There are people who believe that their conscience is enough of a sanction. They do not need God, an external force, as a sentinel or a watchman to act by their side. They think a solemn affirmation coming out of their conscience is quite enough of a sanction. If honourable Members have read the history of this matter which is embodied in the struggle between Mr. Bradlaugh and the House of Commons, they will realize that as early as 1880 or so, Mr. Bradlaugh insisted that he was a perfectly moral being, that his conscience was quite active, and that if he took the oath his conscience was enough of a sanction for him to keep him within the traces, so to say. After a long long struggle in the House of Commons, in which on one occasion Mr. Bradlaugh was almost beaten to death by the Sergeant-at-Arms for trying to sit in the House of Commons and taking part in its proceedings without taking the oath to which he raised objection. Mr. Gladstone ultimately had to yield and to provide an additional or alternative form which is called solemn affirmation. Therefore the issue that is involved in this amendment has nothing to do with the character of the State. Whether it is a secular or a religious State is a matter quite outside the bounds of the issue raised. The only question raised is whether we ought not to provide some kind of a sanction for the moral obligation we impose on the President. If the President thinks that God is a mentor and that unless he takes an oath in the name of God he will not be true to the duties he assumes. I think we ought to give him the liberty to swear in the name of God. If there is another person with whom God is not his mentor, we ought to give him the liberty to affirm and carry on the duties on the basis of that affirmation.
