That was unfortunate, pad Lord Kimberley had telegraphed to the Cape that the reasons alleged for the refusal were not sufficient, in his opinion and directing that permission be given in future to his friends to visit Cetewayo. There was no objection to Jay the corresp ndence on the table, but at present it was very imperfect. ROMAN CATHOLIC CHAPLAINS. Mr DODSON, in reply to Mr O'Sullivan, said that the Government had no power to appoint Roman Catholic chaplains in workhouses in Eng- land but he believed that in those places where their services were wanted, the guardians were ,tfilling to appoint local Roman Catholic clergy as reli'h?ous tethers, and to allow them to yjsit the workhouses. «. Tr INDIAN FINANCE. Mr GLADSTONE, in reply to Mr Courtney, laid that as soon as the noble lord the Secretary of Statlt for India received full information to enable him to do so, he would make a statement with respect to the financial position of India, The rep^yjnent of the annual instalment of £ 2,000,0(KX) advanced without interest will be sonaidereJ bl1 t it will req uire an Act of Parlia- ment to remit it. I TURKISH FINA-NCE. Sir C. DILKE, in reply to Sir H. Wolff, said that with respect to the proportionate amounts of the Turkish debt to be assumed by the Principali- ties, the amount of tribute to be paid by Bulgaria was fixed tor the first year, which expired next month. With respect to ontenegro, the frontier had not been settled. Servia had done nothing and with respect to Greece, a Conference was now sitting to define the frontier. When that was settled, the adjustment of the Turkish debt would be a matter for negotiation in settling the Treaty to carry out the decision of the Confereuce. THE TAY BRIDGE. Lord HARTINGTON, in reply to Mr Onslow, said that the firms supplying the iron for the bridge across the Altock had been in no way con- nected with the ray Bridge. The contract specified that it was to be wrought iron, and it was carefullytested by all the methoeis that exper- ience had dictated. ALBANIA AND MONTENEGRO. Sir C. DILKE, in reply to Mr Labouchere, said that he could give no specific assurance that steps could be takeu to ascertain the wishes of the Albanian inhabitants of the districts proposed to be ceded to Montenegro but it was the desire of Her Majesty's Government that the provisions of the Treaty of Berlin would be carried out in a manner to consult as far as possible the desire. of the inhabitants of the localities interested. ( rOLUNTEER OFFICERS. Mr CHILDERS, in reply to Mr C. Wilson and Mr Norwood, said that there had been a great deal 1 of discussion, which had prevailed for a long time, in the 4th Eaat York Artillery Volunteers, which > culminated in 1879 on certain charges agaiust Lieut.-Col. Humphrey, from which he was v, quitted. Col. Saner and the officers who bro* *h$se charges were ordered by the late Sc Jfrht of War to resign but Col. Saner was p' .retary postpone his resignation pending an r flowed to sequently, as he was warned he v appeal; sub- Humphrey was called upon V be, Col. charges against him being r Tesign. On the thought a number of offic- ejected, it was then had resigned, but as t' d most of the n.en facie insubord- -f^trresignations were prima ind XI7-11- >«y had not been accepted, j Willis r ^4 Effingham had been di- c%4d report upon the case. Sa ELECTION PETITION, mid that he £ /RCniLL, i" reply to Air Monk, Motion to cav ACt given a week's notice of his tn- ipori him c attention to the grave imputation >n the G1 jnt*ined iu the report of the judges that the 4ucester election petition, because he felt to it. J>on. member might require time to reply net- "4J 8»ven a short notice the hon. iber would have had mnch greater reason to ^nplain. Mr MONK appealed to the head of the Aovernment, that as it was not desirable that this "vase should hang over the head of a member of -that House to allow the motion of the noble lord to take precedence on Thursday. Lord ii. CHURCHILL joined in that appeal. -"Í EJECTMENTS. la replying to questions from Sir H. Bruce, I Fitzpa trick, an<J Mr Tottenham, asking winner the Government, iu tEeTiiU prohibiting *'ne 1- lords to eject tenants fer a limited r* • J non- payment of rent, would for the K^val Uke steps to relieve them fc»>n the pen^kleiia;Ucbing non-payment, tit mortlf"'d and settlements JaBbd other ch upon their estates, ■* Mi tfORSTKR 6*i'» that the Bill which Whad introduced bad framed by the Government \/i accordance vrith what they believed 'to be the l«Mml feeire oi the House to meet an exceptional emergency. These questions, it appeared to him, did not relate the facts, but were of an argumenta- tive character, and he would be quite ready to go into all the arguments connected with them in the debate on the Bill,which he hoped would come on to-morrow. If he did so now he would have taken up the time of the House to an unjustifi- able extent, and create a very undesirable pre- cedent. Mr BROMLEY DAVENPORT asked the Prime Minister if the Government would extend the same principle for compensation to tenants un- able to pay their rent to landlords who in conse- quence could not meet their taxes. Mr GLADSTONE said that he regretted that he could only repeat in substance the reply which his right hon. friend had just given. THE TURKISH PARLIAMENT. Mr GLADSTONE, in reply to M. B. Leighton, said that the views of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the reassembling of the Turkish Parliament would be found in the papers laid on the table. OUT-VOTERS The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in reply to Baron de Worms, said that he was not concerned in the issue of the circular of the Liberal Central Office but if it stated that the payment of ex- penses to out-voters was illegal, it stated the law correctly, t FLOGGING. Mr SHAW LEFEVRE, in reply to Captain Price, said that the professional advisers of the First Lord of the Admiralty had not recommended the retention of flogging for mutiny with violence, or in any other case, THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. Mr FORSTER, in reply to Mr Sexton, said that the Royal Commission on the operation of the Irish Land Act would be instructed to com- plete their inquiry as rapidly as possible, consis- tent with a full investigation. The object of the Government wai a rapid as well as a full inquiry, and he hope,l the Commission would be able to report befoJoe next session, FAMINE FEVER IN IRELAND. Mr FORSTER, in reply to Mr Sullivan, said that as soon as he saw the "statement in the even- ing papers that iamine fever had broken out in Ireland, he had telegraphed to the Local Govern- ment Poard in Dablin to take steps at once to meet. The information in the papers was cer- tainly later than any in his possession, but be trusted that they were exaggerated. IRISH DISTRESS RELIEF FUND. Mr PARNELL gave notice for to-morrow of a Bill allocating 2100,000 of the Irish surplus for the immediate relief of the distress in Ireland, and constituting a body for the administration of the fund.
THE BRADLAUGH DEBATE.
THE BRADLAUGH DEBATE. Sir R. KNIGHT LEY having presented a peti- tion from 3,581 inhabitants of Northampton, praying that Mr Charles Bradlaugh be not per- mitted to take the oath in the House of Commons, Mr LABOUCHERE, pursuant to notice, moved "That Mr Bradlaugh be admitted to make an affirmation or declaration instead of the oath required by law." If, he argued, the decisions of the Committees were acted upon, the member for Northampton would be unable to take his seat, and the House would then be brought into con- flict with an im portant constituency. The House, he mentioned, had no right to interfere with a member who came to take the oath of allegiance, but as he considered that there would be some- thing indecorous in requiring a person to repeat at the table a form of words to which he attached no meaning, he thought it preferable that Mr Bradlaugh should be allowed to affirm. The issue was strictly a legal one, and he submitted that it was only by the in- troduction of restrictive words into an enabling Act, that the member for Northampton should be excluded from the relief given to "Quakers, Separatists, Moravians, and others by the Par- liamentary Oiths Act of 1866. Further than that, however, the Evidence Amendment Act on Affirmation would enable Mr Bradlaugh to give evidence in a court of law, if he satisfied the judge presiding that an oath was not binding on his conscience. And even supposing that the Speaker were not himself in the p sition of a presiding ju ige, it was sufficient for the hon. member to satisfy the Speaker that he had satisfied a presid- ing judce on the point. The Committee who re- ported that Mr Bradlaugh was not entitled to affirm was hastily formed, and came to a hasty decision by the vote of the chairman. There was nothing, however, to prevent the House from per- mitting him to affirm, leaving it, as was suggested by the eacond Committee, to a court of law to decide the question of his legal right to sit and vote. His rejection by the House would proba- ably only have the effect of causing him to be re- garded as a martyr, whom the constituency would t;,ke a pride in constantly re-electing. The motion was seconded by Mr C. M'LAREN. Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD moved, as an amendment, "That, having regard to the reperts and proceedings of two Select Committees ap. pointed by the House. Mr Bradlaugh should not be permitted to take the oath or make the affirma- tion mention in the Statute, 29 Vic., c. 19, and the 31 and 32 Vic., c. 73." There was no member of the Hous", he believed, except erhaps the member for Northampton himself, who did not regret the question had been raised, and far from this Honse wishing to inquire into the religious belief of a member who presented himself to be sworn, no question would have been raised if Mr Bra-ilaugh had taken the oath in the ordinary A-ay, instead of thrusting his views upon their attention. When a member proclaimed his views at the table, and challenged a discussion upon the question whether he was or was not entitled to affirm or to take the oath, it was impossible for the House to shield itself behind the principle that every man was the keeper of his own conscience. The members of the House of Commons were the guardians of the decency and decorum of that great Assembly, and Mr Bradlaugh had thrust upon them the respon- sibility which he might have kept to himself. The second Committee deciding a matter that was not remitted to them, took upon themselves to overrule the decision of the first, which the Government had previouly accepted as the cor- rect interpretation of the statute. It had been said that the object of the recommendation was to point out a form in which the legal question could be decided, but he could scarcely understand how an Attorney-General could join in a recommenda- tion that the House should permit the law to be broken in order that the courts misfit decide whether the Honse had decided rightly or not. There would be difficulties in the way of raiRinz the question in a court of law. It would not be easy to pirauade a jury to come to a different decision to that which they might be told the House had come to and inasmuch as t e sitting of a member who had not taken tho oath not only subjected him to penalties, but vacated his seat, the course which the second Committee advised should be taken would lesid to a revival of the whole question upon the motion for the issuing of the new writ. Mr R. N. FOWLER seconded t'e amendment, on the ground that Mr Bradlaugh w^s not a man whom it was desirable to admit to t *h.t House, and that Ins exclusion would meet with, ALe ajj. proval of a large majority of the people. -> | Mr .Serjeant SIMON denied that there "was anything inconsistent in the decision of the two Committees. The second feither affirmed nor rescinded the decision of the first, but merely came to the conclusion that the question was sum- ciently and open to justify the House in allowing Mr Bradlaugh to affirm. The decision of the first Committee was not satisfactory, and there was a strong opinion in the legal profession that it was not correct. Mr WARTON insisted that the question was a religious one, and that the voice of the country would support the Legislature in closing its doors against an infidel. Mr W HITBREAD reminded the Oppsition of the distinct understanding that the report of the first Committee was not to he in any way binding upon the House, and contended that if Mr Brad. laugh's right to affirm N, ere a question of law, the law courts were the proper tribunals to decide it. There was not the slightest precedent for inteifer- irg to prevent a men-bar taking the test which the law imposed upon him. He deeply regretted that the question had be n raised, denying as ho did the right of the Legislature to enter into the domain of conscience. Gon. BURNABY supported the amendment. Mr J. HINDE PALMER said he would vote for the motion, because constitutionally they had no right, in his opinion, to prevent Mr Bradlaugh from taking his oa:h. Mr HUBBARD opposed, and Sir H. JACKSON supported the motion. ¿ I Mr BERESFORD HOPE ascribed the djfY" ties of the situation to the perverse menri forrcation of Mr Bradlaugh, and t' rashness of tie second CoaimUte^^T would arrive at a supremeV iW H°use temptible conclusion it i* con,* to incur heavy penalty in a? Bcadkingh of law might be deterrnin j0r question Mr HOPWOOD r language that had bee -^mplaAed of the cruel of Mr Bradlaugh in £ apphed to the manly act taking the oath. his opinions before Bradlaugh was de adhered to the view that Mr held that he h- Ant legally entitled to affirm, but tried, and a- &I a right to have that question From wI- .^absolute right to take the oath. Commit' ..at he saw of Mr Bradlaugh in the tiati,ie, ;ee, he was persuaded he would be an or- 1\ A to the House. > 4 O'CONNOR challenged the right of any ,t,owed Atheist to take the Christian oath in a Christian assembly. The House could not de- cently repudiate the decision which it accepted a few weeks back, that Mr Bradlaugh was not at liberty to affirm. If it should be decided that Mr Bradlaugh might take the oath, he appealed to the Speaker to give him and those who thought with him, the opi ortunity of withdrawing while it was being taken. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL reminded the last speaker that the Committee had decided against the administration of the oath, and the question under discussion was whether Mr Brad- utugh should be allowed to affirm at his own risk. The Government had been accused of inconsis- tency in adopting the recommendation of the second Committee, but they had no opportunity of action in relation to the advice ot the first Committee. before the circumstance arose which rendered furtner enquiry desirable. As read the Act of 186Q, it was intT .e to give to all persons who were entitled ■^r'eId an affirmation in a court of justice tlf D?a*te dom when elected members of tb 8aHle free- there were sufficient doubt fk.. rt.P quest.on. by theauthoritv etenttodecide /J rjg i if „-tf:e House was a statutable Committee arrived at the to take tW Bradlaugh was not competent t><at he sV they felt it their duty to advise • -«»uld be allowed to affirm, in order that -*nt to act as a member might be decided by court of law. Mr GRANTHAM considered that the second Committee had gone beyond its duty in its desire to get the House out of a difficulty. Mr WALPOLE answered the legal argument -of the Attorney-General, and stated his intention of voting against the motion. If Mr Bradlaugh, were encouraged by the House to make affirm. ation, the House ought to indemnify him against the penalties he woild incur by Bitting and voting. l M* URIGHT. who was cheered on rising, said he thought the House would excuse him if he did not add much to the strictly legal discussion with which the House had been occupied during the whole of the evening. If he wanted an excuse for that he would find it, and abundant reason for it, in pointing out the different legal opinions ex- pressed on the question. It was evidently a matter which, if left to the lawyers, they would be unable to dispose of it. (Hear, hear.) That being so, he would put before the House an opinion which a man not trained in the law might reasonably en- tertain, and reasonably express. He thought, in the first place, the sitting member for Northamp- ton did right in placing this resolution before the House. He was here as the representative of a large constituency, whose choice in respect to his colleague was called in question. The right of his colleague to take his seat was contested by certain members who obviously have no objection but to his religious opinions. ("No, no.") Now, his opinion on religion was at variance with theirs. (" Oh, oh," and hear, hear.) He felt quite sure that nobody who heard the speech of the hon. member for the city, or the right hon. gentleman who had just spoken, could doubt the accuracy of what he said, for after the legal arguments were expended, the hon. member turned the graver line of argument upon the House, and nobody who heard the last speech could doubt that the speaker was acting under the influence of strong opinions, (Hear, hear.) Mr HUBBARD (interrupting) absolutely denied the accuracy of this statement. Mr BRIGHT would not contest the point, leaving it to the memory of the House, and the morrow's report of the speech. (Hear, hear.) What was the simple question ? It was agreed, he supposed, that the electors of Northampton had a right and the free selection of a member to fepre- sent them, and nobody could say that Mr Brad- laugh was not legally entitled to offer himself as a candidate. If that were true, then it followed that Mr Bradlaugh was duly and legally selected by his constituents to speak for them in the House of Commons, He came to the table, and he finds that the majority of members t.ke the oath, and that a small minority make an affirmation to the same effect. There were many members who took the oath, and greatly disliked it. ("No, no.") Mr Brad- laugh did not come to make any refusal to take the oath, nor was it to be supposed that he antici- pated any refusal to allow him to make the affirmation. Many members take the oath very much as a matter of form. (Cries of "No, no.") It was unnecessary to contest that. He must say that nothing was more irreverent than the man- ner in which a great number of members took the oath on that floor. (Hear, hear.) Mr Bradlaugh did not refuse to take the oath. That was not the question. He said he would prefer to make the affirmation as he had been allowed to do on many important occa- sions in high courts of justice, and knowing as he did that many men did make an affirmation. On making his application Mr Speaker expressed doubts as to whether he could do so, and left it to the House to decide. It would have saved a great deal of trouble if the Speaker had decided for himself. (Hear.) Pos- sibly, however, the wisest course was taken. Then followed a debate of a good deal of heat and temper,and then the matter was referred to the cooler consideration of a Committee. The Committee decided, after one day's consideration, by the casting vote of the chairman. He did not say that Committee should not have weight at- tached to their decision, but undoubtedly it did not carry so much weight as if the majority had been large. Much was said in the Committee with which he did not agree, It was said that the Act did not give the right to make an affirmation in the House, but the fact was that inside the House and outside the House quite as many lawyers were on one side as on the other. Giving every weight to the decision of the Committee, the point must remain doubtful, and he was one of those who took the view that if one of these Acts gave the presiding judge in a court, it gave the power to all persons who had the power to administer oaths, and no doubt the House of Commons had that power both at the bar of the House and in Commit- tee. No action was taken on the report of the Com- mittee, and it might be tacitly acknowledged that the decision of the Commitee v* as admitted. On the very morning of the Rel-ort being presented, Mr Bradlaugh came to the table to take the oath. He had_never refused to take the oath he had never given it to be understood that he would refuse he had only expressed a preference for the affirmation—(hear, hear)-an,l he believed it was within the law and practice of Parliament to allow him to do it. Being denied the one, what should lie do ? Having no insuperable objection he pro- posed to take the oath. Having one door closed against him unfortunately, and as he thought con- trary to his right there, he had no objection in the interest of his cD.titiients to take the oath Par- liament imposed. He said, "I will take it exactly as everyone else takes it." (" Oh, oh.") From the first word of it to the last, and he stated in the most distinct manner to the Commit- tee that the words of the oath which he would pronounce at the table would ba absolutely binding on his conscience and his honour—("Oh, oh," laughter and hear, hear)— just as the words ')f the affirmation would have been binding had he been permitted to utter them, and (continued Mr Bright) just as my affirmation is bindinsr (,n my conscience and my honour. I profess to have no conscience and no honour superior to that of Mr Bradlaugh. (" Oh, oh.") It is no business of mine to set myself up—(cheers)— and it is no business of yours to set yourselves up —(cheers)—having conscience or honour superior to that which actuates Mr Bradlaugh, (" Oh, oh," and hear. hear.) If you take a different line, I should like some inienious man among you to tell me where it will lead you. (Cheers.) Mr Bright went on to refer to the action taken by Sir H. D. Wolff when Mr Bradlaugh advanced to take the oath. The hon. member objected. That course was so unusual that at least, if there was any justi- fication for it, it ought to be clearly set forth. The hon. and learned gentlemen on the other side no doubt took pains to ascertain if there was any- thing in the shape or shadev or shade of a prece- dent for such a course being taken, but there was nothing to show that it had been done before. The Speaker having referred the question to the zhouge, there was no other mode for the House but to refer the question to Select Commit- tee, which originally consisted of 19 members. It was objected by hon. gentlemen opposite that there were no Nonconformists upon the Commit- tee, and then four other members were added to it, The Committee could not agree for seven days, although on one day they had sat from one o'clock until seven o'clock, and the question was dis- cussed most f.dly and thoroughly, and at last the report before the House was carried by a majority of five. The Committee decided that the oath should be refused to Mr BraHaush, been use he had asked to affirm, although he had said in effect that the oath was as binding upon his conscience as it would be upon the conscience of any man. Wi en he offered to affirm lie made no such statement as that the oath would not be binding lipori him. Of course he had to give a certain legal justification for his offer to affirm. But the main point to be considered was that he had never said that the oath would not be binding upon his conscience. Indeed he had said that it would be perfectly ai d completely binding upon his conscience, ai d he submitted, therefore, that the House would not he just to Mr Bradlaugh"—t(Iaughter from the (^•position) — if it decided that because he had orighr^y ^sked to affirm he should not be allowed to take t'e considered that it was taking an ni-fair advantage of Mr Bradlaugh, and no hon. Me'be v liappeiiing to be in a similar position would reJ*a such conduct and treatment as just or what heoJ1^0 expec^ (Hear, hear.) The case came to' i us- AIr bradlaugh was allowed to make an affii ""o^ion in the courts of law, but this House, which Has the source of all ( law and justice, was it going t< -deprive him of the ( same right at the bar of the Hou e which he had in £ courts of justice ? (Hear, hear.) OL* these grounds, therefore, he (Mr Bright) submitted that a por- tion of the members of the House was Q.ot walling to accord in the present instance that favourable and generous treatment which it was in the habit of according to all its members. (Cheers.) Now he would came to the o QetioD of precedent He thought it would be generally there was nothing in the F,'fcape of "1* '"a I. f justify the course whic* t° proposed to take, Ther- h^ ^I J'T' gentl? like the interposition anything Portsmouth attended" -,u lu"' memhert for hon. member i- V it aDy □reviouslv V House. Ihere had never ,eous er -^en a'1nember for Portsmouth coura- ,eoiis !P-ough-(,* laugh)—or any party in the tio' Oold etrough to propose that a similar ques- should voe raised when a member came to the .hI. to take the oath of allegiance. There were no precedents in the courts of law, nor were there any in the records of Parliament for such a course. There was nothing in the law of Scotland to jus- tify such action any more than there was in English legal p actice to prevent a man from affirming. He might refer to the case of Mr Pease, in 1833, a case he was willing to admit, which u as not equal upon all points < to the present, but he quoted it for the purpose of showing the opinions expressed with reference to it in the House of Commons, Then Mr Pease objected to take the oath, and, further, he objected to take the affirmation because it contained the words of the oatb. He would not s-,i ear, believing with some people that he should nof swear at all, and he would not affirm, and yet the House of Commons then unanimously determined, and afterwards in a full House agreed, that i,e should be allowed to affirm, and that the words of the oath should be omitted from the affirmation. Mr Pease madean affirmation which j had formed the basis of the affirmation, which he < (Mr Bright) and others of his sect had taken ever since. Mr Wynn, a gentleman who was then con- ] sidered an able authority upon quests s of order in the House, and wM !$0 ^ubt was selected for the 3uty.^ jn" tonse- qence, moved the resolution the hon. member to affirm He i»-< £ «. £ • U vr upon the matter it wmi d £ ^« g to lean to the side of the V-the ^ut-V f all criminal and civil «»im»nt, *lmt as m ed,tliat ougbl 'marts the affirmation was fHear h«»iri TJ 10 be snfbcient »n that House, or at least tho A fMr Bright) asked the House, opinion of 1 y oppT^' to b« B^cted by the rlaima- ynn' a ean *° (i r ^«, if there was a doubt in the matter, as he V bright) was willing to admit there w: s a ^onbt. In all courts of justice Mr Bradlaugh would have the right to affirm, and what was sufficient in courts of justice ought to be sufficient in the Home of Commons. There was the speech of the then Solicitor General (Sir Wm, Horne). Upon the same occasion he pointed out that originally under the common law of this country a member was allowed to take his seat in the House of Commons without taking any oath whatever, and that it was generally known that the common la v of the land was generally in favour of freedom. The question before the House resolved itself into whether or not a test of Theism was to be set up --("No ")-nnd by doing so they would establish two orders of members in that House. (Hear, bear, and "No.") There were members in that House belongingtto different churches, but he trusted they were all of one religion which incul- cated charity, forbearance, justice, and even senerosity. There were those, too, who belonged to tol e Roman Catholic Church, and he need not remind them of what they and their ancestors bad gone through for the last 300 years or more, and for how long a time they were kept out of the House by the very same cla-m of arguments. Did they suppose that in psst times the "founder i of Christianity tNuiifd a OISUM fAr mo oatb in that House to defend the religion which he founded? Did they suppose that the Supreme mler of worlds could be interested in the fact that one man came to that table and took His name.evenitmightbe, in vain—(cries of" Ob.")- while another was permitted to make an affirma- tion reverently and honestly, in which His name was not included ? One thing was essential for them. The House of Commons represented the English people, which was to maintain the principles of freedom of political action and freedom of conscience, (Cheers.) The electors of Northampton had returned two men to Parliament. The House admitted one and ex- cluded the other. They might rely upon it that all the constituencies of the kingdom would consider this cause was their own. (Hear, hear, and prolonged cheers.) He was there as the defender of what he believed to be the principles of their Constitution, the freedom of a constituency to elect, and the freedom of the elected to sit in Par- liament. (Hear, hear.) The freedom they enjoyed had been hardly won—(cheers)—and he did not believe that a House of Commons fresh from those constituencies would allow itself to turn back and deny those principles by supporting the motion of the hon. member for Portsmouth. (Cheers.) Mr E. STANHOPE scarcely thought that the observations of the last speaker had conveyed the idea that the House was engaged in considering a question of law. The right hon. gentleman had indulged in sneers upon the motives and acts of the Conservative party, and indeed of all who "I tended to vote against the mofien, showlug hftil- self no sigQ of that justice, generosity, or Chris- tianity which he was urging others to exercise. He contended that the House would be placed ip a most undignified position if it should admit Mr Bradlaugh and after. wards fiud that it had been a party, with full notice, to an illegal act, and he pressed upon them, in fairness to Mr Bra "laugb, if there was any doubt about the law, to set it right by a special Act. Sir P. O'BRIEN announced that he did not intend to vote upon the question. Mr NEWDEGATE moved the adjournment of the debate, which was agreed to. The House adjourned at 25 minutes to two o'clock.
. -% HOUSE OF LORDS—TUESDAY.
HOUSE OF LORDS—TUESDAY. The Lord Chancellor took his seat at five o'clock. ROBBERIES OF ARMS IN IRELAND. Ou the motion of the Earl of LIMERICK, a return was ordered of all robberies and attempted robberies of arms which had been repotted by the Royal Irish Constabulary between the 1st of January, 1879, and the 31st of March, 1880.. EVICTION IN IRELAND. Earl ANNESLEY, as the Government were proposing for Ireland land legislation such as had never before been heard of in any civilised country, thought it desirable that those landlords whose conduct justified it should be known. He asked, therefore, for a return of the num. ber of evictions in Ireland for non-payment of rent during the years 1878 and 1879 in each poor-law union scheduled under the Relief Act. He did not believe that there had been an un- usual number of evictions, and he drew special attention to the fact that he wanted not the num- ber of notices of ejectment, but of actual evic- tion, it being matter of notoriety that tenants not unfrequently liked to be served with notice, as an excuse for payment of rent. The Earl of LEITRIM, in confirmation of that statement, mentioned that his tenants of Donegal abrolutely refused to pay rent last year till 260 ejectments had been served, but not more than three persons were actually evicted. Lord SPENCER had no objection to procuring the return, but desired to consult with the most noble earl as to the form in which it should be prepared. He would suggest that the term should be extended, so as to include the early months of the present year, and that it would not be expe- dient to publish the names of the evicting land- lords. The House rose at 25 minutes to 6 o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—TUESDAY. The Speaker took the chair at 4 o'clock. OTTOMAN FINANCE. Sir H. D. WOOLF gave notice that on an early day he would call attention to the financial state of the Ottoman Empire, and move a resolution. THE COST OF THE AFGHAN WAR. Mr GLADSTONE, in reply to Mr Cross, said that the present state of the information of Her Majesty's Government as to the charges of the Afghan war did not allow of his giving a clear idea of how the accounts stood. It would be ob- viously inconvenient to produce a statement that would be liable to be overturned, or 4ieriously changed, by more detailed accounts. THE BERLIN TREATY. Mr GLADSTONE said, in answer to Lord J. Manners, there were 24 of the 60 odd articles of the Berlin Treaty that were either pattially or wholly unfulfilled. Doubtless Her Hajesty's Government desired to see all obligatory pro- visions completely fulfilled, but they drew dis- tinctions as to their importance. For instance, they could not think such a question as that of the frontier between Roumania and Bulgaria was to be compared in importance wit;) the provisions in which the action of Turkey was principally concerned, because they w ere provisions bearing directly on the peace and security of the district, and on guarantees for life, an I property, and honour. Her Majesty's Government would take si-.ch steps as opportunity offered for the fulfil- ment of the whole of the provisions. FRENCH SHIPPING EOUNTY. Sir C. DILKE, replying to Dr. Cameron, said a Bill for payment of a bounty of 1J francs per ton on every ton of new shipping built in France for each thousand miles traversed in voyages to and from France had been under discussion by the French Chamber for several months. Her Majesty's Government would not fail to call attention to the subject in the negotiations that might take place with the French Government as to the treaty. THE ROUMELIAN COMMISSION. Sir C. DILKE, in reply to Mr H. Samuelson. as to the Eastern Roumelian Commission, said Lord E. Fitzmaurice had arrived at Constanti- nople on the 22nd of last month. His Turkish colleagues were not yet appointed, and no steps had been taken to bring the Commission together till the 30th, when the names of the Turkish Commissioners were to be first announced. The Turkish Government had not yet kept their promise to lay a transaction of the new law of Villayets or liegleraent before the Commission, and the Commissioners were unable to proceed with their business. The first formal n:?eting was held on the 17th of the month, find the seCT'nd was to take place yesterday, but he was informed had been adjourned by the Turkish Commissioner* sine die. The other Commissioners had expressed dissatisfaction at these continued delays. '> NOTICES. Mr MACIVOR gave notice that on the second reading of the Customs an l Inland Revenue Bill he would move that any proposal of reduction of duty on importations of any kind is at present in- convenient. Sir J. LUBBOCK gave notice that on an early day he would move a resolution in favour of the Government taking steps for the protection of ancient monuments. ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS. Mr GLADSTONE, in reply to Earon de Ferrieres, said the instructions as to prosecuting manufacturers for the sale of beverages containing alcohol had been given when he came into office, but no prosecutions were undertaken where the amount of spirit was under 3 per cent, and in the existing state of legislation as to the beer and malt duties there was an entire suspension of the pro- secutions on such articles. IRISH LAND BILL. i f" 1 Mr FORSTER, in answer ,7r T~abouchere said it would reauiro iVir -Ijaboucnere, to add to tlio .-l "u on £ reasons to induce him .iiedule to the new Irian Land Bui, BEER DUTY. Mr GLADSTONE, in reply to Mr Biddell, stated that the farmer whose house and land taken together were valued at k20 would be liable to make returns of the materials used by him in brewing. The process would not be inspected, but he would be charged beer duty on those materials. FORGED HALL MARKS. Lord F. CAVENDISH, in answer to Mr M. Guest, said it was true that a number of pieces of antique plate which had been purchased by a collector had forged hall marks, and he had found that the Goldsmiths' Company were taking action in the matter. Much of the plate purported to be of the time of Queen Anne, wb *ich was before the imposition of the plate duty, ( 1-1 IRISH OUTRAGES. Mr FORSTER, in reply to Col. Makiiis and Mr A. M. Sullivan, said he was not aware of any Irish district where the conviction of perpetrators of outrages had been found quite unattainable. In Mayo and Galway'convictions had been ob- tained for attacks on process servers. It was true that in the scheduled districts which had been nsmed, in consequence of their being dis- tricts in which there was excessive distress, there had been most Agrarian outrages, and the anti-rent agitation had been most violent there. THE ATALANTA. Mr SRÃ ,EFEYRE, in reply to Mr Hor- wood, said the Admiralty nad tsceiyed a few days ago, from the commanding officer jit oijelds, a fuller report thpal the one received previously, as to the raft sported to have been seen by the barque coHa Queen, on the 22nd April. The stated that the raft was seen on that day, about 150 miles S.E. by K. of Bermuda. As near as could be noticed it was made of square pine logs. She was weakly made, nt; ropes coiild be seen, and she was supposed to be bolted. About 400yards from the raft were two bodies, apparently with white jumpers on, and the master was of opinion thet they were men-of-war's men. Con sid, ring that an inter- val of 82 d: y« had elapsed between the Atalanta leaving Beimuda, and the raft being seen so near the island, and that the raft was constructed of materials which it was impossible could have been on board the Atalanta, the Admiralty was of opinion that it was impossible she could be in any way connected with the Atalanta. THE IRISH LAND ACT. Mr FORSTER, in reply to Lord Elcbo, said it was not usual to lay on the table the instruc- tion8 to Royal Commissions, nor the names of the Commissioners, but the purport of the inquiry of the Commission to be appointed, as to the operation of the Irish Land Act bad already been fully stated, and before the Commissioners began their labours the House. would be fully informed of the nature of the inquiry, aud the names. when fixed, should be statea. THE IRISH CHURCH ACT AMENDMENT BILL. Mr FORSTER stated, in answer to Mr Plan. ket,that Her Majesty's Government wonld pay due attention to the arguments that might be used in favour of the second reading of the Irish Church Act (1869) Amendment Bill, but they did not be- lieve they would be able to assent to the Bill.
THE BRADLAUGH DEBATE.
THE BRADLAUGH DEBATE. The adjourned debate on Mr Labouehere's motion, that Mr Bradlaugh be admitted to affirm was resumed. Mr NEWDEGATE felt that the House was placed in a very unfortunate and not ve y credit- able umitinn. Uw fault of fctua vitb (hs Government, which could not make up its mind to adopt the finding of the first Committee, but must appoint the second Committee, which, on its report, had travelled beyond its powers. And so great was its bias that, on the motion of Mr Ser- jeant Simon—making a very ungrateful return for the privileges awarded to his co-religionists, who are sworn on the Old Testament—it recommended not merely to destroy the Christian character of the House, but to open its doors to unbelievers; and he was astonished that the Government in- tended to use its majority to support the report of this Committee. Mr GLADSTONE saidSthe hon. gentleman,the member for North Warwickshirei had concluded his speech by an appeal to the Government to legislate in this matter. He (Mr Gladstone) was in the predicament of being of opinion that it was exactly the course he ought not to take. If he considered that the provisions of the present law were insufficent to cope with the case which had arisen, then, indeed, the case would be a strong lone of urging upon the Government the duty otproposingilegislation. Some hon. members believed that the House had no jurisdiction in the matter, and others believed that it had. Those hon. gentlemen sitting on his side of the House, so far as he was acquainted with their views, were perfectly agreed that the present law was adequate for the purpose of dealing wi;h the case. (Hear, hear). It was for those who considered that a difficulty had arisen which could not be coped with by the existing law, to propose fresh legislation. The whole tenor of Mr Newdegate's speech as that those who had the great misfortune-and the greatest misfortune it was-not to believe in the existence of a Divine Being, should not be per- mitted to sit in the House of Commons. He (the Prime Minister) could not conceive anything more unfortunate, anything less prudent on the part of gentlemen who might be supposed to have some care for the duty, and order, and dig- nity of the House, than a proposal, in the present state of the law, to introduce au Act of general legislation in connection with the case of Mr Bradlaugh, (Hear, hear.) He had been appealed to by the hon. and learned gentleman who moved the amendment (Sir H. Giffard) to sul,ply him with guidance in this matter. That was the phrase which he did him the honour to use. That:was an office far, indeed, beyond his aspira- ation, and far beyond his duty. (Hear, hear.) He should have said that the hon, and learned gentleman need not have required to look nearly so far as across the House in order to obtain what he v ould call very good guidance, and much better guidance than they could afford him. The judgment of his late colleague (Sir John Holker) was well entitled to the attention of the hon, and learned member for Launceston. (Hear, hear.) He deeply regretted the ab- sence of the late Attorney-General from this debate, for he should have thought that a gentleman of his legal emiuence-one who had not only held the office of Attorney-General for six years, but had discharged the office with con- spicuous ability-was a man who would not have declined 'to give them the benefit of his assistance. (Cheers.) He wished it to be understood what was the position in which the Government stood in a matter of this kind. He believed it to be their duty frankly to offer the best advice in their power to the House, and having done that they would be functi officio The appearance of Mr Bradlaugh at the table of the House was no measure of theirs-(hear, hear) —and the dealing with his case was no matter of theirs. They were not bound by anything that he might or might not do, any more than w ere hon. gentlemen opposite. It was their duty to come to the consideration of Mr Bradlaugh's case with a rigid and absolute impartiality—(cheers)—to banish from their minds a large portion of the topics which had presented themselves to the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite, and which evidently for the most part would govern their judgment. The question with certain hpn. gentle- men who had addressed the House was what was sometimes called a question of religious instinct, and sometimes of religious principle-viz., the great question of constitutional policy, whether it was right that an Atheist should be allo ed to sit in the House. But that was not the question at all. (Opposition murmurs.) These remonstrances, these audible, though not articulate remonstrances—(laughter)— only strongly corroborated the observations he had made as to the principles which would govern the minds of hon. gentleman opposite. (Ministerial cheers). As he had said, the duty of the Govern- ment seemed to him of a limited character-simply to offer, under circumstances for which they were not responsible, the best advice in their power, and then to leave the matter in the hands of t e House. If the House proceeded to act on the feeling that filled the minds of those who prompted 'the amendment, they would be en- tering on the commencement of a long, and embarrassing, and difficult controversy, not, perhaps, so much within the walls of the House as beyond those walls; and he frit he should not like to se8 the House involved in great difficulties, perhaps running the risk of ultimate defeat, without being able to give himself the poor consolation of having counselled a different course, which would have saved it from any such calamity. (Hear.) He would avoid stirring up the religious feelings that must direct, and did direct, the minds of some hon. gentlemen he would endeavour to keep within limits that would not touch upon feelings that must lead to religious an I polifcitical excitement, He was painfully impressed with the belief that questions of this kind were disagreeable in their character, and not conducive to the maintenance of the dignity and character of the House. The misfortune was that there should be that debate, and it was hardly possible but that it would be conducted without more or less warmth. Where questions of such grave import, of such vital importance to the welfare of mankind were at issue, it was almost impossible to maintain t) at clear, calm, bold view of the position on which the action of reason ii as so necessary. On one side, gentlemen were urged on by what they conscientiously believed was regard for religion. On the other side, they v.ere in- fluenced by feelings second only to, and indeed vital to, religion itself—the cause of religious liberty. (Hear, hear.) When considerations of this kind were in view, he was afraid,such was the infirmity of human nature, that it was hardly possible to resist the continued exertion of irri- tating topics. He hoped he might not be led into giving offence, but he would say that the intrusion of these feelings came first from the other side of the House. It was a matter of history that matters were introduced into the debate with re- spect to political views which had no place what- ever, which were absolutely at variance %i ith the question. Of course he would not accuse any hon. gentleman of any intention to mislead or lead -istray the judgment of the House, What was the question before them ? The imme- diate subject was the motion of Mr Laboucliere, whivb would have the effect of declaring on the part of Jhe House a refusal to meddle with this matter at ail _he understood it, but to authori- tativelv extend to Mr Bradlaugh a privilege which it was the business of the House to dis- pense. It was asked not to interpose to prevent Mr Bradlaugh frol rJojng_io the first what he deemed to be his statutory duty. There were two prepositions that weighed with his mind on this point. First, that if the House had jurisdiction in the matter to make any examina- tion ether than to provide that the formal duty is performed, then the House had never ex- ercised that jurisdiction, which it would be most impolitic now to take up. (Hear.) And, secondly, speaking for himself, he would go further, and say that the more he looked at the cas^, "the more apparent it seemed to him that t'ne argument run- ning through it all was ^he House did not have that jurisdiction tIe quite agreed «ith the views ^expr^gj it waa an obligation of the_j3t0X,ge j.Q see tiJeir members rightly seated, to see that the oath was rightly takf-n, or tha affirmation properly made. Beyond this the House had no [statutory obligation. If the House possessed the further qualification of ex- amination, then he conceived it was a most un- fortunate thing to undertake it in a matter of this sort. Surely the House was unfit to enter upon the deep matter of belief. (Hear. hear.) Were they not conscious, every man for himself, of a tendency within him to be heated in his views on this point ? He was conscious himself of the necessity of keeping a continual curb against the almost. irresistible tendency to introduce into this popular assembly the influence of such feel- ings. If they undertook for the first time to interfere between the ir ember and his statutory duty, they would find themselves entering upon a oonflict into which they should not be disposed to enter, not being led by obligation or precedent. He had no wish to see the House in conflict with the courts of law, or with the electors of North- ampton, With resftrd to the courts of law. he would accept the view that the action of these courts could not be taken against the House of Commons, but he was not-aware how far action could be taken against the servants of the Houss in the execution of the duty imposed upon them. It appeared to him that the issue was not so much what could the House do or say, but'what would be the ultimate judgment outside upon the House, and the prudence and wisdom of its conduct ? Still less was he willing to be led into conflict with a constituency. For a long series of generations the House had been commonly successful in controversies with, the Crown and the House of Lords, but there had been a marked contrast between those issues and the issues of those controversies into which the House had oeen li"1 witk people of the country, repre- sented by a constancy. Take th« case of I Wilkes in 1763. There rza general conception that Wilkes was a man open to great excep- tion in iespect to his personal character, and an attempt was made to keep him, al- thongh he was duly elected, out of the House. What was the final issue of that controversy? (Hear, hear.) Parliament carried everything for years with a high hand, setting Wilkes and the constituency at defiance, and seated in the House a man who was elected by a minority of the con- stituency because it was said he was qualified, against the man who was disqualified by the vote of the House. What was the issue ? By degrees the House found that they were engaged in a con- flict wherein they could win little, but could lose much. Wilkes took his seat in the House, and in 1774 rose in his place to move in terms disparaging and ignominious that Parliament should expunge from its journals the result of what had been done. It was rejected. The tide had not turned enough. Wilkes renewed his attempt from year to year, and after seven years he carried, in 1782, a motion, not only that the motion, but that the proceedings ol.,ould be expunged from the journals, in itself the greatest mark of ignominy the House could inflict. But that ignominy was heightened and deepened by the append- ing to the motion the reasons upon which it was founded, namely, that the proceedings of the Hou e were subversive of the rights and liberties of the electors themselves. (Hear, hear.) Then he would direct his speech to those gentle- men who, beyond their arguments, had declared that the matter could not be decided without re- ference to religion. Such was the climax of tl!e speech they have just heard composed upon the text The fool hath said in .1 his heart there is no God." One right hon. member had said that this question must be decided on religious instinct, and yet another member had protested against the air of the House being polluted by t: e presence of an Atheist. Another hon. mem- ber prayed that the entrance of Mr Bradlaugh might be anticipated wit's sufficient notice to AttAtblA. bi49 ftfi &ZuW th* _t"A, JA was rneedless to give more citations. Every one of these expressions served to convey the feelings with v hich many were animated. (Hear, hear.) He was not quoting these sentiments in any feeling of anger, or proposing to condemn or pass judgment on these facts, which served to establish the existence of this religious belief, which he looked on as the real strength at the back of the amendment; but he wanted to ask these gentlemen to consider the position they were taking up. They were about to take up the position of a religious objection to the appearance of Mr Bradlaugh in the House. Well, for nearly two centuries, the House had been the scene of conflicts of the same kind. At the beginning of the last century, and down to the end of 1828, the House was exhorted to rally in defence of what he might call the Church Consti. tution of the House, because, de jure, until 1828, it was composed of members who had, or by law were assumed to have,qualified themselves by the most solemn act of Communion to sit as members of the Church of England. The House was rallied to the cry, and most indignant were he denunciations as to the effect on the religious onstitution of th e House, if such a qualification. were relaxed. However, the Test and Corporation Act was repealed, and then came a new rallying cry, and the House was rallied on the cry of the Protestant Constitution. With doleful protesta- tion, however, the Protestant Constitution was given up, and Roman Catholics took their seats in the HOIJGS. Many precious years of the nation's time had been spent in vain. (Cheers.) Then a fresh cry was raised for the Christian constitution of Parliament, and for 30 years the admission of Jews was contested; and he was under the im- pression that in the other branch of the Legisla- ture the question had not yet been set at rest. However, happily, now, they met their Jewish colleagues in the House on a footing of equality. And now, as was justly and truly said by his right hon. friend last night, they were invited to make what he supposed was a final stand and rally for the Theistic constitution of the House. (Hear, hear). Driven from Church Constitution, driven flom Protestant Constitution, driven from Christian Constitution, a final rally was made in defence of this narrow ledge of Theistic constitution. (Hear, hear). They had in the present case, with regard to Mr Brad- laugh, stood up for Theism in a definite form. The opoosite side had declared in effect that they would have allowed an Atheist to have taken his seat provided that he had not told them and the public, in the course of some proceedings, that he was an Atheist. (Cheers and laughter). An hon. gentleman had asked them to consider this question from the way in which the outside public were likely to look at it. These were words which raised great suspicion in his (the Prime Minister's) mind. The first duty of the members of that House was to look straight at what they believed to be.their duty in the case,and trust to the generosity of their fellow countrymen. Now, as to the precedents referred to, there were no precedents that showed that Mr Bradlaugh should not be obliged to perform what was simply a statutory obligation of the State. He did not think that the hon. gentlemen opposite realised the historical importance of the fact that the Jacobites were allowed to take their seats in the House of Commons by such men as Walpole and his friends, who were remarkable for their Hano- verian sympathies. There was Bolingbroke, who had no religious professions at all, and other men like him had lived and died covered with distinc- tion. The House was then not only Atheist, not only Christian, not only Protestant, but bound to be in communion with the Church of England herself. Not only were the precedents entirely in favour of the persons claiming admission to the House, but they were almost exclusively referable to that end, and never had an investigation, nor a citation of belief been entered upon. What was the jurisdiction of that House on a question like the present,? 'As the hon. and learned member for Dewsbury had defined it, the taking of an oath or the making of an affirmation was the exterior performance of a certain civil duty, of which the law had made the members of the House the stewards. He (Mr Gladstone) did not question for a moment Ithat the House had to see that external duty pertormed, Put he thought there were considerations which would show that the House of Commons had not that jurisdiction which was claimed for it in this matter. Why did the House in Committee notdminister the oath ? Because it had not the power. That being so, he presumed to say that the House bad no power whatever over a member until he had taken the oath or the affirmation. He (Mr Gladstone) had net called the man to that House be had not encouraged him to come there that he had noth- ing whatever to do with but it was not his business to interpose, as the hon. member for Portsmouth had done, between a member and his statutory duty. In conclusion, he said he was only desirous of acting upon the side of religious liberty, and of acting within what he believed was the law of the land. In coming to a deci- sion upon this question they should keep within their view this point, and not go beyond the law of the land. (Loud cheers.) Mr GIBSON said he was willing and desirous not to treat this question from a purely political and religious point of view, but they must remem- ber the speech which had been delivered last night by Mr Bright. (Opposition cheers.) That speech was characterised by as much bitterness—(Oppo- sition cheers)—as much acerbity, and as complete and as entire an absence of tolerationland charity as any speech which he had heard in his life, in this or any other assembly. (Loud Opposition cheers.) The right hon. gentleman seemed to con- sider unless anyone agreed with him, and sat upon his side of the House, that it .was impossible to sider unless anyone agreed with him, and sat upon his side of the House, that it was impossible to entertain purity of motive, to have a single pure aspiration, or to be actuated by even a common honesty. (Loud Opposition cheers.) Mr \VM. FOWLER supported the motion, which was opposed by Sir HENRY TYLER. Mr RODWELL and Mr A. MOORE said that the broad and simple issue before the country was whether an avowed atheist was to be allowed, un- challenged, to take part in the legislation of a Christian country. Mr FORSTER said Mr Bradlaugh was not only an Atheist, but a man who would overthrow the Throne and constitution. Mr HENEAGE opposed the motion, s Mr A. M. SULLIVAN said that the Prime Minister could not, in his opinion, take his stand upon the inclined plane where he had placed him- self to-night. Mr SYNAN said the House had already exer- cised its jurisdiction in appointing two Commit- tees to inquire into the subject. Mr COHEN said this was a difficult legal question, the decision of which ought to be left to the courts of law. Sir H. D. WOLFF said that if the matter went to a court of law, the decision y. as sure to be appealed against, and the ultimate-result would be that the House of Lords, as the haghest court of appeal^ yfpuljl have to decide who shepld sit in the flouse of Commons. M CHILDEJJS said that if they wanted to put down Atheism, let them t of an Atheist. (Hear, hear.) Mr DALY said if they admitted Mr^ the unthinking portion of the people woulu sider the Ho'ise of Commons had endorsed him. (lie.if, hfear.) Sir S. NORTHCOTE criticised the conduct of the Government on this question, and attributed much of the difficulty in which the House found itself to their want of decibion. What they ap- peared to want was to find some means or other for the admission of Mr Bradlaugh, and yet they bad not the courage to boldly express that opinion. (Hear, hear.) Professor ROGERS endeavoured to address the House, but was received with such loud cries of 'divide" that his remarks were inaudible in the gallery, and he ultimately sat down. The House divided, when the numbers were: *or Mr ijabouchere s motion 230 Against 275 I Majority against 45 i ne announcement of the numbers was greeted with loud and continuous cheers. The amendment was then declared carried. DISTRESS IN IRELAND. Mr PARNELL obtained leave to bring in a Bill to relieve the distress in Ireland. The House adjourned at 10 minutes to 1 o'clock. t
MR BRADLAUGH CLAIMS HIS SEAT.
MR BRADLAUGH CLAIMS HIS SEAT. REFUSAL TO Lt, iVE THE HOUSE. HIS ARREST AND IMPRISON- ] MENT eEXCITINGSCENE. HOUSE OF COMMONS—WEDNESDAY. When the reporters were admitted to the gal- lery Mr Bradlaugh had just presented himself at the table and demanded to be admitted to take the oath. The SPEAKER read to him the resolution of the House, and requested him to withdraw. Mr BRADLAUGH, amidst cries of "Order," asked to be allowed to state his reasons, but again h ere were loud cries of "Order," and With- draw." Mr TJXBOUCHERE moved that Mr Bradlaugh be now heard.. be now heard.. Mr WALPOLE pointed out that he could only be heard at the Bar. 7 The SPEAKER ruled that Mr Bradlaugh must be heard at the Bar. Mr LABOOCHEBE, seconded by Mr A. DILKB, moved that Mr Btadlaugh be heard at the Bar. Mr BRADLAUGH was called to the Bar, and said he wished, with the indulgence of the House, to assign some reason why its resolution should not be enforced. As far as his reading went, there was no case on the records in which the House had denied its constitutional rights to any mem- ber. He appealed to t! e precedents, and urged that in no case had the House refused to hear any member in his position. He stood there chosen by a constituency of this country, with most profound respect for the House of which he claimetiJLo form a part. He stood there duly returned. No peti- tion was presented against his return, and there was no impeachment of it. He was ready to fulfil every form that the House required, or the law allowed it to require. He would not argue whether the House had a right or not to act against the law He would not imagine a possibility so dangerous, but he was speaking within the limits of the law. He asked for no favour for himself or his con- atittioutp, but the merest justice which the law afforded to him. He would appeal to the indul- gence of the House to forget, on one side, some of the angry observations uttered against him in the course of the recent debates, and on the other, not to regard him as the source of the trouble and. embarracsment. He claimed his right to take lJi" seat in the name of his constituents, who had sent him there. There was no legal disqualification against him previous to his elect ion. Had there llMB-ii WAUld Iuu* b-0 nuad MauBaiiw- No legal disqualification had arisen since his elee tion to prevent him taking his seat. He might have taken the oath, as other members, but he had declined to put himself in that position. uther hon. members had found in the oath words which clashed with their religious scruples, and had been allowed to affirm according to their conscience. He should have thought it unworthy of the House and discreditable to himself to go through a form believing it to be a mere form. He claimed to be entitled to take his seat, and he believed in the justice of his claim, but he would rather relinquish it, much as he valued a seat in the House, than be thought to have gained it by hypocrisy. There was no prece- dent, there was no right belonging to the House by law. to stand between him and the oath which the law provided should be taken. The statute prescribed also certain penalties to which all members were liable if they took their seats ille- gally, but this they should let a court of law de- cide. He would appeal to the House whether his demeanour all through this affair had not been as respectful as possible to it. He must insist upon his right, and those of his constituents, and if he did not insist he should be a coward and a recreant to his constituents, who bad chosen him as their legal representative. The House might think fit to expel him as unfit to sit in it, but he was still under the protection of the law, and he claimed to be admitted to the privileges granted to him by the law. If this was not to be done,every member of the House was at the mercy of the majority. Was he to be expelled on account of his politics, or on account of his pamphlets ? Surely if they were to be made the ground for his expulsion they were liable to be prosecuted in a court of law. He disclaimed any idea of wishing to set his constituents at Northampton in any way against the House, but it was not the case of Northampton that he was alone contending for it was the case of every constituency in the country whose rights were being overridden. The House was overriding the Statute Law against one who might be the vilest of its members, and in so doing was overriding the rights of the people of this country. But still he trusted that it would, in the end, do justice. Although it might, in the heat of party strife and debate, have been led away, he would still hope that an assembly of English gentlemen would do justice, although it was better to have to say even this much to their faces. They might have to send him away, but he would appeal not only to his constituents, but to a still higher tribunal-the voice of public opinion-and it would be a bad day for England when its Parliament and its law. courts refused to do justice. The opinion he held might be wrong, and deserve to be punished if so, let the law punish him but he could not admit the right to exclude him from taking the oath. Although he appeared before them as one man amongst 600, he appealed to them to give him that justice which he believed he would obtain on the other side of Westminster Hall. Mr Bradlaugh then, at the request of the Speaker, bowed to the House, and withdrew from the bar. Sir S. NORTHCOTE did not clearly see what question there could be before the House. The resolution of the House, yesterday, declared Mr Bradlaugh could not be admitted either to affirm or to take the oath. There was, therefore, in his view, nothing before the House to alter the de- cision which it had arrived at last night, unless the Government proposed to take some steps to ask the House to reconsider its decision. Mr GLADSTONE said that as the Speaker had put the question, it was not for him to inter. fere. He had voted with the minority against the resolution to-day, because he believed to exclude MrBradlaughwas both'illegal and unconstitutional. He had already given the House the best advice that he could, after a careful and patient con- sideration of the case. He felt that the House was entering upon a very dangerous course but as the House had thought fit, against his opinion, to press the resolution, itwns his duty to bow, and wish, as far as he could, to support the authority of the chair. The SPEAKER [1,hd if it was the pleasure of the House that Mr I, be admitted. Mr LAB! > UVHERE said that he did not wish to raise only the question of the admission of Mr Bradiaugh, but that ot his right to come to the table to take the oath Mr MOWBRAY rose to order. The House had passed a resolution that Mr Bradlaugh could not take the oath. Mr LABOUUHERE argued that the law, as a matter of constitutional right, was in favour of the course he proposed, and, to bring the matter to an issue, he would move that Mr Bradlaugh be admitted to take the oa The SPEAKER said that the motion was in direct opposition to the resolution of the House, and he could not receive it. Mr LABOUCHERE would then move that the resolution of the Honse be rescinded. Mr A. MACDONALD seconded the motion. Mr R. O'CONNOR asked if such a motion could be given without notice. The SPEAKER ruled that as the question was one of privilege no notice was required, Mr GORST moved that the debate be adjourned, which was seconded by Mr NEWDIGATE. Mr GLADSTONE said respecting his former advice, he felt that nothing could be gained by the House persevering in the course which it had entered upon. 11 Mr LABOUCHERE said that the righthon. gentleman, as might be expected of him, had done his best to promote the cause of civil and religious liberty, and the right of tie constituencies to select their own members, but although he wished the House to vindicate their rights, he a ould not press his motion. The SPEAKER then desired Mr Bradlaugh to be admitted. Mr Bradlaugh came up to the table, and was again requested by the Speaker to withdraw. Mr BRADLAUGH Sir, as the legally elected member for Northampton, I ask you to have the oath administered to me. I distinctly refuse to go out, because, I respectfully submit to you, sir, that the order of the House is illegal. The SPEAKER I have to ask the House to give authority to tl e chair to enforce the exe- cution of its order. I have no power without the order of the House to exercise my authority.and I must ask the House to give me its authority. ,In Sir S. NORTHCOTE said that he felt the matter was one of great delicacy, and as no mem- ber of the Government came forward, he would move that the Speaker be instructed to take the necessary steps to cause Mr Bradlaugh to with. ^••aw. r 1.0. The- ouse divided— For the TltlitIrawaI 326 Against 38 Maioriiv on 288 The SPEAKER said he had Ww to inform Mr Bradlaugh that it was the order o. the House that he should withdraw, and he must upon him to withdraw at once. Mr BRADLAUGH t submit that the or\ er of the House is against the law, and I positively' I refuse to obey. The SPEAKER called upon the Serjeant-aV" Arms to remove Mr Bradlaugh from the table. ) Mr BRADLAUGH I shall submit to the Serjeant-at-Arms removing me from the bar, but I shall return. The Serjeant-at-Arms, who had meanwhile ad- vanced to the table, signed to Mr Bradlaugh to accompany him, and the gentleman went with him to the Bar, but when the Serjeant-at-Arms left him, Mr Bradlaugb, advancing a little way into the House again, said, amid cries of "Order," that he claimed his right as a member of the House to enter the House. He admitted the right of the House to imprison him, but not the right of the House to exclude him, and he refused to be excluded. (Cries of "Order,") The Serjeant-at-Arms took Mr Bradlaugh by the arm and conducted him to the Bar, but Mr Bradlaugh, directly the official left him, advanced into the House, followed by the Serjeant-at-Arms, and exclaimed, amid further cries of order," I claim my rights as a member of the House." Mr Bradlaugh then returned to the Bar again, where he remained Btanding during the subse- quent discussion. The SPEAKER said it was now for the House to decide what course should be adopted, Mr Bradlaugh having refused to withdraw, and to obey the orders of the House. Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, rising amid Opposition cheering, said the question was now whether the authority of the House and the authority of the Chair was to be supported or disregarded. He moved that Mr Bradlaugh, having disobeyed the order and resisted the authority of the House, for his said offence be taken into custody by the Serjeant-at-Arms. Mr GLADSTONE said nothing could be more unseemly than a continuance of the present dis. cussion. He had left it to Sir S. Northcote, the tnover of the resolution, to propose that this step be now takell. Mr LABOTTCHERE thought it unseemly that Mr Bradlaugh should be sent to prison for doing what legal gentlemen, even on the other side of the House, had admitted his right to do. He should not oppose the motion, believing that the taking into custody of Mr Bradlaugh would be the first step of his becoming a member of the HousA. Mr BRADLAUGH asked leave to speak, but The SPEAKER said he could not be heard without leave of the House. Mr COURTNEY said it should be placed on the records of the House that Mr Bradlaugh had been taken into custody, that he might move for a writ of habeus corpus if he chose. After some remarks from Mr SULLIVAN, rnd a short discussion, in which attention was called to the presence of a short-hand writer at the bar, and it was explained that he was there by the orders of the House. Mr L. STANLEY moved the adjournment of the House. Mr MACDONALD seconded the motion. Sir H. JAMES said that whether the arrest was placed upon the records of the House or not, any proceedings Mr Bradlaugh might take would not be prejudiced, as he could proceed upon affidavits; but he doubted whether any court of law would review the decision of the House as to the conduct of its internal affairs. Mr L. STANLEY withdrew the motion for adjournment, but Mr F1NEGAN at once moved a similar motion and the House divided. •n .t L e j? or tne adjournment Against 342 j Majority 337 Mr PARNELL asked the House to consider the position they "erenow iu. If Mr Bradlaugh were imprisoned, the question of the vacation of the seat at Noithampton would have to be con- sidered during the imprisonment of the principal person concerned, or let alone. Mr MOORJB and Mr O'DONOQHDB continued the The House divided on Sir S. Northcote's motion. For the motion 274 Against 7 Majority 267 r Majority 267 jyir ijraCLIaUgh, who was sitting undr the gal- lery, was then removed by the Serjeant-at-Arms. The motion then dropped, and the House pro- ceeded to ordinary business. ADDITIONAL SEATS WANTED. Mr MACIVER gave notice that tc-morrow he would ask whether the Government, having regard to the fact that Birkenhead had a larger popula- tion than Northampton, would be prepared to allot one of the seats to Birkenhead. Major NOLAN would ask whether the seat could not be given to Galway. LOCAL INQUIRIES (IRELAND) BILL. Mr FAY moved the second reading of the Local Inquiries (Ireland) Bill, the object of which is to provide that proceedings connected with private Bill legislation should be conducted on the spot. After some discussion, Mr FORSTER said that he wag quite sensible of the inconvenience of bringing all the private Bill legislation up to London, but he did not think the Bill offered a practical remedy. It was im- possible to consider the case of Ireland alone in this matter, irrespective of England and Scotland, and although he could not pledge himself to any course, the Government would take the question into consideration, and see if it might be possible to transfer this business to some of the local authorities. The Bill was then withdrawn, MISCELLANEOUS. The Bankruptcy Law Amendment Bill was read a second time, and referred to a Select Com- mittee. The County Bridges Bill was read a second time. The Consolidated Fund Bill passed through Committee. The House adjourned at 6 o'clock.
MR BRADLAUGH INTERVIEWED.
MR BRADLAUGH INTERVIEWED. The "Central News saysImmediately on the decision of the House being arrived at, the Serjeant-at-Arms proceeded into the lobby for the purpose of taking Mr Bradlaugh into custody. Mr Bradlaugh, meanwhile, had left the central lobby, and gone into one of the division corridors, where he was, of course, invisible to the Serjeant- at-Arms, but Inspector Denning informed Capt. Gossett of the whereabouts of the hon. member, it being, apparently, feared that he had once more invaded the House. Thereupon the Serjeant-at- Arms and his deputy, Colonel Forrester, pro- ceeded to where Mr Bradlaugh was calmly stand- ing, intimated to him that the Speaker's warrant had been issued for his arrest, and immediately took him into custody. Mr Bradlaugh offered just sufficient resistance to show that he re- sented their authority, but he accompanied them to the central lobby, whence they passed by the corridors to Captain Gossett's private reom, Mr Bradlaugh walking between the Serjeant and Deputy Serjeant-at-arms, followed by two or three policemen and a procession of honourable members. There was no demonstration of any kind among those present in the lobby when Mr Bradlaugh passed in custody of the Serjeant- at-Arms, beyond a little crowding to see how the member for Northampton bore his position. He walked along evidently in a contemplative mood, for one of the sub-editors of his paper, who plucked him by the sleeve, had to speak twice before Mr Bradlaugh halted, and recognising him, asked him to follow, as he wished to speak to him. Whilst he was in Mr Gossett'a room Mr Parnell, MrO'Kelly,MrO'Connor Power, MrFinegan, and Dr. Commins entered, and warmly shook Mr Brad- laugh by the hands, tendering the hon. gentlemen their cordial sympathies. Mr Bradlaugh then held abrief.coniiultation with the'sub-editor of his paper, and, at his request, his private secretary was subsequently sent for and admitted, Mr Bradlaugh giving the latter gentleman several in- structions in respect to his affairs, and arranging for the despatch of information to his friends re- quiring the result of the day's proceedings. The special correspondent of the "Central News" subsequently had an interview with Mr Brad- laugh. The hon, member for Northampton, in the course of the conversation which ensued, said of one thing he was sure, and that was that his seat was not rendered vacant by anything he had done, or that had taken place during to-day's proceed- ings. Several courses were open to him under the circumstances, but he meant to take time to consider which he would adopt. He wonld, however, very likely make up his mind during the course of the evening, and carry his plan resolutely out, once it was chosen. He seemed somewhat anxious that the public should thoroughly understand that his course to- day was solely dictated by what lIe believed to be his duty to his constituents, and was well within the limit of his rights, and in no sense actuated by a reckless or captious spirit of disrespect for Par- liament and its lawful authority. He simply wished to test and stand upon, in the least objec- tionable way possible under the circumstances, his legal rights, as a duly-elected member of Parlia- ment. Mr Bradlaugh spoke cheerfully, and ap- peared in no way downcast at the prospect of his having to spend some considerable time as a Par- liamentary prisoner in the heated atmosphere of the Clock Tower. Mr Bradlaugh remarked that he had received numerous offers of subscrip- tions from all quarters. The poor people through- out the country were sending in promises of aid, and telegrams, messages, and letters were reach- ing him from all directions. He looks to the country to back him up, and a form of memorial to the House of Commons is being disseminated far and wide. A telegram of sympathy from the Northampton electors was received by him on Wednesday evening. A Press Association" telegram says :—Mrs Besant and two daughters of the hon. member, who had been present during the latter part of the proceedings in the House, were amongst the first of the visitors admitted to the Tower. Asked by a correspondent of the Press Asso- ciation what he was going to do, Mr Bradlaugh replied that he intended to sit in the House as member for Northampton. Of that he had no doubt. He could not make any appeal to the House which would indicate any consent on his part to the'decision of the House. It would be logical for the House to declare the seat vacant, but thought they could not do that legally. The House had declared its view, and it was for the House to take any further steps, not for him. He would not apologise. The House ought, in his opinion, to apologise to him rather than he to apologise to the House. Unless the House rescin- ded its resolutions it was in a dilemma. He knew of no precedent whereby he could apply for a mandamus against the Speaker, The fact was that the House was trying to turn him into a pre- cedent. It was not a question between himself and Parliament, but between Northampton and the House of Commons. A conference has been held of the members who voted in favour of Mr Bradlaugh beir.g allowed to affirm. It was understood that a motion will be made and supported by several members of the Government to release Mr Bradlaugh from the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms. In order Ito facilitate this we are informed that on the Con- servative side the House will be moved to declare the seat for Northampton vacant.
- THE DIVISION ON THE BRAD…
THE DIVISION ON THE BRAD LAUGH CASE. A division was taken in the House of Commons early on Wednesday morning on the question jvhether Mr Bradlaugh should be allowed to affirm a* Wis own risk. The motion was rejected. Among those vTh° Y?ted *or t,!e motion were Mr Bid- duSi Sir*. ^.Cunliffe, D. Davie*, R. Davies, W. Davies, L. Ll. JJlUwyn. Flower, L. Fry, Lord R. Grosvenor, C. "• K*™es' L°rd K-en- sington, P. S. Macliver, Lord lo^ton, W, F. Maitland, G. O. Morgan, W. R. k.lr R. G. Price, J. Pulley, E. J. Reed, R. Reid, S. Rendall, H. Richard, J. Roberts, Hon. J. Js. A. Tracy, B. T. Williams, S. C. E. Williams, Watkin Williams. Amongst those who voted against the mOtiCZ? were H. G. Allen, T. Duckham, Sir J. R. Bailey, I Lord Emlyn, Hon. F. Morgan, J, A. Rolls, H. H. Vivian. — The Welsh members who did not vote were. C, W U L- Pu2h. C, H. Carbutt, Sir Watkin W, Wynne, Morgan Lloyd.
THREE BODIES FOUND AT BIR.…
THREE BODIES FOUND AT BIR- M INGHAM. A startling discovery was made in Birming- ham on Wednesday. Some bailiffs had taken possession of the shop of a chemist named Garlick, who lives in Vauxhall-road, Three boxes were found under the counter, and in each were found the dead and decomposed bodies of three newly born children. Garlick was taken into custody. He made a statement to the effect that about two months ago the children were brought to him by some persons, whom he knew, for burial, but being ill he neglected to carry out the funeral arrangements.
-A WIFE'S STRATAGEM.-
A WIFE'S STRATAGEM. ILLICIT AFFECTION PUNISHED. A laughable incident has occurred at Chester in the way of a .wife's stratagem to vindicate the marital proprieties, and to repay an insult which had been offered to her. It appears that she was met on Sunday evening on the city walls, which form a favourite promenade, by a married man with whom both she and her hu&band are ac- quainted, and who was formerly a non-commis- sioned officer in one of the branches of the military service. He proceeded to make love to her, and she, pretending to receive his advances, made an appointment to meet him next. eventng at t! e same place. She then went home, informed her husband of what had occurred, and busied herself in the preparation of numerous paper bags containing flour, blue powder, red raddle, &c. Her husband and some 30 friends went to the place of appointment (near Blackfriar s-street), and when the too gallant friend presented himself the hus- band opened fire with a bag of flour, which r.owdered the whi.-kere of the gay deceiver. This was the signal for a general volley, and the military man wa at once covered from head to foot with the red, white, and blue. He iin- mediately beat a retreat in the direction of the Yacht Inn, several parting shots taking marked effect upon him as. he turned into the doorway. Here be was besieged for a long time, and had great difficulty in at last making his escape
Advertising
DUNVILLE'S OLD IRISH WHISKEY is recom- mended by the medical profession in preference to French Branny. They hold the largest stock of Whiskey in the world. Supplied in casks and cases for home use and ex- portation. Quotations on ypplicaticn to L)INVILLE& CO., Limited Royal IrhÓ pistilleries, Belfast. 79CP VALUABLE DISCOVERT FOR THE HAIR.—If your hair i3 turning grey or Whits, or falling off, use The Mexicau Hair Renewer," for it will positively restore in every case Grey or White hair" to its original colour- without leavin* the disagreeable sinell of most" Res, torers." It makes tbehair charmingly beautiful; as well as promoting the growth of the hair on ba d spots, where the glands are not decayed. Ask your theniist for "Tn« MEXICAN HAIR RFHEWER," prepared by HBNRY C. GALLOP, 4D3, Oxford -street, I-oncon, and sold by Cbemista and Parfumers everywhere at aa 6d per Bottle.
THE ALLEGED BIGAMY AT PONTYPRIDD.
THE ALLEGED BIGAMY AT PONTYPRIDD. At Pontypridd police-courf, on Wednesday-# before Mr GwHym Williams (stipendiary)-Rachel Smith was charged by Wyndham Batty, her first husband, with bigamy. Mr Price (Spickett and Price) prosecuted, and Mr Williams (Hollier and Williams) defended. Mr Williams applied for an adjournment, in order to produce material witnesses, Mr Price did not object, and the bench assented. It is understood that defendant will plead guilty, but urge as extenuation cruelty on the part of Batty.
THE LLANWONNO INSPECTOR-SHIP.
THE LLANWONNO INSPECTOR- SHIP. The monthly meeting of the Llanwonno School Board was held on Wednesday afternoon, at the Vestry, Pontypridd, under the presidency of Mr Jos. Edwards, of Mountain Ash. At the last meeting it was decided to abolish the inspector- ship, and it was now mutually agreed between the board and Mr Howells, the clerk-who has hitherto held the double office-that that office should become vacant in six months. A commu- nication was submitted from the Ystradyfodwff School Board, broaching the idea of having a joint inspector of the schools of the several boards. The board, however, declined to entertain the. proposition.
FATAL ACCIDENTS IN DEAN FOREST.
FATAL ACCIDENTS IN DEAN FOREST. Un Tuesday night, an inquiry was held at thft Royal Forester Inn, Pillowell, before Mr Carter, coroner, into the death of George Charles, aged 10 years, u ho was fatally burnt by an explosion of gunpowder. It appeared that on Saturday tht boy was given his pockets full of powder, and hi was "firing" this along the ground when that in his pockets exploded. He received frightful in- juries. The jury, in returning a verdict of "ac- cidentally burnt," censured the boy, Albert Hill. for giving deceased powder. The jury gave their fees to the mother, who is in very distressed cir- cumstances, the father having been recently sent to prison for trespassing in pursuit of game. On Tuesday, Thos. Keer, a married man, of Bream, was killed at an iron mine, in Dean Forest, and has left a young family. Deceased was looking at a fuse which had missed fire, when an explosion suddenly occurred, and Kenr wao struck violently upon the head. His skull was fractured and the jaw broken,death supervening,- few hours after the occurrence.
THE FAILURE OF EUGENIG , LOPEZ.
THE FAILURE OF EUGENIG LOPEZ. On Wednesday, the first meeting of the credi- tors under the liquidation petition presented by Eugenio Lopez, was held at the Guildhall Tavern. Mr Fry (John Fry and Co., Cardiff) in the chair. The debtor petitioned the court for the liquidation of his affairs on the 26th Mav, describing himself aa of 42, New Broad-street, London, railroad con. tractor and merchant, and stating his debts at £ 50,000. The following were among the largest proofs put in :—Bolckow, Vauehan, and Co., Limited, Landon and Middlasborougb, £ 5,000 J. Canifo, Madrid, 24,027 Clarke, Stephenson* and Co., London and Cardiff, £ 5,703 John Fry and Co,, Cardiff, £ 1,612 10s A. W. Hill, Cardiff* £ 1,000 Maples and Co., London,1- £ 2,015; Richard Power & Co., Swansea, 95,000 J. C. Stogdon, London, t3,049 14s; C. Tomkins, Lon- don, £ 2,114; Valencia Railway Company, Spain* £ 961 Is J. Vilumara, Spain, £ 6,000. Mr H. EL Broad, the receiver, then proceeded to read the following statement of affairs :—Debts unsecured, 236,347 4s debts fully secured, £961 Is; the value of the securities being k6,200, leaving a surplus of £ 5,233 18s creditors partly secured, E8,653 10s the < value of the securities being £ 5,200, leaving a deficiency of E3,453 10s; making a total of 939,800. The assets consist simply of the surplus from securities. The receiver pointed out that his office had been a complete sinecure, inasmuch as there had been nothing to receive, and no outstanding contracts to complete. The creditors would see that the only assets disclosed was the estimated surplus from securities, and the way in which that was expected to arisa was this The Valentia Railway Co. claimed to be creditor for £961, but against this the debtor claimed to have a set off of £6,200, which h< claimed against the company in respect of a con, tract to supply certain steel rails, which they had abandoned. With respect to the contract Messrl Bolckow, Vaughan, and Co., also claimed £ 5,00(1 against the debtor for damages, and had tendered a proof for the amount. Air Montagu was pre* pared to offer 2s 6d in the £ payable in 18 months but he was unable to offer any security for the payment of the instalments. He pointed out that the debtor had failed some four or fiv" years ago, but had paid a composition of 5s in the B, so that ther< was no reason why he should not pay the smallel amount. Mr Montagu pointed out that Mr Lope. had made C40,000 in four years, and might do so again. The signing of the resolutions was pro. ceeded with, it being agreed that the business waf to be carried on. It was understood to be some what doubtful whether the resolutions would b< carried by the statutory majority.
ST,DAVID'S COLLEGE. LA,I,IPETER.…
ST,DAVID'S COLLEGE. LA,I,IPETER. LAMPETEB, Wednesdi-y.-The proceedings ap pertaining to Degree Day at Lampeter. College are of more than usual interest this year. Th< chief feature is the reopening of the College Chapel, which has been almost completely renewed during the past few months. At five o'clock this afternoon the students as« sembled in the College-hall to hear from the examiners the general results of the examinations just concluded. The Principal presided, and the Bishops of St. David's, Llandaff, and Winchester, Chancellor Phillips, Archdeacon Griffiths, and a large number of the clergy and ladies wet e present. Mr H. M. GWATKIN, o*e of the examiners, said the report of himself and his colleagues was, in the main, satisfactory. It was the same story told twice before, of careful teaching on one side, and splendid perseverance on the other, both under the most disheartening difficulties. They had as good raw material as at Cambridge, but it was raw-very traw indeed. None but those who experienced it could realise the ignorance in which too many students came to Lampeter. In this examination, the third year students were below par, the second and first above. Some papers were remarkably well done. The best work was on the Old Testament and English History, in which biennials were high. The. second year men had done well in Hebrew. Political Economy was fair all round. Physical Science was much improved,and headed by a very fine paper. But the triumph of the examinatioll- was the Euclid papers. Mo4 of the students got nearly full marks on the propositions, and -lacke(f only courage for the riders. Some wrote wronj. propositions, but this more from basta and carelessness than ignorance, On the othet hand, among the first year men, Hebrew wa< very bad, but not for want of careful teaching All the men were familiar with the subject, but very inaccurate. It was always so with tirst-yeak men, yet the second-year work was always good The examiner noted facts, but he could not hel| suggesting that the men were overweighted wit| other subjects in the first year. Minor errort arose for want of practice in w riting out. The) should write full narratives instead of sketches^ and notes instead of translations. They should read the questions more carefully. There £ » £ been heavy slaughter that day, many having failed to emerge yet there was a good side to th« matte". They had. been forced to keep th. standard low in the Responsions, but were mined to maintain the degree at all costs. They had passed no man who was upon the whola distinctly below the standard for the Cam- bridge ordinary B.A. decree. (Annlfinse-1 He had the authority of his colleague for saying it was the same iu regard to Oxford. They 1 aa been able to do so simply because they had powes to reward the inferior standard of merit wi!h cer. tificates, and without lowering the B.A. degree. This power was es^entiid to the vjell-being of the Collet. CrrtScates nad their value, and as for the degree, Ithey had done their best, so that the students of Lampeter had no reason to be ashamed of their College, or their training there. (Cheers.) The following is a list of the successful studtnts, and their achievements :— B.D. DICGITEE. -The Rev. Benjamin Lloyd,. B.A., and Rev. W. Cynog Davies, B.A. i The examiners for the B.D. Degree were W., M, Collett, M.A. Archdeacon II. De Wiuton,, M,A, and the Vice-Principal, W. H. Davey,. M.A- B.A. DEGREE Ordinary.—Class I., nil Class II., S. T. Piiillip-j, J. L. Rees, J. Herbert-, andR.. T. Jones (bracketted); Class IIL, D. Morgan, D.. Jones (senior), J. M. Richards, and D. A. Row. lands (three bracketted), J. L. Hughes, W.. Dovey and R. H. Jones (bracketted). CERTIFICATES (in alphabetical order.—T. Grif- fiths, T. C. Richards. MODERATIONS.—Mathematical Honours Class II., J. Holding; Class I., T. Davies, V. Lloyd Class II., G. Roderick, D. Lewis and H. Morgan (bracketted), J. Davies; Class III., D. Jones (junior), E. H. Lewis, and Thomas Williams (three bracketted), A. J. P. Davies and O. J.- Thomas (bracketted), J. M. Jones. RESPONSIONS.—Class I., G. Wolfe, T. Lloyd; and C. E. Morgan (bracketted); Class II., D. Jones, J. T. Beynon, D. R. Jones, and D Williams (three bracketted), J. D. Jones. n. W.- Morgan, E. D, Homer, L. D. Jenkins Class- III., Lewis Jones, T. Davies and J. E. Jones, (bracketted), G. Williams, D. M. Williams and- W. Gabe (bracketted), D. L. Davies, R. O. Jones., and J. H. Jones (three bracketted). BIZNNIALS. -Second year. W. Eylir Evans, H. Morris; fust year.Anthony Davies and D. L., Evans. PRIZFS.—Theology, J. L. Rees; Mathematics J. Holding Physical Science, G. Wolfe Logic*. T. Lloyd and G. Wolfe (bracketted); Classics, W. Lloyd English history (for all years): T.. David, pi-oxime accemit, W. Èyler Evans. Bebrew. (Ollivant): T. Griffiths; second year. T. Ðavid; first year. David Jauies, Bates, G. Wolfe. The examiners for the B.A. degree we:e W M. C<d!et, M.A., Oriel College, Oxford; H. 1\1.- Gwatkin, Ai.A., St. John's College, Cambridge,
Advertising
READE'S CHEST BALSAM for COUGHS and COLDar —This invaluable mediciue immediately relieve.* old on recent coughs, colds, influenza, hoarseness, tightness of the chest, asthma, bronchitis, and pains in the chcst and lungs. The worst cases are quickly benefitted by this-, remedy, which is pleu ant, and does not affect the li»a4 as most cou^'h medicines do. Prepared only by READIo4 BROTIIKRS, Chemists, Wolverhampton, and sold by lnonti Chemists, in Bottles at ls lid, 2s 9d. and 4s id each Asents in Cardiff, Anthony, Joy, and Williams, Bute- Street. 231 HOLLOWAY'S PILLS.—For the cure of .I")Ility,, bile, liver and Ftoi complaints this 1. medicine is Fo w,-Il-kiolln iu every })"rt of the world,, and Lite ciii-ei performed by its use are o woi dLi ful,. that it now st-uida pre-eminent above all other rained its, more particular for ilie cure of I nuus and liver com- pluijilH, disorders "f the -tomach, ilrofsy. an<l debilitated ci.n*t:tutii> In the • di-eases the beneficial ettecta 06 the Tills are so iiermanent lhat the whole is re- newed, the organ> of dijrorti in strengthened, and a fres respiration promoted. Trey expel from the secretive* organs and tile circulation the morbid matter whick produces inflammation, pain, fever, debility, and plIJÚ" eal decay— thus annihilating, by their purifying propeva \io-J. the virulence of the moat miaw and devastating.