Page:Dictionary of National Biography. Sup. Vol I (1901).djvu/311

 but in 1880, on the third occasion that he offered himself for election, he was returned. On 3 May he presented himself at the house with a view to taking his seat, and he then claimed the right to affirm instead of swearing an oath on the bible. He thus initiated a struggle with the House of Commons which lasted for six years and involved him in eight actions in the law courts. The war began when the question of his claim to the right to affirm on 3 May 1880 was referred to a select committee, which, by the casting vote of its chairman, decided against him. On 23 June he appeared at the bar of the House of Commons, and, refusing to retire, was taken away in custody. On 2 July he took his seat in consequence of a motion having been passed on the previous day that he could affirm and sit at his own risk. Having voted, the legality of his action was contested and he was unseated. Re-elected on 9 April 1881, he consented to remain inactive while the government introduced an affirmation bill, which, however, had to be dropped. On 3 Aug. he attempted to force his way into the house, but was ejected by force. When the new session opened, 20 Feb. 1882, he appeared at the bar, and advancing up the floor he pulled a testament out of his pocket and administered the oath to himself. Next day he was expelled, and a new writ for Northampton was issued. He was re-elected on 2 March, but the struggle in parliament was allowed to rest while that in the law courts was proceeding. His opponents were endeavouring to make Bradlaugh bankrupt by imposing upon him the financial consequences of his vote in parliament in the previous year; he was suing the deputy sergeant-at-arms of the House of Commons for assault; a friendly action to test the legal right of the House of Commons to exclude him was being promoted; and another prosecution for blasphemous libel was commenced. A second affirmation bill was introduced on 20 Feb. 1883, and rejected by three votes on 3 May. Next day Bradlaugh presented himself for the fourth time at the bar of the house, and on 9 July a resolution was passed excluding him. Again at the opening of the new session in February 1884 he appeared, but he was immediately excluded, 11 Feb. 1884, and next day a new writ was issued. Although re-elected he did not trouble the house again until 6 July 1885, when he was again excluded. At the general election held in November that year he was elected once more, and when parliament met on 13 Jan. following the new speaker (afterwards Viscount Peel) would not allow any objection being made to his taking the oath. This ended the struggle. He had fought single-handed. Although he was a follower of the liberal government, it gave him very half-hearted support in his efforts to take his seat; its action was mainly confined to unsuccessful endeavours to alter the law so as to enable him to affirm. He was re-elected for Northampton in the general election of June 1886, and thenceforth sat in the House of Commons unchallenged until his death four and a half years later.

Bradlaugh's efforts to maintain the freedom of the press in issuing criticisms on religious belief and on sociological questions involved him in several law-suits, which kept him constantly in debt. In 1868 he was prosecuted by the government for having failed to give securities against the publication of blasphemy and sedition in the 'National Reformer.' In the end he outmanoeuvred the government, and the restrictions on the popular press imposed by the security laws were withdrawn. Another contest, 1867-9, which arose out of a refusal of a judge to hear his evidence, on the ground that he was an atheist, and therefore could not take the oath, led to the passing of the Evidence Amendment Act, 1869, which enabled the evidence of freethinkers to be taken. The most notorious of these suits was that relating to a pamphlet by one Knowlton, entitled 'The Fruits of Philosophy,' which dealt with the question of population and the need of restraining its increase, 1877-1878. The prosecution ended in favour of Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant, with whom he had been indicted as joint publishers of the pamphlet; and the effect of their victory was to remove the remaining restrictions on the liberty of the press. This connection with Mrs. Besant is one of the most important episodes in Bradlaugh's life. He met her in 1874, and for thirteen years their names were joined together in freethought and political work, until Mrs. Besant refused to follow Bradlaugh in his opposition to socialism. The separation was formally made in 1885, when Mrs. Besant ceased to be joint editor of the 'National Reformer.'

As a result of this propaganda Bradlaugh found it impossible to carry on any occupation, and from 1870 he lived by his pen and the aid of appreciative friends. Towards the end of his life a public subscription relieved him of the last of his debts. As a sitting member of parliament from 1885 to 1890 he is chiefly remembered for the unusual number of measures the passage of which he secured; the chief of them was the affirmation bill legalising the substitution of an affirmation for an oath both in the House of Commons