The Committee reported that Bradlaugh by simply stating (though in answer to official question) that he had repeatedly affirmed under certain Acts in courts of law, had brought it to the notice of the House that he was a person as to whom judges had satisfied themselves that an oath was not binding on his conscience; that, under the circumstances, an oath taken by him would not be an oath within the true meaning of the statutes; and that the House therefore could, and ought, to prevent him from going through the form. The Committee further suggested that he should be allowed {151} to affirm with a view to his right to do so being tested by legal action, pointing to the nearly equal balance of votes in the former Committee as a reason for desiring a decisive legal solution. On June 21, Mr. Labouchere moved "that Mr. Bradlaugh, member for the borough of Northampton, be admitted to make an affirmation or declaration instead of the oath required by law." This speech was one of the best he ever made in the House. It was an admirable piece of argument and an excellent piece of literature, solidly reasoned and witty; "it is contrary to, it is repugnant to, the feelings of all men of tolerant minds that any gentleman should be hindered from performing civil functions in this world on account of speculative opinions about another"--was a terse summing up of the situation worthy of Gibbon. His main argument was that the Parliamentary Oaths Act of 1866 gave to all persons, legally entitled to affirm in the law courts, the right to affirm in Parliament. He further pointed out that the refusal to allow Bradlaugh to affirm would be to turn him into a martyr. Mr. Bright again made a fine speech in which he said, amid ironical cheers from the Opposition, that he pretended to no conscience and honour superior to the conscience of Mr. Bradlaugh. Mr. Gladstone also spoke cogently in favour of Mr. Labouchere's motion. It was, however, lost by a majority of 45, of whom 5 were English Liberals and 31 Irish Home Rulers.