MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.
Wednesday, 2nd June, 1880.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
- Mr. Attorney General.
- Mr. John Bright.
- Mr. Childers.
- Sir Richard Cross.
- Mr. Gibson.
- Sir Gabriel Goldney.
- Mr. Grantham.
- Mr. Staveley Hill.
- Sir John Holker.
- Mr. Beresford Hope.
- Mr. Hopwood.
- Sir Henry Jackson.
- Lord Henry Lennox.
- Mr. Massey.
- Major Nolan.
- Mr. Pemberton.
- Mr. Serjeant Simon.
- Mr. Solicitor General.
- Mr. Trevelyan.
- Mr. Walpole.
- Mr. Whitbread.
- Mr. Watkin Williams.
The Right Honorable Spencer Horatio Walpole in the Chair.
Sir Thomas Erskine May, K.C.B.; Examined.
1. Chairman: You are the Clerk of the House of Commons?—I am.
2. You, I believe, are perfectly acquainted with what took place when Mr. Bradlaugh came to the table of the House, and proposed to make his affirmation instead of taking the oath?—Yes, I was personally present on that day.
3. Will you have the kindness to state to the Committee exactly what took place on that occasion, in order that we may have the facts upon our proceedings?—I will read what occurred, mainly from the Votes and Proceedings of the House, in which an accurate and authentic record of the proceedings of that day will be found. It appears that on Monday the 3rd of May, 1880, “Mr. Bradlaugh, returned as one of the Members for the borough of Northampton, came to the table and delivered the following statement in writing to the Clerk: ‘To the Right Honorable the Speaker of the House of Commons. I, the undersigned Charles Bradlaugh, beg respectfully to claim to be allowed to affirm, as a person for the time being by law permitted to make a solemn affirmation or declaration, instead of taking an oath. (Signed) Charles Bradlaugh.’ And being asked by the Clerk upon what grounds he claimed to make an affirmation, he answered: By virtue of the Evidence Amendment Acts, 1869 and 1870. Whereupon the Clerk reported to Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Bradlaugh, Member for the borough of Northampton, claimed to make an affirmation or declaration instead of taking the Oath prescribed by law, in virtue of the provisions of the Evidence Amendment Acts, 1869 and 1870. Mr. Speaker thereupon informed Mr. Bradlaugh that if he desired to address the House in explanation of his claim he might be permitted to do so. Mr. Bradlaugh addressed the House in accordance with Mr. Speaker’s intimation, and then he was directed to withdraw.” The Committee will observe that there is no entry in the Votes of the words used by Mr. Bradlaugh; it is not customary on such occasions to make an entry of the observations made, which are considered to be part of the debates of the House, which are not recorded in the Votes and Proceedings; and there was no shorthand writer authorised by the House to take notes, and therefore there could have been no authentic record upon which one could rely.