The Bradlaugh Case: Atheism, Sex, and Politics Among the Late Victorians

by Walter L. Arnstein

The Bradlaugh Atheism, Sex, and Politics Among the Late Victorians

Genres: History, Politics

388 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1965

Reviews

[Lobstergirl · Rating 4 out of 5]

Apparently I am painfully behind on knowledge, because I just assumed England had gotten rid of its "established Church" thing. I figured this could have happened at some point in the 20th century, possibly before 1950, but conceivably after. Certainly no later than 1977. Of course I knew there was still a body called "the Church of England," and someone called "the Primate of All England," but I figured the terminology was just a formality, a holdover from more primitive times. Imagine my surprise when I googled this and discovered England still has an established Church. The measures of its General Synod must be approved by both Houses of Parliament! It turns out that the United States, for all the hoity-toititude aimed its way for being "a Judeo-Christian nation," as the right wing pols like to assert, is not a Judeo-Christian nation. (That, technically, I did know.) It's England you're looking for.

What caused me to google this was this book, a history of the atheist Charles Bradlaugh's attempts to be seated in the House of Commons after winning several elections in Northampton. While Bradlaugh himself, and his contemporaries, called him an atheist, in fact his belief was closer to what today we think of as agnosticism. He defined an atheist as someone who was not "against God," but "without God." He never denied the existence of God "because to deny that which was unknown was as absurd as to affirm it." Bradlaugh was also a proponent of birth control along with the free-thinker Annie Besant. Due to these positions, Tories and other opponents called Bradlaugh "an apostle of the most hideous forms of immorality," a "moral monster," and a "disgusting reptile." Of course, he also had many supporters, not only in his district and among Liberal politicians, but among the free-thinking clergy. Although he was against Socialism and opposed the eight-hour day for miners, he was remembered as someone who treated all classes of people equally. One Northampton alderman, ten years old at the time, recalled Bradlaugh always lifting "his hat when greeting his grandfather's maid, a custom observed by almost no one else."

Bradlaugh's political problems began when, after being elected to Parliament in 1880, he showed up to his new job and asked to take the affirmation rather than the oath. ("In an affirmation, the words 'I swear' are replaced with 'I solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm' and the words 'So help me God' are omitted.") An 1866 law permitted only Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists to take the affirmation. He was denied the right to affirm. He then published a letter declaring that since he had no choice, and his constituents were waiting to be represented, he would take the oath, and "regard myself as bound not by the letter of its words, but by the spirit which the affirmation would have conveyed had I been permitted to use it."

As various Englishpersons found themselves in positions where they needed to take an oath, but for religious reasons could not, the laws were adjusted and tinkered with to (usually) permit this to happen. It could take awhile. Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, elected to Parliament in 1847, declared he would take the oath on the Old Testament rather than the New, and omit the words "on the true faith of a Christian" which had been in effect since 1610. The House refused to allow the second request; year after year, Rothschild sat in the Chamber in an area which was technically outside it, "without the right to speak or vote." Finally in 1858 the House of Lords rewrote the law narrowly to allow Jews to omit the words "on the true faith of a Christian" for a particular session of Parliament, and two years later it was made a standing order.

A parliamentary committee decided that Bradlaugh should not be allowed to take the oath, since it would not be binding on his conscience. Bradlaugh made an impassioned speech; the Speaker ordered him to be removed (I'm condensing events here), and he was imprisoned in the Clock Tower for a night. Over the next six years, Bradlaugh would attempt to enter Parliament by force, and twice would self-administer the oath. He stood for reelection in Northampton several times and won each time; always Parliament and the law courts ruled against him. Although not a lawyer, Bradlaugh had educated himself in the law, was a superb public speaker (his income came from talks given across England under the aegis of the National Secular Society, which he founded), and always represented himself in court. Finally in 1886, with a new Parliament, the new Speaker addressed the room. "I know nothing of the Resolutions of the past. They have lapsed; they are void; they are of no effect in reference to [Bradlaugh's] case." All members must take the oath; "I have no authority ...to interfere between an honourable Member and his taking of the Oath." When an opposition member tried to object, "the Speaker ruled him out of order since he had himself not yet taken the oath." Bradlaugh was shortly thereafter sworn in.

There are too many minor characters in the Bradlaugh case to mention, but his most persistent opponent and harasser was the Tory Lord Randolph Churchill, father of Winston. Churchill called Bradlaugh's supporters "mob, scum, and dregs." Prime Minister Gladstone noted, referring to Churchill, that "real vulgar abuse" invariably "emanated from scions of the highest aristocracy." Bradlaugh once, in an open letter to Churchill, referred to "old English gentlemen" as constituting "a class to which I, as well as yourself, am a stranger - I from birth, and you from habit."

--------------
I will review this if I can work up the energy. Right now I'm stuffing pecan pie in my piehole.

[Derek · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’m biased about this one, and not just because, as a freethinker, I “worship” Bradlaugh. Yes, I’m also biased because the author was my graduate advisor. But really, the book is very well-written and often witty. Certainly it’s fascinating to see how an atheist made his way in Victorian politics.