the meeting with his late Cabinet seated round him, he was placed immediately under a large picture by Murillo of the Madonna. The colouring both of painted effigy and living figure was of the same tone; the sallow flesh tints, black hair, and clothing were almost identical in both. One could almost imagine that the Virgin was spreading her hands in compassion over the fallen leader. Disaffected Tories laid aside their grievances and rallied to their old chief: the Earl of Carnarvon and Sir Robert Peel, erst recalcitrant, spoke heartily and well; only the Earl of Derby was absent, and he had joined hands with the adversary.

On the very threshold of their undertaking, Ministers were confronted with a problem of extreme delicacy and complexity, and one destined to give birth to prolonged and angry controversy. Mr Charles Bradlaugh, who had been returned as one of the members for Northampton, was well known (to use his own expression) as a "propagandist of atheism," an advocate of systematic Malthusianism, and the author of a work which the courts subsequently declared to be immoral and ordered its suppression. Once a soldier in the Dragoon Guards, Bradlaugh had, since leaving the service, supported himself by delivering infidel and Radical lectures and by a fluent pen. This was the individual who on April 29, when the new Parliament was being sworn in, presented himself at the table and claimed to be allowed to affirm, instead of taking the oath. Objection having been taken to this, a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the matter, and, by a majority of one vote, decided against Bradlaugh's claim. Upon this Bradlaugh declared that he was prepared to take the oath, and if, in order to discharge his duty to his constituents, he had to submit to a form less solemn in his eyes than affirmation, so much the worse for those who forced him to repeat words which, he declared, were for him mere sounds, conveying no clear and

A.D. 1880.]

MR BRADLAUGH AND THE OATH.

211

definite meaning, and without any binding effect on his conscience.

By this admission, in which he was probably perfectly sincere, Bradlaugh delivered himself into the hands of his. enemies, for, on his presenting himself a second time and claiming to take the oath, Sir Henry Drummond Wolff interposed, and argued that, inasmuch as Bradlaugh had declared that the terms of the oath were, in his opinion, an empty form, that declaration, which would be sufficient to prevent his sworn evidence being taken in any court of law, ought also to debar him from swearing in the Court of Parliament.

To get rid of the dilemma, the Prime Minister moved the appointment of a second Committee, who found that Bradlaugh could not legally take the oath, but ought to be allowed to affirm at his own risk. On the report of the Committee, Mr Labouchere, Bradlaugh's colleague in the representation of Northampton, moved that affirmation be permitted, to which Sir Hardinge Giffard moved an amendment that Bradlaugh be neither permitted to affirm nor to swear. The debate was heated and painful. Mr Bright, strongly advocating Bradlaugh's cause, declared that "the working people of this country cared as little for the dogmas of Christianity as the upper classes did for the practice of that religion." On a division Sir H. Giffard's amendment was carried by 275 votes to 230.

Thereupon ensued a scene of the wildest excitement. Bradlaugh, a man of commanding stature and majestic mien, strode to the table of the House and claimed to take the oath. Being ordered by the Speaker to withdraw, he said

"With great respect, sir, I refuse to obey the orders of the House, which are against the law."

Then, on Sir Stafford Northcote's motion (for the leader

of the House declined all responsibility in the matter), Bradlaugh was taken into custody by the Sergeant-at-Arms. He remained that night in confinement in the Clock Tower, but the following day was released by order of the House, on Sir Stafford Northcote's motion. The question was decided, for that session at all events, by a resolution passed on July 1, permitting all persons whom the law allowed. to make affirmation instead of oath to do so on taking their seats, subject to any liability by statute.1

The whole of July was taken up with discussions on the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, to prevent the eviction of Irish tenants without compensation, even when they had ceased to pay any rent. This measure was thrown out by the Lords by a majority of more than 5 to 1, and a similar course would have been taken in regard to the Ground Game Bill, had not Lord Beaconsfield implored the Peers not to court collision with the other House, except where vital principles or matters of first importance, such as the government of Ireland or reform of the land laws, were concerned.

We have [wrote Smith to Mr Ford], I think, persuaded the Lords to pass both the Employers and the Hares and Rabbits Bills. . I do not myself like the look of English politics. The transfer of rights

1 A curious illustration of Bradlaugh's testimony to the value of an oath as binding the consciences of ordinary witnesses came under my own observation in 1888. I was chairman of a Select Committee in that year, of which Mr Bradlaugh was a member. During our first or second sitting some startling evidence was given, implying serious charges against certain persons in the discharge of fiduciary duties. Mr Bradlaugh interrupted the proceedings, saying: "Mr Chairman, I move that the room be cleared." This having been done, he moved that, having regard to the gravity of the evidence we had heard, all subsequent witnesses should be put upon oath: which was agreed to and carried into effect. Having had occasion above to refer to the painful circumstances of Mr Bradlaugh's entrance into Parliament, I take this opportunity of observing that, in spite of the detestation in which his opinions were held by the majority of the House of Commons, he lived to secure general esteem for his inflexible honesty, as well as for his industry and ability in business.

A.D. 1880.]

THE FOURTH PARTY."

213

and property from a minority to a majority threatens to become popular, and there is danger that one set of politicians will endeavour to outbid the other in the effort to gain the popular voice.

The Conservative Opposition was generally in a limp and disorganised condition throughout this session; but a small body of independent members below the gangway distinguished themselves by the intrepidity and persistency of their resistance to the Government, so as to earn for themselves the title of the Fourth Party. These, as is well known, consisted of Lord Randolph Churchill as leader, Mr Arthur Balfour, Sir John Gorst, and Sir Henry Drummond Wolff. The apparent passivity of the occupants of the Tory front bench drew upon them-especially upon Northcote, Cross, and Smith- some stinging taunts from this knot of free-lances; taunts which, so far as Smith was concerned, were not deserved, for if it be admitted that Northcote, habitually gentle and forbearing, was sometimes slow to take advantage of opportunity, it often fell to Smith to stimulate him to more vigorous action.

But very often during this session the Tories had to fight shoulder to shoulder with their historic foes against the Irish. For instance, on August 28, Smith wrote home :

We have had a curious life to-day. It has been two days in one, or one day prolonged into another. I went home last night shortly after one, knowing that the Irish were going to keep it up all night; and at half-past six they sent for me to say that the House was still sitting, and would I come down? So I got up and had my breakfast, and went down and sat in the House until half-past eleven, when Í went to a meeting at Seamore Place to see the Peers. They talked for two hours, and on my return to the House I found the Thursday sitting had been ended, and we had got into Friday. The poor Ministers look fearfully fagged, and they will have a bad night again, but it is very much their own fault, as they never lose an opportunity of truckling to the rebels.

When at last the session was brought wearily to a close on September 7, the seat of war was transferred to Ireland; and it becomes necessary, in order to follow the course of

the politics of those days, to take note of the origin of a system for which a special term had to be devised. Parnell, speaking at Ennis, exclaimed, "What is to be done with a tenant bidding for a farm from which another tenant has been evicted?" "Shoot him!" cried somebody in the audience. "No," replied Parnell, "I do not say shoot him; there is a more Christian and charitable way of dealing with him: let him be shunned in the street, in the shop, in the market-place-even in the places of worshipas if he were a leper of old."

The first notable example of the execution of this cruel advice took place at Lough Mask, where Captain Boycott, the Earl of Erne's agent, had a large farm. He had earned the displeasure of the Land League, and they issued orders that he should be treated "as a leper of old." In consequence all his men left him just as the crops were ready for the sickle; tradesmen refused to supply goods; even the postman was warned not to carry his letters. But Captain Boycott was not the man to sit down under what many a poor tenant had had to suffer in silence. He appealed for succour, nor did he appeal in vain ; funds were collected, and a hundred stout fellows. set out from Ulster to do the necessary work of the farm. The Government were on the

alert; no fewer than 7000 cavalry, infantry, and police, with two field-pieces, were employed to protect the Ulstermen in their operations, and Captain Boycott's crops were saved, under circumstances closely resembling civil war. The affair made such an impression that henceforth the English language was permanently enriched by the terms "boycotting" and "to boycott."

The murder of Lord Mountmorres on September 25 was another landmark in what was to prove a long and bloody era of crime. Murder, maiming of men and beasts, moonlighting, and boycotting were practised almost with im