Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

ftem.

rious canonifts, theological writers, and hiftorians, who all laid it down as an indifputable point that a perfon having taken holy orders, was, because he had taken them, incapable of being elected into the houfe of commons. Refpecting the deprivation of franchife, fuch an idea was abfurd, for it was impoffible to take away from an individual that which he never poffeffed; and he ftrenuously infifted, that it would neither ferve the interefts of religion nor of the ftate to change the prefent fyWith regard to the bill being both declaratory and enacting, the fame language was to be found in various acts of parliament; it was a difficult thing to draw up an act in language quite unexceptionable: but he had one rule which he had adopted from his noble friend, and fo far as it applied it was an unerring rule, and this was, to ufe thofe phrafes which the legislature had uniformly used before, and this was the mode used in the bill before the houfe. Though on feveral occafions he might have liked to have expreffed the claufes in words of his own, he had always judged it beft to copy the old phrafes of former acts, becaufe they contained the language to which parliament was accufiomed. The declaratory part of the bill was as neceffary as any; fuch a line of proceeding was adopted by the framers of the bill of rights, which, if ever there was a purely declaratory law, it was that bill, and after afferting the indifputably legal rights of the fubject, it goes on to enact that they are fo. He thought the house of commons afted fairly and candidly in bringing in a bill (fuch as it was), but he had often lamented that they had ever delegated their functions refpecting the trial of election

petitions even to a committee of their own members. He had no doubt in his own mind that their decifions were fometimes erroneous, and feveral of them had been complained of, though they had fince decided election cafes on the very fame grounds and principles. The material confideration now was, whether clergymen were, or were not, capable of being elected Withto the house of commons. out hesitation he pronounced his negative, adducing authorities from the Council of Trent, to eftablifh the abfolute indelibility of the clerical character, which could not be abrogated by the will of the individual himself. In the chriftian church, before the reformation, holy orders as well as matrimony was held a facrament; and though in the reformed church they were not confidered as fuch, yet, from the fanctity of the refpective inftitutions, as well as the law of the land, the clerical function was indelible, and the marriage ftate indiffoluble. Marriage (though not a facrament any more than holy orders) was fomething more than a civil contract; it had a religious nature in it, and was an inftitution of God himfelf: the indelibility of a perfon ordained, and the indul lubility of the marriage contract, tood precifely on the fame grounds, notwithstanding the liberality of that houfe concerning divorces. It was with grief he muft obferve, that it was a bad fymptom of the times, to bring forward a propofition of men being a liberty to renounce the clerical office. The contrary doctrine might prefs hard on individuals: this fhould be a confideration with them before they entered that holy ftate. But the great question was, whether the intereft of the public, upon the whole, was likely to be

K 3 promoted

promoted by a conftraint upon men who had devoted themselves to the fervice of God, obliging them to continue in that ftate, or by leaving them at full liberty, when ever their erroneous or perhaps unprincipled notions prompted them to refign it. The fame objections, in his opinion, would as forcibly apply to the law of marriage their respective inclinations, virtuous or vicious, might render it a state of unhappiness, if diffimilar: ftill it was the law of the land, and as much fo with regard to the clerical character. His lordfhip, towards the conclufion of his fpeech, profeffed himfelf favourable to political equality as far as was confiftent with the interefts of order and the welfare of fociety; and he hoped the houfe would, either in its legiflative or judicial capacity, be governed by that general principle, and particularly with relation to the bill then before them; for which he folemnly declared he would not be the advocate, but that it afferted the law of England, and tended not to diffranchife any man.

Earl Moira role next. He was much furprifed, he faid, to obferve that the noble lord, who had but the other day ftrongly expreffed his dif ke to all bills founded upon doubts, to foon had left his own rule, and fupported a bill avow edly to fil d. In leed, while this ground of legislation prevailed, helf and the noblemen who ate with him, were fomswhat inbred to the forbearance of inmates for pot doubling the titles under which they held their eftater. A mere doubt of the exifting law of the land was no fufficient realon for a legiflative enaðment, which mer a nly must depris e ad pectable body in the community of their rights.

a lar

Admitting the indelibility of the clerical character, it ought to be proved in what manner it incapacitated them from exercising the functions of members of the house of commons before they were excluded. Surely the fame argument held against the feats of bifhops in the upper houfe. But he could eafily account for the reafons which operated with fovereigns in rejecting the clergy from the commons, &c.: nor was he at a lofs to find out the inducement with the clergy to obtain admiffion there; the former exerting authority over them by taxation, and the latter endeavouring to avoid it by ceafing to be regarded as a diftinct body. His lordfhip declared himfelf confcientioufly attached to the eftablished church; and that he confidered it to be one of the firmeft props of the conftitution. On this ground he opposed the prefent bill. Why did their lordships with to fee bishops in their houfe? Were they not defirous of availing themfelves of, and reaping the be nefit from, the morality, learning, and influence, of thefe learned prelates? But if the argument affigned in the act of 1641 was fuflicient to exclude the clergy from the commons, viz. that it was improper for them to interfere in temporal matters, it was equally cogent when applied to bishops: but where then would be the fecurity for the church of the establishment? The act, if adopted, ought to be taken up profpectively; and it would anfwer every good purpofe, if it was fo provided, that no perfon holding a benetice fhould be admitted to a feat in the commons, and that no perfon returned to that houfe fuld be capable of Koding or of acceping any bene

[ocr errors]

As the act was Low brought forward it was a disfranchifement

of

of the worst kind, by an ex poft facto law depriving a moft worthy body of fome of their deareft privileges. As the house of convocation had ceafed fince the year 1663 to exercise its functions, and clergymen were allowed to vote at elections, it was but reasonable that they fhould be allowed the option, if elected, to fit as reprefentatives, provided they gave up all the profits of their ecclefiaftical fituations. It was afked, whether any inftance could be produced of a clergyman dreffed in his canonicals demanding his feat? But, allowing this, nothing more could be inferred than that the clergy had erroneously, perhaps, conceived themselves ineligible; but fuch a mistake ought not to be made a handle for difannulling their privileges. The bill was oppreffive and unjuft.

The bishop of Rochefter expreffed as much aftonishment as concern at what he had heard from a noble and learned lord (Thurlow), who had grounded his argument on the delibility of holy orders; nor did the doctrine of indelibility originate in popish ignorance and fuperftition; it was a doctrine to be traced to the foundation of our pure religion, fanctioned by the bett authorities in the earliett times. Bet, though there was no doubt upon this point, he did not draw the fame inferences from it which the lord chancellor had done. The bishop enlarged on the duties connected with the facred office; and infifted that there was nothing in them inconfiftent with a due attention to the bufinefs of the world: by no means could he fubfcribe to that puritanical maxim, that a clergyman ought never to employ himfelt with any thing but the immediate duties of his calling. He fincerely hoped

that the age of cloyftered piety, and total abitraction from the occupations of civil life, was at an end for ever in this country; and he spoke with admiration of feveral of the diftinguifhed ornaments of the church, who, to the profoundest knowledge of fubjects immediately connected with their profeffion, united a tafte for general literature, and had made the higheft advances in liberal philofophy. Most of our eminent divines had connected other branches of fcience with theology, and fignalifed their names as mathematicians, chronologifts, hiftorians, &c.; fuch were Ufher, Pearson, Barrow, Wallis, &c. Thefe great men were eminently acquainted with the practical bufinefs of the world; nor did he think the business of the houfe of commons uncornested with the ftudy of divinity; for it was intermixed with the principles of political justice and morality; with the laws of nature and of nations: fo far from there being any thing unbecoming the facred character, in the Ice of a member of parliament, the fiudies which he hat ment. ned, while they improved their mi. 15, increated their vire, and enlarg d their phere of ity to mankin The incompatil ty therefore of

[ocr errors]

thefe characters was not the ground on which his oppeâtion was founded: but he perceived many fericus inconveniences which would refult from the recognition of their rights to a feat in the houfe; fuch as the means by which they would be eiged to feek admittance, by en goules of entertainment, displaying figs, and truckling to every fectarian voter. Nor did he approve of confining the ineligibility to fuch clergymen as held benefices: there was no equity in fuch a diftincK4

tion,

tion, whilft to the unbeneficed it would hold out objects of ambition. Having expatiated on this topic, the reverend prelate concluded by fupporting the bill.

The earl of Weftmoreland fpoke fhortly in the defence of it; pleaded the immemorial ufage of parliament; he contended that the exclufion of the clergy had been diftinctly and invariably recognifed; and pointed out the inexpediency and the danger from the probability of deftroying the independence of parliament, and augmenting the undue influence of the crown.

Lord Holland combated these arguments, and all which had been alleged that night. On the doctrine of the indelibility of the clerical character, he profeffed his unwillingness to enter the lifts with the learned prelate; but he owned he was much difappointed and furprised at the conclufion of his fpeech; to maintain that there was no duty of a minifter incompatible with the office of a legiflator, and yet to exclude the clergy from a fat in the houfe, was an inconfiftency which he should not have expected from fo able an advocate of truth. Paffing from this topic, his lordship directed his attention to the argument fo much infifted upon, the immemorial ufage of parliament. On what principle was it founded? Was it fuppofed to be fince 1663, when the celebrated cafe of Craddock was decided? If this was meant to be affirmed, he begged leave to diffent, and to declare in the moft direct terms, that no fuch ufage had prevailed then; and that, on a fair examination of this decifion, the exclufion would appear founded on the act of 1641, which had been framed for the purpofe of abridging the privileges, not merely of the inferior clergy, but

of the learned and reverend beach, whofe title to a feat in the house was recognised in the fulleft terms, and formed an effential part of the conftitution. After this aft was refcinded, however, the realon of the former exclufion cealed, and the clergy returned to the free enjoyment of all conftitutional privileges. Since that period feveral clergymen had fat in the houfe of commons, and their right had been unchallenged. In the cafe of Rushworth, a committee of the houfe, regularly appointed, had declared the election regular and valid. No diftinction (he argued) could be made betwixt the inftance alluded to, and that of an individual regularly inducted into holy orders, fince there was no diftinction in law or practice between the cafe of a deacon and a prieft: under thefe circumstances his lordhip denied the existence of any immemorial ufage for the exclufion of clergymen; and believing they had a conftitutional claim to a feat, he could not confent to take away a great and valuable franchife. Admitting that it might be a means of increafing the influence of the crown (of which his majefty's minifters profeffed themselves to be extremely apprehenfive), the amendment fuggefted by lord Moira would obviate every objection of the kind.

The earl of Rofslyn, in a speech replete with conftitutional detail, traced the ufage of parliament from a very early period of our national hiftory to the prefent period. He concluded with urging the inexpediency of allowing feats to the clergy, and ftating, that their ineligibility had ever formed a uniform part of the common law.

The earl of Carlisle opposed the bill, as unneceflary and unjust. Much ability and much learning

had

had been difplayed in the debate; but every elucidation of the subject which he had that night heard had left no impreflion on his mind. He ftill continued to think that there was no caufe for the exclufion of an able and very refpectable defcription of men. But be that as it might, he thought that, on principles of candour, more time ought to be afforded their lordships to deliberate on the measure; he therefore recommended the further confideration of the bill to be postponed till the next feifion.

For his own part, he was not afhamed to confefs, that he had not, as yet, made himself mafter of the fubject; and his intellectual faculties were bewildered in that blaze of learning and eloquence which he had just heard. He looked into the bill itself for that illuftration which he thought wanting in the refinements of debate, and his understanding became fo much enfeebled, that he really was not capable of discharging his duty as a British senator.

Lord Grantley faid that the amendment of lord Moira appeared neceffary to remove all objection.

Lord Carlton declared himself convinced by the arguments he had heard of the expediency of the measure; to which he gave his vote.

Lord Hobart faid, that in confequence of an obfervation which had been publicly made, he would trefpafs a few moments on the patience of the house. It had been afferted that this bufinefs had been taken up by minifters, becaufe a perfon had been fent into the other houfe with opinions inimical to theirs: this he denied ; but he muft obferve, that that perfon being in poffeffion of a feat rendered it incurabent on minifters to decide the queftion one way or other. Of other men there might remain a doubt whether they had obtained ordination, but of the honourable gentleman in difpute there was none. Every one knew him to be a clergyman. Whoever read the bill would do minifters the juftice to say that they had taken all care to avoid any perfonal infult to the honourable gentleman.

The bill was read a fecond time without a divifion, and afterwards paffed into a law.

CHAP. V.

New Instances of Oppression urged against the Managers of Cold-BathFields Prison. Further Debate on that Subject. Further Suspension of the Habeas-Corpus Act.-Strictures on that Measure-Debates on it in the House of Commons-in the House of Lords. Bill for preventing Seditious Meetings.

[ocr errors]

SUBJECT which had been Burdett rofe to call the attention

occafions, in the house of commons, was this feffion renewed by the indefatigable member who firft brought it under confideration. On the 9th of February, fir Francis

come to his knowledge, and which he faid he should feel himself criminal in omitting to mention. The atrocity of the circumftances demanded the immediate interference

of

« PředchozíPokračovat »