Bradlaugh v Gossett
The courts will not interfere with the internal proceedings of the House of Commons.
Facts
Charles Bradlaugh, an atheist, was elected as Member of Parliament for Northampton. He wanted to take the oath of allegiance required of MPs, but the House of Commons, which considered that an atheist could not validly take a religious oath, passed a resolution ordering the Serjeant at Arms, Mr Gossett, to exclude him from the House until he undertook not to disturb its proceedings. Bradlaugh sought an injunction to prevent the Serjeant at Arms from excluding him.
Legal principle
The court refused the injunction. Lord Coleridge CJ said that what is said or done within the walls of Parliament cannot be inquired into in a court of law, and that the House of Commons is not subject to the control of the courts in the administration of that part of the statute law which has relation to its own internal proceedings. Even if the House was wrong about the law on taking the oath, the courts could not interfere with its internal decisions. Bradlaugh was eventually allowed to take his seat in 1886, and the Oaths Act 1888 allowed affirmation instead of the oath.
Related cases on separation of powers and parliamentary privilege
- Duport Steels Ltd v Sirs [1980] 1 WLR 142
- Harper v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1955] Ch 238
- Hinds v The Queen [1977] AC 195
- Liyanage v The Queen [1967] 1 AC 259
- Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593
- Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd [1995] 1 AC 321
- R (Anderson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] UKHL 46, [2003] 1 AC 837
- R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice [2014] UKSC 38, [2015] AC 657
Studying public law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
