Page images
PDF
EPUB

war, had given occasion; and if it should be rejected, the worst consequences to the security of the country would follow. It would hold out no indemnity against acts of cruelty or oppression, but simply a security against vexatious suits. There had been a torrent of invective against spies and informers; but, had it not been for these, O'Coigley and O'Connor would have preserved their high reputation; Jackson would not have expired by poison in the dock at Dublin; Sheares would not have been brought to a scaffold; and many whom he now saw around him, would have paid the forfeit of their lives, which the schemes of the conspirators meant to inflict upon them.

The Duke of Bedford said, the simple question was, whether it was consistent with the principles of the constitution to grant an indemnity to ministers for their use of the special powers entrusted to them during eight years? They were, by the present bill, called upon, not to suspend a part of the constitution for a short period, but to deprive Englishmen of a great constitutional privilege for ever -to affix a perpetual stigma on the character of individuals who had never been brought to a fair trial of their guilt or innocence. Notwithstanding the objections he entertained to the bill, he had no particular wish to oppose it, in case the time of its duration were limited to some precise period.

practices did not deserve compassion; but it was impossible for him to withhold his compassion from persons lingering in prison for a series of years, who had again and again courted investigation of their conduct; nor could he resist the impulse to deem such men innocent until tried and convicted. With regard to the present bill's resemblance to former bills, he did not perceive the striking similarity, as the former bills were bills passed flagrante bello. The bill, instead of being a bill of indemnity, was a bill to suppress actions, suits, &c. Though disapproving of the bill on general principles, he was willing to agree to it for a limited period; but a perpetual bill of indemnity appeared to him monstrous in itself, and wholly subversive of the liberties of Englishmen.

The Earl of Rosslyn said, the bill was no new bill, in respect to the wording of it. Without such an act, a government, in a moment of great exigency, would be debarred from acting with vigour and ef fect. He had himself been a member of the last administration, and would not shrink from his responsibility; whatever guilt was imputable to them, was equally imputable to him. Far, however, was he from feeling any apprehension for having firmly done his duty on all occasions, and that the rest of his majesty's ministers had done their duty, he could testify. The right hon. gentleman at the head of the last administration might have said what Lord Thurlow declared himself a de- Cicero said of his administration when it cided enemy to the bill. On the very first was put an end to-" Rempublicam et view of the subject, it struck him as con- hanc urbem conservavi." In such peritrary to the grand and fundamental prin-lous times as those in which we had lived, ciple of law the principle of support to innocence against oppression. From the protection of innocence, the dignity, the energy, the importance of law was de-apprehended on suspicion and detained rived; and no bill could be founded on for some time, who were erroneously sus solid principles of which this was not the pected of improper conduct. Ministers, leading feature. The learned lord ex- however, did not claim an indemnity for pressed his readiness to concur in passing themselves, it was not possible for them severe laws against conspirators, but as a to be reached by any action; but an indistinction ought to be made between demnity was necessary to save harmless guilt and innocence, so provision should other persons, who had necessarily assisted be made to protect innocence from the in the apprehending, examining, com risk of arbitrary imprisonment. If the mitting to prison, and detaining in custody criminal laws of this country were steadily the persons apprehended, &c. The em administered, he thought they were suf-ployment of spies and informers had been ficient to control all flagitious attempts against the state; nor could he see upon what ground of policy a man should be imprisoned for eight years, without being brought to trial. A noble earl had said,

that

persons suspected of treasonable

it was almost impossible for ministers to have avoided falling into some error inad vertently, by the causing persons to be

absolutely necessary, and government at all times, but most especially in these times, could not secure protection to the subject without their occasional assistance.

On the question, that the bill be read a second time, the House divided: Con

tents, 40, Proxies, 14-54. Not Contents 10, Proxies, 7-17. Majority, 37.

Debate in the Lords on the Bill to prevent Persons in Holy Orders from Sitting in the House of Commons.] June 15. The order of the day for the second reading of this bill being read,

seat in their House. His lordship observed, if it were the law that the character of a clergyman was indelible, it was a little hard, because a person had been in orders thirty years ago, but had ever since left off discharging the functions and enjoying the privileges peculiar to priests or persons in orders, to tell him that he Lord Thurlow expressed his astonish- should belong to no other profession, but ment that the House of Commons, who should still remain a clergyman; although indisputably were the only judges of the he might, from conscientious motives, question, of who ought to sit in that have felt it repugnant to his feelings to House, should on this occasion volun- continue a clergyman any longer. That tarily consent to forego the exercise of several persons who had been ordained fanctions peculiarly their own, and send clergymen in their early days, and were up a bill to their lordships upon the sub- in possession of lucrative benefices, had ject of the eligibility to a seat in their nevertheless, at a subsequent period, House, calling thereby upon another conscientiously laid down those benefices branch of the legislature to decide upon and quitted the profession, was a fact their rights and privileges. His lordship that must have come within the knowledge said, he had heard certain rumours as to of most of their lordships. With respect the authors of the bill, which he could to the clergy having been admitted to not credit. At the head of the govern- hold seats in the House of Commons, ment was at present placed a gentleman the report on their lordships table afforded of great respectability, of known integrity but very imperfect information indeed. and purity of manners, and of tried wisdom His lordship commented upon some parts in a situation of great dignity and arduous of the report, and among other observaduty, which he had discharged with in- tions said, that it put very silly language finite credit to himself and great advan- into the mouth of sir Edward Coke, which tage to the public; he would not therefore it was impossible to believe that great believe that such a character would be so lawyer to have held. What was said prodigal of his reputation, as to have been about a knight banneret not being able to the author of this very extraordinary bill. serve in respect of the honour he hath at The House of Commons had, many years funerals, &c. was also absurd and ridisince, instituted a committee of their own culous. His lordship adverted to the members, for the trial of a right to a seat origin of parliaments, and of the qualifiamong them in all cases of disputed elec- cations to seats in both Houses, from the tions; so jealous were they at that time Roman Catholic times to the Reformation, of their rights and privileges, and so de- thence to the Restoration, and downtermined not to suffer them to go out of wards to the present day; and stated the their own hands. That committee, so cases of the abbots of Evesham and of constituted, had, in repeated instances, Leicester, and others, who sat by the decided upon such cases. He could not, king's authority, and by no other title. therefore, but regard the bill as a very He mentioned the tenure of the bishops singular application to their lordships. at this time, and said, if the bill went to With regard to the bill itself, it was two- disfranchise the lower orders of the clergy, fold in its character-it was at once de- it might go the length of striking at the claratory and enacting; but he should right of the reverend bench opposite to speak chiefly to the declaratory part. It seats in that House; though he knew it was, he thought, a strange thing for the had been held, that the reverend prelates House of Commons to have associated sat in the right of their baronies, as temwith a person who had presumed to in- poral peers. He mentioned also the cases trude himself among them, though, as it of Dr. Nowell and Dr. Craddock, and was said, he was not duly qualified to the more recent case of Mr. Rushworth, hold his seat; and, on the spur of such in favour of whose eligibility the com a circumstance, to forbear having recourse mittee of elections had decided. He noto their own tribunal, a committee of elec- ticed the extreme care which the Comtion, and coming forward with a bill de-mons had formerly taken to exclude all claring that all persons of that description improper persons from sitting among were, by the common law, ineligible to a them." At different times that jealousy

whether persons in holy orders were ca pable or not of being elected to the House of Commons; and in this view he was led to consider the indelibility of the clerical character. With respect to this very im portant consideration, every principle in the Christian church, reformed, or as it stood before that period-every decree and canon-every writer, historian, &c. all agreed in establishing the proposition, that a person in holy orders is indelible. That the canon law, which inculcated expressly this doctrine, was part of the common law of England, was a principle adopted by lords Hale, Holt, Hard

had been extended to different descriptions of persons; to all attendants on their lordships, such as masters in chancery, &c.; but of late they had even thought it not improper to suffer one of the clerks of that House to be a member of their body. With respect to the enacting part of the bill, he should not attempt to go into it at present, as what was meant by it, or what the framers of the bill aimed at, was beyond his comprehension. His lordship concluded with expressing the great value of the franchise of choosing and of being chosen a representative in parliament; a franchise which, under the theory of the constitution, was the birth-wicke, and even by an authority which he right of every Englishman, though its enjoyment did not extend to all under its practice. He should therefore vote against the bill, as a bill of disfranchisement.

respected as much as any of those, that of lord Thurlow himself, By the canon of 1603, it was expressly decreed, that no man, being admitted into holy orders, The Lord Chancellor agreed with the could voluntarily relinquish the same, learned lord, that the bill was declaratory upon pain of excommunication; but the as to the law. He also agreed with him operation of this did not go to affect the as to the absolute necessity of some regu- character of a priest or a deacon. In lation upon the subject. He should, support of those positions, and further to were he a member of the House of Com- establish the absolute indelibility of the mons, certainly, in the first instance, have clerical character, his lordship read a vaproposed a resolution and not an act; but riety of quotations from different ecclesithe former, when acceded to, he should astical authorities, particularly from dehave held it his duty to follow up with a crees of the council of Trent; which went bill. He also agreed with his learned to prove, that this indelibility could not friend, that the bill imposed a necessity be abrogated by the volition of the indiviupon their lordships, of deciding so far as dual himself. In the Christian church, to the privileges of the other House of before the reformation, holy orders, as Parliament. With respect to the objec- well as matrimony, was held a sacrament. tions to the declaratory clause, he argued In illustration of this position, his lordship for the necessity of its insertion, on the stated the various clerical attributes which part of the Commons; and instanced, as attached to the individual, even after he a case bearing out that part of his argu- had ostensibly relinquished his sacred ment, the Middlesex election, where re-function, particularly the enjoyment of solution was opposed to election, and, vice versa, election to resolution, in a way which at least did no credit to the policy of that part of the conduct of that House. What he conceived to be the object was, to say that by the law of England, as it now stands, a person taking holy orders was, because he had taken them, incapable of being elected into the Commons House of Parliament. With respect to the idea of its extending to deprivation of franchise, such an idea was evidently unfounded, as it was impossible to take away from an individual that which he had not. He strenuously insisted, that it would neither serve the interests of religion, or of the state, to change the present system in that respect. The material part for the consideration of the House in the present instance was,

benefices. In these respects the canon is followed up by the law of the land; neither suspension nor desposition could destroy the clerical character: in some points of view the degradation had that effect. The process of degradation he explained, and its particular application in order to legalize the execution of a man ; but even with respect to this, an instance obtained of a man, who, on being pardoned, resumed his clerical character. With respect to what ought to be the law, he differed from his noble friend fundamentally. It was not one of the best symptoms of the times, that some were anxious to bring forward a proposition, that men were at liberty to renounce the clerical character. That the contrary doctrine might press hard upon individuals, he well knew; but that should be a consideration

with them before they entered into the holy state. The great question was, whether the interest of the public, upon the whole, was likely to be prevented by a constraint upon men who had voluntarily consecrated themselves to the service of God, to continue in that state, or by leaving them at full liberty to forsake it. Such objections would just as forcibly apply to the law of marriage: the difference of tempers in the individuals linked together, and their respective inclinations might contribute to render that a state of unhappiness; still it was the law of the land, and so was it with respect to the clerical character. With regard to the eligibility of clergymen to sit in the Commons House, he thought a positive law on the subject preferable to a vote of either House. With respect to the election of Rushworth, it was no disparagement to any body of men, to act differently upon better information and farther consideration of the subject. Respecting the case of Haksey, it was by no means clear that he was a member; and with regard to Rushworth, he did not take his seat as a clergyman. He quoted the observations of Blackstone upon the celebrated case of the Middlesex election, as directly apply ing to the point-particularly his idea of a clergyman, who might be the Sacheverel of the day, starting against colonel Luttrell, and taking his seat; would not the House instantly decide against the former? Yet it was contended by the same authority, that Wilkes, under the circumtsances of his case, was then as ineligible as a clergyman would be; and the writer of Junius's letters, commenting upon the argument of Blackstone, denied the similitude between Wilkes and a clergyman; observing, however, that the ineligibility of the latter was established for a period of more than two hundred years. Drawing towards a conclusion, his lordship observed, that the Providence of God had placed men in different states and situations of life. He was favourable to political equality, as far as the same was consistent with the interests of order, and the well being of society; and he trusted that that House would, either in its legislative or judicial capacity, be governed by that general principle, and particularly with respect to the bill then before them for which he solemnly declared, he should not be the advocate, but that it asserted the law of the land, and went to disfranchise no man.

The Earl of Moira said, that, in his mind a mere doubt being entertained as to the existing law of the land on this subject, was no sufficient reason for a legislative enactment which would go to deprive a large and respectable body in the community of their rights. Admitting the indelibility of the clerical character, still the learned lord ought to have made good his argument, by proving from this the incapacity of clergymen to exercise the functions of members of the House of Commons. The same argument would hold equally good against the rights of the bishops to seats in that House. He thought every good purpose would be an swered, if it was provided, that no person holding a benefice should be admitted to a seat in the House of Commons, and, that no clergyman returned to that House should be capable of accepting any benefice. As the bill was now brought forward, he considered it as a disfranchisement of the worst kind.

The Bishop of Rochester declared, that it was with no less surprise than sorrow that he had heard what had fallen that night from a learned lord, and that he had grounded his argument upon the idea of the delibility of the clerical character. The Protestant church did not assert that ordination was a sacrament, but it was sufficient for him to say, that holy orders were of divine institution, and that on this account the clerical character was indelible. The law of the land considered the clerical character to be indelible; and although a clergyman might have neglected the duties of his profession for thirty years, and have afterwards committed certain crimes, he would be no less amenable to the ecclesiastical courts. The learned prelate then explained the meaning of the canon which prohibits clergymen from voluntarily relinquishing their calling, and employing themselves as laymen. acknowledged, that neither of these would necessarily follow, if they were to have seats in the House of Commons. He could by no means subscribe to that despicable puritanical maxim, that a clergyman ought never to exercise himself but in the immediate duties of his calling. Most of our eminent divines had connected other branches of science with theology, and had signalised their names as chronologists, mathematicians, geometricians, historians, and philosophers. Such were Usher, Pearson, Barrow, Wallis, &c. These great divines were well

He

left their lordships to determine. The inconsistency struck his own mind forcibly, and he was unable to reconcile it with the idea that the argument was at all solid or conclusive.-Passing from this topic, his lordship directed his attention to the argument against the eligibility of the clergy, from the immemorial usage of parliament. On what principle this immemo

acquainted with the practical business of the world; nor did he think that the business of the House of Commons was totally unconnected with the study of divinity; for it was intermixed with the great principles of political justice and morality, and the laws of nature and nations. But, although he did not think that seats in the House of Commons were foreign to, or incompatible with the character of clergy-rial usage was supposed to be founded, men, any more than the office of justice of the peace, still he felt strong objections to their entertaining such views; and that chiefly arising from the means by which they would be obliged to seek admittance into the lower house, such as opening houses of entertainment, displaying flags, and truckling to every sectarian

voter.

he was at a loss to discover. Was it founded on the usage of parliament since 1663. when the celebrated case of Craddock was decided? If this was meant to be asserted, he begged leave to dissent from the doctrine, and to affirm that no such usage had prevailed. As to the case of Craddock, he contended that, on a fair examination of the circumstances of the decision, it would appear that the exclu sion was founded on the act of 1641, which had been framed for the purpose of abridging the privileges, not merely of the inferior clergy, but of the reverend bench, whose title to a seat in that House was recognized in the fullest terms, and formed an essential part of the constitution. After this act was rescinded, however, the reason of the former exclusion ceased, and the clergy returned to the free enjoyment of all constitutional privileges. Since that period, several clergymen had sat in the House of Commons, and their right had been unchallenged. In the Lord Holland said, that, on the doctrine case of Rushworth a committee of the of the indelibility of the clerical character, House, had declared the election valid. he was unwilling to enter; but he could No distinction could be taken between not refrain from animadverting on the the case alluded to, and that of an indidifferent conclusions drawn from this vidual regularly inducted into holy orders; grand position on which the bill was since there was no distinction in law or founded. The learned lord, after endea-practice between the case of a deacon and vouring to establish the position, inferred, a priest. Under these circumstances, his as a necessary consequence, that clergy- lordship denied the existence of any immen were disqualified from a seat in the memorial usage for the exclusion of other House, and had insisted much on clergymen; and, believing that they had the incompatibility of the duties of a mi-a constitutional right to a seat, he could nister of religion with those attached to a legislator. The reverend prelate had been no less zealous in supporting the primary position; but his conclusion had been the most opposite in the world. While he contended strenuously in behalf of the indelibility of the clerical character, he had, with an equal degree of warmth, maintained that there was no duty incumbent on a member of the other House which was in the slightest degree incompatible with the due exercise of the sacred office. How much weight was due to an argument, from which conclusions so hostile could be drawn, he

The Earl of Westmorland said, that in his view of the subject, the clergy and laity were two distinct bodies; and as such they had been considered in the early periods of our history; for when the former sat in parliament, it was expressly as the representatives of the clergy. He considered the subject on the grounds of immemorial usage, of inexpediency, and of the effects that it would produce on the minds of the clergy themselves, as well as in the House of Commons, by increasing the influence of the crown; and from these he expressed his approbation of the bill.

not consent to take away a great and valuable franchise. The expediency of excluding the clergy formed a subject of his lordship's consideration, and on this ground he was as little disposed as on any other to accede to the bill. He could not see that effects so dangerous as had been described would be the result of their having seats in the other House. Ad mitting, however, that it would be a mean of increasing the influence of the crown, the amendment suggested by his noble friend would do away every objection drawn from that source? If it were de

« PreviousContinue »