There has been so much misunderstanding of Bradlaugh's position on this point that it may be well to explain exactly what it was that he did claim. In a statement of his case subsequently published in his paper, _The National Reformer_, {147} on May 30, 1889, Mr. Bradlaugh used the following words: "My duty to my constituents is to fulfil the mandate they have given me, and if, to do this, I have to submit to a form less solemn to me than the affirmation I would have reverently made, so much the worse for those who force me to repeat words which I have scores of times declared are to me sounds conveying no clear and definite meaning. I am sorry for the earnest believers who see words sacred to them used as a meaningless addendum to a promise, but I cannot permit their less sincere co-religionists to use an idle form, in order to prevent me from doing my duty to those who have chosen me to speak for them in Parliament. _I shall, taking the oath, 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_. So soon as I am able, I shall take such steps as may be consistent with parliamentary business to put an end to the present doubtful and unfortunate state of the law and practice on oaths and affirmations." The words italicised indicate very clearly the spirit in which Mr. Bradlaugh proposed to take the oath. To do so, was, as he conceived, the only way, since the adverse decision of the Committee on his claim to affirm, by which he could qualify himself for the performance of his duty to his constituents. It was in no sense intended as an insult to those to whom the oath had a distinct and positive religious value, or as a defiance of the dignity or orders of the House. This document was dated May 30, the day on which the report of the Committee was issued, and on the following day, Mr. Bradlaugh presented himself to take the oath and his seat.