grant; and the clergy, indignant at the idea of the possessions of the church being touched by the profane hands of the Commons. Many instances of these struggles, as detailed in the Rolls of Parliament, we have included in our Report; but it generally appears, that, by some means or other, the point was gained and a tax was levied on the clergy, independent of that which they chose to impose upon themselves. Wherever the church possessed lands which were not assessed to the clerical contributions, the Commons exercised the right of taxing them in the same proportion with those of the laity; and whatever lands the clergy became possessed of subsequent to the act of "Quia emptores," in the reign of Edward 1st, were universally made subject to the taxation of the Commons. Archbishop Wake distinctly states, that, in the times of William 1st, and the succeeding princes, the clergy were taxed in common with the laity. Edward 3rd had a remarkable struggle with them on the same point, in which he ultimately was successful; and scarcely a reign passed over, in which some attempt was not made by the clergy to constitute as an undeniable right, what the king and parliament never admitted as such, except in certain instances, when the power of the church had risen to so formidable a height as to make any attempt to resist it dangerous and unavailing. In 1664, an act was passed, fraught with greater powers than any before passed by the legislature, which taxed the benefices of the clergy; but in this act a special reservation is made of the rights of the church, not, however, affecting the tax which was levied in pursuance of the act. At length this point, always a bone of contention which both parties always struggled for, and which neither gave up, was totally conceded, and the clergy received in its place a right of voting for members of parliament, first of all only tacitly allowed, but afterwards confirmed by act of parliament. Thus, therefore, we see an unestablished and disputed claim given up for a valuable consideration, and that consideration ratified by an act of the legislature.

Having thus, Sir, considered and examined the state of the representation of the clergy, and the mode of their taxation, it becomes necessary for us to see how the real fact stands, of the clergy ever having sat in this House as members

of it; and here I can boldly assert, without the fear of being contradicted, that in no period of our history, even when the ambition of the clergy flew to its greatest height, and their power had reached its most tremendous pitch, did they in any single instance claim the right of sitting in this House as representatives of the commonalty of the realm, and no example occurs of their having ever crept into this House, avowed as clergy, except in such as are recorded in your Journals, in every one of which (with the exception of Mr. Rushworth's case), the House has established the principle that clergy are ineligible, and has turned out the individuals who intruded. Sir, I repeat, that the clergy never claimed as a right the power of sitting in the House of Commons; it appears, however, that they esteemed the privilege to be of sufficient importance to form the prayer of a petition to the crown, as a matter of favour. In the reign of Elizabeth, the inferior clergy presented a petition to the queen, praying they might be allowed to sit as members of the House of Commons; and some of their reasons were so singular, that I trust I shall be permitted to read a paragraph of that petition, as a specimen of the grounds on which the clergy fancied themselves most peculiarly and singularly entitled to seats in this House. The petition sets forth, that, "in the mean time (which God in his mercy grant may be for many gene rations!) her majesty shall be sure of a number more in that assembly, that ever will be most ready to maintain her prerogative, and to enact whatever may make most for her highness's safety and con tentment, as the men that next under God's goodness do most depend upon her princely clemency and protection. It would much recover the ancient estimation and authority of that assembly, if it might be increased with men of religion, learning, and discretion, which now is somewhat imbased by youths, servingmen and outlaws, that injuriously are crept into the honourable House. And it is the more necessary that there were some more men of sobriety and judgment in that meeting, that might counterpoise the haste and headiness of others that have intruded themselves, especially considering that a cypher is as sufficient to promote a single figure of one into the place of ten, as the best man that giveth voice in that House, when they come to calculating." Such, Sir, were the reasoni

"

assigned by the clergy in their own petition for their admittance into this House. The reverend gentleman in my eye is himself the best judge whether they were his reasons for coming into parliament; whether, when he offered himself to the choice of the electors of Old Sarum, he founded his claim to their confidence on a determination to support the prerogative of the crown, in contradistinction to the liberties of the people, and in despite of every opposition; or whether he has favoured us with his presence for the laudable purpose of recovering the ancient estimation and authority of this assembly" or, in the singulur mode of calculating adopted by his brethren, to shew how "a cypher is as sufficient to promote a single figure of one into the place of ten, as the best man that giveth voice in that House." Be this as it may, such were the ideas and such was the petition of the clergy in the reign of Elizabeth. Notwithstanding the strong temptation which was thus held out to her of having so powerful a body in the House of Commons pledged to her interests, and to answer her views, she had the good sense and the constitutional feeling to reject the offer. In the reign of James 1st. the same petition, with very little alteration, was again presented, and again refused. Surely, Sir, it should not appear that the clergy conceived their right of sitting in the House of Commons as very clearly and undeniably laid down, when they conceived it necessary, in two reigns, to petition that they might receive as a boon, what we are now to be told they may claim as a right.

may, perhaps, be told, Sir, that, as in the reign of Charles 1st. an act was passed to disqualify the clergy from sitting in parliament, they must have enjoyed that right prior to the act, else it could not have been taken from them; and that as that act was afterwards repealed, all the privileges which had been taken from them by the enaction were restored to them by the repeal. In the first place, Sir, by turning to the previous parliamentary proceedings, it clearly appears, that the intention of the legislature was, to destroy the powers of the bishops; and to attain that end with any appearance of candour, it was necessary also to destroy those of the inferior clergy; however, I am very willing to allow that the repeal of the act in question restored them to the situation in which they stood before; but what was [VOL. XXXV.]

that situation? Certainly not that of being able to sit in the House of Commons, as, in the very reign preceding that in which the act was passed, they petitioned the crown to have that very privilege conceded to them as a favour. Besides, Sir, how comes it, that if by the repeal of the act of Charles 1st. the power of sitting in the House of Commons was restored to the clergy, and consequently confirmed much stronger than before the passing the act, because confirmed by statute, the clergy have never from that time to this, in one single solitary instance, enforced that claim, or acted upon that acknowledgment? How comes it, that a body so powerful as the clergy, who never were very backward in asserting any privilege to which they conceived they had a claim, never thought it necessary to assert that of sitting in the House of Commons?-a reasonable object of ambition to any set of men, and more peculiarly important to the church. The reason, Sir, is plain, and the reply is obvious. They knew that no such right existed; that any argument which might be used in favour of its existence could only be built on loose and idle theory; and that those in favour of its non-existence were founded on the practice of the constitution, and the usage of parliament. Upon the face of our report, Sir, five instances occur where the word "clericus" appears attached to names of persons returned to parliament. If there is one fact better established than another, it is, that in the earlier periods of our history, in which these returns occur, the word "clericus" was not the distinguishing appellation of the clergy. Every lawyer, every man of learning was called clericus. In all the old grants of the Commons, the collectors of the taxes are directed to choose a clericus to assist them, who in no case was supposed to have been a man in holy orders. I am willing to admit, that the word clericus was attached to the sacred functions; but as it also designated other descriptions of persons, it is hardly fair to argue that, because the word clericus appears attached to a name, it should clearly follow that the man must have been in holy orders. One of the persons so designated appears returned to one parliament as " clericus," and to another without that addition-a strong presumptive proof, in my mind, that he at least was not a man of the church. Sir Thomas Haxey's case has hitherto been always [4 S]

pointed to consider that petition. The report of that committee is, "that the sitting member is duly elected." Now, Sir, I contend that this is no precedent for us. The report is supported by no statement of Mr. Rushworth's being in holy orders; no principle is laid down, no reason is assigned, no record of parliament is before us, by which we can direct our judgment; and all we know, and all we can strictly know is, that Edward Rushworth, esq., is duly elected. But though we have no parliamentary record to direct us, we have an authority to which we cannot refer as evidence, but to which we can as matter of argument; I mean Luder's Reports, in which the case is detailed; and there it appears, that the learned counsel for Mr. Rushworth rested the strength of his case on the supposed distinction between the office of a priest and deacon; that he implored the committee to consider that this was not a question of a priest's sitting in parliament, as that was a complete, distinct, and separate case; that Mr. Rushworth was only in deacon's orders, and they were to determine whether or no a deacon could sit. It is not for us to inquire whether that distinction was or was not a proper one; the fact is, that the distinction was made, and on that distinction the committee formed their opinion. At best it is but the opinion of individuals, who, however respectable they might be, were liable to error; whose opinion may be reversed by one committee to-morrow, which again may be overturned by another the next day, and certainly is not sufficient, naked, unsupported, and alone, to counterbalance every precedent upon your Journals, and the decided testimony of your parliamentary history. I forgot to observe that, in our Report, some instances occur of persons being returned to represent the university of Oxford, who would at first appear to have been in holy orders. To ascertain the fact I have made the most diligent inquiry; and I can, without difficulty, assure the House, that every individual to which I have alluded was a layman.

I have now, Sir, gone through every precedent that appears upon your Journals, or in your Records. I may be told other clergy have actually sat in this House. The fact may be so, yet it does not alter my case. It is a very old and a very true law adage, that " no blot is a blot till it is hit." Peers, minors, aliens, clearly ineligible, may have sat, and may at this

moment be sitting in this House; but before you can establish a principle, you must first establish the fact on which your principle rests; and it would, indeed, be a singular assumption, that the casual and unnoticed departure from a law, should consequently occasion a repeal of it; and all I contend for is, that in every instance, without one solitary exception, where the House has noticed a priest within its walls, the individual so noticed has been expelled, and the principle laid down of the ineligibility of the clergy. Sir, that principle has not only been laid down by the House, but by the best lawyers and authorities we have. Mr. Justice Blackstone asserts, that aliens born, minors, the twelve judges, and clergy, are by the common law of the land ineligible. Sir Edward Coke, in his Fourth Institute, says that none of the clergy, even of the lowest order are eligible; and better authorities than these in questions of common law will not, I believe, be produced. Moore in his Reports states, that, in a conference held between the Lords and Commons, I believe in Henry the 8th's time, it was laid down that clergy were not eligible to parliament, nor laymen to Convocation. Sheriffs (though allowed to sit, except for such counties for which they were sheriffs), were deemed ineligible when in holy orders. The master of the rolls never sat in the House till in later days, because, till in later days the master of the rolls was in holy orders. But, Sir, I may be told, that the true principle on which these decisions were grounded was, that the clergy were represented in Convocation, that the Convocation is now done away, consequently their representation has ceased. Sir, I deny the fact.

The Convocation still exists, its privileges remain unimpaired, its power the same. Let me not be told that those privileges are not exerted, that that power is not exercised. Sir, in deciding a constitutional question, we are not to confine our attention only to the time in which we are deliberating, we are to look to the effect our decision will

have on those who are to come after us; we are to consider what may be the consequences of it, and to what those consequences may lead; and surely I shall scarcely hear it gravely argued, that the non-exercise of privileges proves the nonexistence of them. I thank God, Sir, we live in times when the tempers, the minds, and the principles of religious men are

The resignation of holy orders was in no case provided for, because in no case was it conceived to be possible. But, Sir, it may be contended, that a person undergoing the penalty of excommunication, as ordained by the canon, has been punished for his offence, and cannot, consequently, be punished a second time; that he is an excommunicated layman, but an excommunicated layman is not ineligible to parliament. Sir, the argument is a plausible, but a very absurd one. The canons are not binding upon laymen; if, therefore, a man, by throwing off his gown, becomes a layman, the canon in question would indeed be waste paper, because it could not touch him, as he would be out of its controul, and the penalty, consequently, could not be inflicted. The real fact is, that the punishment is held out against the clergyman" using himself as a layman," not making himself a layman, against the clergyman misconducting himself; but by that misconduct he is not less a clergyman than he was before. The spiritual court may suspend a clergyman from officiating for an unlimited time, but cannot divest him of his character. If, therefore, the jurisdiction of the calling cannot divest a man of his orders, it is absurd to argue that he can do it of his own authority, and at his own pleasure.

But, Sir, an argument, in my mind perfectly unanswerable, why a clergyman cannot relinquish his calling, is, that no man can divest himself of a privilege to his own benefit. He cannot enjoy the privileges of two situations at once; and, however the rev. gentleman may persuade himself, and try to persuade us, that he has given up his profession to-day, if any person was to present him with a living to-morrow, he would not require any fresh ordination to enable him to accept it; how, then, can he say that he has divested himself of his orders, when one day, when it suits his convenience, he can exercise all the functions of a clerical character, and the next day enjoy all the freedom of a layman? Sir, the rev. gentleman himself pleaded, the other day, to an indictment in which he was described to be in holy orders. I do not blame him for it; he did it in order that he might take advantage of those privileges which the law, in certain cases, grants to the clergy, and he did right; but it is rather too much to hear the same person gravely assume the privileges of two characters, as his fancy, his ambition, or his interest

may prompt him. Sir, I have once heard the rev. gentleman in this House attempt to parry this argument by applying, or at least attempting to apply to it, the idle adage of "once a captain and always a captain." I trust I shall not hear it repeated; the subject is rather too serious, and involves questions too material to future happiness, as well as temporal welfare, to be made the subject of laughter and of ribaldry. For God's sake, let the rev. gentleman recollect (I trust he does, I wish he had done so before) the solemn manner in which he declared himself at the altar, when he presented himself to be ordained, called upon to undertake the duties of his holy orders, in which he made the sacrifice of his life to God, for the purpose of fulfilling them; for God's sake, let him recall to his recollection the awe-inspiring words with which the bishop invested him with that sacred character, which he is now so eager to throw off, "Whose sins thou dost remit, be they remitted; whose sins thou dost retain, be they retained; in the name of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost!" Let him recollect this, and let him pause a little before he again talk of "getting rid by quarantine of the infection of priesthood." Sir, it has appeared in evidence at your bar, that the rev. gentleman has adminis tered the sacrament. Let him recollect the solemn office he performed, and the charge he exercised; and let him tremble when he talks of getting rid, by quaran tine, of the infection of duties which he assumed at the altar of his God. The solemn office of priesthood is not to be put on and taken off with one's clothes. It is not "the inky cloak," the "cus tomary suit of solemn black, the tristful 'haviour of the visage," which constitute the man of God; it is " that within which passess show." It is the inward call, the sacrifice of every object to the performance of its sacred duties; above all, it is the example which is set, of following its precepts, and abiding by its principles, which are not to be sacrificed at the altar of

ambition, of party, or of faction, which constitute that holy function which, when once assumed, never can be thrown off, but continues even unto death.

I feel how much too long I have taken up the time of the House, and I have done. From the evidence which has been taken at your bar, it appears, beyond the possibility of doubt, that the gentleman who has lately taken his seat amongst us,