As for his general tone of feeling on the questions which turn in an equal degree on feeling and judgment, it is well illustrated by the last non-personal speech he made in the House in the period of his conditional tenure of his seat. It was delivered on 28th March, and was on the subject of flogging in the army:—

"Mr Bradlaugh said he wished to say a few words on this matter from a different point of view than other members who had spoken. He had been a private in the army during the time that flogging was permitted for offences now described as trivial, and he heard the same argument used, that it would cause a relaxation of discipline if flogging were abolished. If hon. members opposite knew the feeling of the soldiers at that time it would have much modified some of the speeches delivered to-day (hear, hear); and the hon. member for Sunderland (Sir H. Havelock-Allan) would be surprised to hear the number of letters he had received from private soldiers, asking him to speak on this subject to-day. There was a feeling of utter detestation against the punishment, not simply on the part of the men who were likely to suffer from it, but on the part of every one else. Private soldiers in England occupied a position which no other private soldier in the whole of Europe occupied, and he did not know any other country in the whole world where it was a disgrace to wear the uniform of your country. He remembered upon one occasion he went into an hotel in a great city and ordered a cup of coffee, and was told that he could not be served because he wore the uniform of his country. All punishments which made soldiers seem less reputable than their fellow-citizens ought to be abolished. He asked the Government to allow nothing whatever to influence them in favour of this most degrading punishment. The men who once felt the lash were not loyal to any command, and they felt a bitterness and an abhorrence of every one connected with the ordering of the punishment. If they flogged a man engaged on active service, he was either a good man or a bad man, a man of some spirit or none at all. If he were a man of any spirit, there were weapons in his hands, and he might use them for purposes of revenge. The hon. and gallant member for Wigton Burghs talked of men who preferred the lash. The army would be far better without such men. (Mr Childers: Hear, hear.) He had seen the lash applied, the man tied up, and stripped in the sight of his comrades; he had seen the body blacken and the skin break; he had heard the dull thud of the lash as it fell on the blood-soddened flesh, and he was glad of having the opportunity of making his voice heard against it to-day, and trusted that nothing would induce the Government to retain under any conditions such a brutal punishment. (Cheers.)"

And it was with these matters in their knowledge that a majority of the House of Commons subjected him for five years to an extremity of wanton injustice of which it is still difficult to think without burning anger. The story of that injustice must now be separately told.


CHAPTER III.

THE PARLIAMENTARY STRUGGLE.

Chronological Summary.
1880April2.Bradlaugh elected (with Mr Labouchere) for Northampton.
May3.Asked to be allowed to make affirmation of allegiance. A SelectCommittee agreed to be appointed to consider his claim.
12.Committee of 17 appointed.
20.Committee reported, by casting vote of Chairman, against the claim to affirm.
Bradlaugh announces his intention to take the oath.
21.Presented himself at the table of the House to do so. Motionmade that he be not permitted. Amendment moved byMr Gladstone, that the claim to take the oath be referredto a Select Committee, carried by 289 votes to 214.
28.Committee of 23 appointed.
June2.Bradlaugh examined by Committee.
16.Committee reported that Bradlaugh could not properly take the oath, and recommended that he be allowed to affirm at his legal peril.
21.Committee reported that Bradlaugh could not properly take the oath, and recommended that he be allowed to affirm at his legal peril.
22.Motion defeated by 275 votes to 230.
23.Bradlaugh again presented himself, claiming to be sworn. Made his First Speech at the Bar. Refusing to withdraw, was finally taken into custody on motion of Sir Stafford Northcote.
1.Bradlaugh unconditionally released from custody.
July1.Mr Gladstone moved as a Standing Order that members-elect be allowed at their choice to affirm, at their legal peril. Motion carried by 303 votes to 249.
2.Bradlaugh made affirmation of allegiance and took his seat. On giving his first vote, was served with a writ suing for penalty.
14.Tory Bill introduced to incapacitate all Atheists for membership (fell through).
31.Judgment given against him on appeal. Seat thus vacated.
April9.Bradlaugh re-elected for Northampton, by 3437 votes to 3305.
26.Presented himself to be sworn. Made his Second Speech at theBar. Motion made that he be not allowed to take the oath, carried by 208 votes to 175, many Liberals and Home Rulers abstaining. Bradlaugh again presented himself to be sworn, and refused to withdraw. House.
27.Bradlaugh presented himself as before, and refused to withdraw. After debate, withdrew on informal understanding that Government should attempt to introduce an Affirmation Bill.
29.Government announced this intention.
May2.Attorney-General in Commons moved for leave to introduce Bill. Debate adjourned.
Lords Justices of Appeal decided against Bradlaugh on the separate issue of his affirmation being a sufficient answer to the claim that he was liable in a penalty for voting without being sworn.
May2.Attorney-General in Commons moved for leave to introduce Bill. Debate adjourned.
Lords Justices of Appeal decided against Bradlaugh on the separate issue of his affirmation being a sufficient answer to the claim that he was liable in a penalty for voting without being sworn.
6.Debate in Commons again adjourned owing to Tory obstruction.
10.Government, owing to continued obstruction, postponed the Bill. Resolution carried, on motion of Tory leader, that Bradlaugh be prevented entering House.
16-17.Clarke's counsel moved before Lord Coleridge and Mr Bowen for judgment. Bradlaugh moved to be heard afresh on the point of the validity of the writ, the issue of which he contended had been too soon for legality.
25.Bill of indemnity to Bradlaugh, introduced by Mr Labouchere, blocked by Mr Newdegate, who had been the private maintainer of the action for penalties.
June20-21.Plaintiff having amended statement as to date of voting, and Bradlaugh demurring that writ was void as being dated on the day of the voting sued upon, Justices Denman and Watkin Williams decided against him on the legal point. Bradlaugh appealed.
July19, 20, 22.The question of fact as to the actual hour of issue of the writ came before Justice Grove and a special jury. The jury, after declaring themselves unlikely to agree, gave a majority verdict in favour of Clarke.
27.Police summonses obtained on Bradlaugh's behalf against Mr Newdegate and his solicitor for the criminal offence of maintenance.
28,and Aug. 1.Bradlaugh moved before Justices Grove and Lindley for a new trial on the point of time of issue of Clarke's writ, and argued the point. Decision delayed.
Aug.3.Bradlaugh, on trying to enter the House, was seized by officials; and he resisting, was forcibly ejected after a struggle by four messengers and ten policemen. Immediately afterwards he was formally resisted in a formal attempt by Inspector Denning.
5.Application by Bradlaugh for a summons against Inspector Denning refused by Mr D'Eyncourt, police magistrate.
8.Application by Bradlaugh for a summons against Inspector Denning refused by Mr D'Eyncourt, police magistrate.
Sept.20.The summonses against Newdegate and his solicitor dismissed by Mr Vaughan, magistrate.
Nov.12, 14.Bradlaugh's appeal from the decision of Justices Denman and Watkin Williams (as to validity of writ dated on day of ground of action) heard by Lord Coleridge and Lord Justices Baggallay and Brett. Decision again against Bradlaugh.
Dec.2 and 3.Pleadings heard on the rule nisi for a new trial on the question of fact as to the hour of issue of the writ. Rule made absolute in Bradlaugh's favour.
1882Feb.7.On the reassembling of Parliament, Bradlaugh again presented himself, the excluding order having expired with the Session in which it was passed. Northcote moved that he be not allowed to swear. Government moved the previous question. Bradlaugh heard at Bar for the Third Time. Northcote's motion carried by 286 votes to 228. Bradlaugh again presented himself, but being ordered to withdraw below the bar, did so.
10.Mr Labouchere moved for a new writ for Northampton. This refused by 307 votes to 18. Bradlaugh then advanced to the table, administered the oath to himself, withdrew below the bar on the Speaker's order, but returned and took his seat. Churchill moved that the seat be declared vacant. Debate adjourned.
21.Northcote moved an amendment to exclude Bradlaugh from the precincts of the House. On its being noticed that Bradlaugh had again seated himself within the House (he proposing to speak), the Speaker ordered him to withdraw, and Northcote moved his complete expulsion. This carried by 297 votes to 80, and a new writ was agreed to.
21.Judgment given against Bradlaugh in Clarke's appeal against rule for a new trial.
Mar.2.Bradlaugh once more elected for Northampton by 3796 votes to 3688.
6.Northcote again moved that Bradlaugh be not allowed to take the oath should he again present himself. Mr Marjoribanks moved amendment that it was desirable to amend the law, making affirmation optional. Northcote's motion carried by 259 votes to 244.
Mar.29."Judgment" given against Bradlaugh for £500 penalty. Costs reserved.
April Action brought by Bradlaugh against Mr Erskine, Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms, for assault of 3rd August 1881.
May9.Bradlaugh moved before Lord Justices Brett and Cotton for leave to appeal in Clarke case on point of costs. Appeal dismissed: matter left to the House of Lords with the main appeal.
15.Justices Manisty and Watkin Williams declined to hear friendly action by Gurney against Bradlaugh for not taking his seat. Pleadings to be readjusted.
July Affirmation Bill, introduced by Duke of Argyll in House of Lords, defeated.
11.Prosecution begun against Bradlaugh, Foote, and Ramsey by Sir Henry Tyler, before Lord Mayor, for "publication of blasphemous libels" in the Freethinker.
21.Bradlaugh "committed for trial." Bail accepted.
1883Feb.2.Second Freethinker prosecution begun, Bradlaugh not being included.
20.Government moved for leave to introduce an Affirmation Bill: motion carried by 184 votes to 53.
Mar.5, 6.Bradlaugh's appeal in the Clarke suit heard by the House of Lords, he pleading in person.
6.Foote, Ramsey, and Kemp sentenced to terms of imprisonment in Freethinker prosecution.
9, 17.Bradlaugh's action against Newdegate for "maintenance" heard by Lord Coleridge, Bradlaugh appearing by counsel.
6.Foote, Ramsey, and Kemp sentenced to terms of imprisonment in Freethinker prosecution.
9, 17.Bradlaugh's action against Newdegate for "maintenance" heard by Lord Coleridge, Bradlaugh appearing by counsel.
April9.House of Lords gave judgment for Bradlaugh in his appeal, with costs.
10.Bradlaugh separately tried on the first Freethinker indictment before Lord Coleridge and a jury. Verdict of acquittal.
April24, 25.Foote and Ramsey (now prisoners on conviction in second prosecution) tried before Lord Coleridge and a jury on the original indictment. After the judge's summing up, the jury disagreeing, the Crown decided to abandon this prosecution (prisoners already very heavily sentenced).
May3.Debate on second reading of Affirmation Bill. Bill rejected by a majority of 3—292 against and 289 for.
May4.Bradlaugh again presented himself to be sworn. Northcote moved that he be not allowed to take the oath. Being allowed to speak, Bradlaugh made his Fourth Speech at theBar. Mr Labouchere moved the "previous question," and was defeated by 271 votes to 165.
July9.Bradlaugh having notified his intention again to present himself (by way of raising a testing action at law) Northcote moved his exclusion. Carried by 232 votes to 65.
19.Bradlaugh began test action against the Sergeant-at-Arms for resisting his entrance to the House.
Dec.7.Bradlaugh v. Gossett heard before Lord Coleridge and Justices Stephen and Mathew.
1884Feb.9.Judgment given against Bradlaugh.
11.Bradlaugh once more presented himself at the table of the House, and administered the oath to himself. Motion by Northcote that he had not really sworn, and that he be not allowed to swear, carried by 258 votes to 161. Motion by Northcote of complete exclusion, carried by 228 to 120.
12.New writ allowed for Northampton after Tory resistance.
19.Bradlaugh re-elected for Northampton by 4032 votes, to 3664 for Richards.
21.Though Bradlaugh undertook not to present himself till the decision were given in the action to be brought against him by the Government for his last oath-taking, Northcote moved afresh his complete exclusion from the precincts of the House. Carried by 226 to 173.
June13, 18.Government's action against Bradlaugh for illegally taking the oath, heard before Lord Coleridge, Mr Baron Huddleston, and Mr Justice Grove, "sitting at bar," and a jury, five counsel acting for the Crown, Bradlaugh pleading his own cause.
30.Lord Coleridge summed up. Jury gave answers for the Crown. Bradlaugh asked for a stay to move for a new trial.
Dec.6.Motion for new trial heard by the same judges sitting "inbanc". Rule refused. Bradlaugh appealed.
15.Appeal heard by Lords Justices Brett, Cotton, and Lindley.
18.Judges of appeal gave rule nisi on points of law only, the appeal in arrest of judgment to be argued at the same time.
1885Jan.26.Arguments heard on whole case.
26.Judgment given against Bradlaugh as incapable of taking an oath in law. Notice of appeal given.
July6.On the new (Conservative) ministry taking office, Bradlaugh again presented himself to be sworn. Motion of exclusion by Sir M. Hicks-Beach. Amendment moved by Mr Hopwood (who had introduced an Affirmation Bill) declaring that legislation was necessary, lost by 219 votes to 263.
Nov.25.Bradlaugh again carried for Northampton at the general election, the figures being—Labouchere 4845; Bradlaugh 4315; Richards 3890.
1886Jan.13.The new Speaker (Mr Peel) permitted Bradlaugh to take the oath, refusing to allow any interference.
Affirmation Bill introduced by Mr Sergeant Simon, but never brought to a second reading.
1888Aug.9.Bradlaugh carried a general Affirmation Bill, which passed the House of Lords and became law.
1891Jan.279.While Bradlaugh lay dying, the House of Commons passed a resolution, moved by Mr W. A. Hunter, expunging from the Journals of the House the resolutions excluding him in former years.

§ 1.

In the general election of 1880 Bradlaugh was at length elected member for Northampton. He had fought the constituency for twelve years, and had been defeated at three elections, at one of which he was not present. As has been made plain from the story of his life thus far, it was his way to carry out to the end any undertaking on which he entered, unless he found it to be wholly impracticable; and he was very slow to feel that an aim was impracticable because it took long-continued effort to realise it. He seems first to have thought of standing for Northampton about 1866. At that time Northampton was already reckoned a likely Radical constituency, not so much on account of its Parliamentary record as on the strength of the Radical element in its population. The trouble was that for long the bulk of the workers were not electors. His eloquence could win him a splendid show of hands in the market-place, but the polls told a different tale. The Whiggish middle classes were in the main intensely hostile to him, on political as well as on religious grounds; and the influence of pastors and masters alike was zealously used against him. After the passing of the Household Suffrage Act of 1868, however, the constituency became every year more democratic. The Freehold Land Society, some of whose founders and leading members were among his most devoted and capable followers, created year after year scores of freeholds, the property of workers, in a fashion that has finally made Northampton almost unique among our manufacturing towns. The electorate, which in 1874 had stood at 6829, had in 1880 risen to 8189; and of these it was estimated that 2,500 had never before voted. Of the new voters, the majority were pretty sure to be Radicals, and as Bradlaugh's hold on the constituency had grown stronger with every struggle, it began to be apparent to many of the "moderate Liberals" that a union between their party and his must be accepted if the two seats were not to remain in Tory hands. In the early spring, however, the confusion of candidatures seemed hopeless. Mr (now Sir) Thomas Wright of Leicester stood as a Liberal candidate at the request of a large body of the electors, and though not combining with Bradlaugh, deprecated the running of a second and hostile Liberal candidate. Other Liberals, however, brought forward in succession three candidates, of whom the once well-known Mr Ayrton was the most important. He, however, failed to gain ground, partly by reason of the qualities which had made him a disastrous colleague to Mr Gladstone's ministry, partly by reason of coming to grief in a controversy with Bradlaugh as to the facts of the agitation for a free press, and free right of meeting in Hyde Park, in regard to which Mr Ayrton claimed official credit. His candidature finally fell through when he met with an accident. A Mr Hughes was brought forward, only to be removed from the contest by an attack of illness. Mr Jabez Spencer Balfour, of recent notoriety, made a very favourable impression, but could not persuade "moderates" enough that the Liberals ought to unite with the Radicals. A little later Mr Labouchere was introduced, and giving his voice at once for union, found so much support that Mr Wright, with great generosity and public spirit, shortly withdrew, giving his support to the joint candidature of Bradlaugh and Labouchere, who stood pretty much alike in their Radicalism, though the latter was described in the local Liberal press as the "nominee of the moderate Liberals." As he explained in his own journal, a man who was a moderate Liberal in Northampton would rank as a Radical anywhere else. The joint candidature once agreed upon, victory was secure.