The Sun.
London, England, 1801-05-05 00:00:00

that vote. The Learned Gentleman who spoke
last had contended, and had quoted several cases
DLit of his own book, to prove that persons in Holy
Orders were not eligible to a Seat in that House—
he had, however, completely failed in proving that
proposition ; he had she wn, indeed, that persons had
been declared ineligible, but not because they were
ita Holy.Ordeis, but because they sat, or were enti-
tled to sir, in Convocation ; but this term .was not
applicable to the Hon. Gentleman who was the sub-
jed of this Motion, and consequently the Motion
itself was not aulicable to him. As to this phan-
tom of the Convocation, -he considered it as one of
those parts of the Constitution which had expired;
and here he could not avoid quoting two lines from
FIELDIrc, who, using his licence as a Poet in the
greatest possible extent, supposed Common Sense
to be a real person, and what was a still greater
poetical flight, he supposed Common Sense govern-
ing the World as a Sovereign, and he made one of
the Personages of his Poem thus iddress this imagi_
nary Sovereign :
Hail Couamon Sense--,for whilst thou reign'st on earth,
The ConvoCation ne'er shall sit again.
He was inclined to think that the Poet was founded
in his assertion, and, that there was as much chance
of the Convocation sitting again, as there was of
the restoration of the Bourbon Family. There was
one thing well worthy of notice, which was, that
the House, when they declared, that persons were
ineligible, never used the words in Holy Orders, but
always sitting, or being liable to sit in Convoca-
tion. Great reliance had been placed on the deci-
sion in the case of Cradock, but upon investigation,
it would be found not to decide the case one way or
the other. In 1643, a Law was passed, excluding
Ecclesiastics frOm sitting in Parliament. After, the
Restoration in 1661, this Ad was repealed, but it
appeared, that though the decision upon Cradock's
ease was subsequent to the repeal of the Aft,----yet
his Eledion was prior to it, and consequently he
was rejcaed, because his came uoder the positive
words of an At of Parliament. But he wished to
know, what was the difference between the two
louses of Parliament ? In the House Of Lords the
Bishops not only sat as Clergymen, but because they
were 'Clergymen : but exclusive of the Bishops,
there were other Clergymen who sat in that House,
and ii was in the power of His MAJESTY' to create
any Ecclesiastic a Peer, and he had never heard of a
Minister being censured for advising His MA.
, PISTY to make a person in Holy Orders a Peer.
There was, undoubtedly, formerly a reason why
Clergymen should not be Members of the House of
Commons, because they either sat in, o; were re-
presented in Convocation; but as the cause had
ceased, so 'had the effed, and as the Convocation
sin longer existed, the disability of Persons in Holy
Orders could not continue.: As far therefore as the
authorities .;Vent, it did not appear that anv one per-
son had bt.ers declared ineligible far being in Holy
.Orders except Dr. Cradock, and the decision in
case was founded upon an Ad of Parliament
which was immediately repealed. Some allusions
had been made to the business of the Middlesex
Eleelion ; he knew the opinion he then entertained
was unpopular, but he still retained it, though he
was aware that it was contrary to that of some of the
ablest Constitutional Lawyers of this Country. But
his opinion was of no consequence, for Parliament
had, by ordering the proceedings upon that occa-
sion to be erased from the Journals, completely de-
cided the question. Upon the whole, he was de-
cidedly of opinion, that there was not the slightest
ground for the Motion which the Noble Lord had
made,, and therefore he should give his vote for the
Order of the Day.

Sir WM. SCOTT said, that this was a question
of very great importance, and in order to consider
it
-properly, it would be necessary to divide it into
different heads.—ln the first place, the question of
Ecclesiastic, or not Ecclesiastic, mitst be decided
by the Canon Law, not from any resped to the au-
thority by which-those Canons were made, but from
long and uniform acquiescence. The next question
to be considered was, whether a person could divest
himself of his ecclesiastical funifion, and become a
Layman at his pleasure ? Upon this point, nothing
could be more clear, than that from the ear-
liest periods of the Christian Church, it was
held impossible for a. man who had once en-
tered into Holy Orders to divest himself of
that charade, and again to become a Layman.
He would not trouble the House with a long derail
of quotations from the .canon LaW, by which it was
declared, that the Clerical Charaaer was irrevoca-
ble.; but with respea to the Gentleman who was
the objea of this Motion, he wished to ask, Wh'e-
ther he had not . now a right to 'ail the privileges
of his brder.r—whether he had not now a right. to
be appointed to any of the most valuable prefer-
ments of the Church ? If this qoestion WaS.ariswer-.
cd in the affirm'ative, as it undoubtedly nitist,' was
it not mile... too much to say, that he enjoyed all
the adyantage'S belonging to his Order ; but that at
the same time, he was exempted from all. the incoo,
veniencies attending it. - A considerable reliance
iiad. been placed upon, the cirevinstauce of persons
. in 'Holy Orders, being ti'rned out of their Mini-
stry for miscodue.t; but .7..ntleaten watild perceive,
that there was a material difference between being
prevented for a time from exercising theft fun Lions
as aClergyman, and being dives team' toge ther ofTheir
Clerical clia-aaer• • In the Church of 'Rome, Or-
. f
Lunationwas a. Sacrament; and though upon the
)kefotrnation it ceased to be so, yet it was little
lessr--and a Ii14:1 ought not one day to make the.
most oletuti profosSion,. and the next with idle le-
.vity to giv it up. Even the buildings which were
devoted to the purposes of Religion, were consi-
.dcred << for e'er sacred ; and it could not be sup-
posed, that the character of the Ministers of Reli-
gion cot:ld be given pp at pleasure. The ne),,:t goes-
tzon was, Whe:fier a Person in Holy Orders was, or
was.lloe eligible to serve in Parliament-?= Upon this -
part of.the suhjca, it would be' necessary to inquire
whether focmcfly persons in Holy Ordep were
e;igitlle to serve in Parliament, and if they were
'not', whether any change had since taken place 'to
give ibelo a right which they did not originally
possess ? With respea to the expression upon which
to Mucl• had been said, viz. that persons were de-

claret! ineligible because they were Members of the
Convocation, it must mean person% in Holy Orders,
because there were several Members of Convoca-
tion who had a right to sit in Parliament, for in-
stance the person who filled the office he now held,
and many others, who were Members of the Con-
vocation, and who most undoubtedly had a right to
sit in Parliament—With regard to the other point,
it appeared clear to him that no change 114 taken
place in the disability which formerly existed of
Clergymen sitting in Parliament. They had indeed
acquired the right of voting .for their Glebes, and
it was contended that because they had acquired the
Eleaive Franchise, that of course they had a right
to sit in Parliament ; but this assertion was not
correa, because there. were many persons who had
a right of voting for Members of Parliament who
were not eligible to serve in Parliament. Near
too years had now elapsed since they had acquired
the eletive franchise, and though there were many
men of great talents- and.ambition among the Cler-
gy, yet in all that time no. attempt had been made
by them to obtain a seat in Parliament. It had
been said, that other persons who were incapacitat.
ed had. been incapacitated by At of Parliament,
and that there had been no Mt of Parliament to in.
capacitate Ecclesiastics ; but -in answer to, this he
begged leave to state, that those other persons who
had been incapacitated by Statute, had previously a
common Law-right in them, which was not the
case of the Clergy, ,and therefore it was not neces-
sary to pass an Ad of Parliament to take from them
a right which they never possessed. He, was by no
means sure that the Clergy themselves would think
they were benefited by. obtaining this privilege.—
This House, was a field for ambition, but the Con-
stitution of the Country, and the duties of Religion,
had given them another sphere of anion. Con-
sidering the Question in this point of view he was
under the necessity of declaring, that if the Noble
Lord persevered in his Motion he should give his
vote for it.

{We lament very much that the very late hour at which
the House rose, prevents us from giving this Speech in de-
tail, as it was one of the most learned and argumentative we
ever heard.]

Mr. ERSKINE, in a Speech of some length,
argued in favour of the eligibility of Clergymen to
serve in Parliament. He began by, noticing the At
of 1641, which excluded -Ecclesiastics from sitting,
in Parliament. The Preamble to that Aka, stated,
that-great inconveniences had ;arisen from Ecclesias-
tics sitting in Parliament—Now, if they had never
before sat in Parliament, it would have been absurd
to state their sitting there had been produdive of
inconvenience. This AA was repealed in 1661,
and it was worthy of notice, that the preamble to
the latter Ad stated, that the Ad of 1641 had
made several alterations in the .Law and Customs of
the Laud : • this appeared to him a complete proof
that that AF} had invaded the antient Law and,
Constitution of Parliament, by declaring,- that per_
sons in Holy Orders were ineligible. No man
could feel more highly than he did the sacred duties
which a Clergyman had to per formi or would wish
more than he did to keep those persons from mix.
ing .in the turbulent scenes of the world ; but if he
was asked, whether the distindions which were
pow contended for, were founded on the antient Law
of the Country, hiS answer would be, certainly not.
But if it was inconsistent with -the duties Of a Cler-
gyman to at as a Member of Parliament, surely it
was' as improper for them to ad as Magistrates ;
and yet it was known that the Public had derived
great benefit from the exertions of several•Magi_
strates at Quarter Sessions, &c. With respell: to the
case of Dr. Cradock, it appeared to him to have no-
thing to-do with this Lase, because he was declared
ineligible, not under the general Law and Custom
of Parliament, but in consequence of a specific Sta—
tute which had since been repealed, consequently it
did not affed the case one way or another. Jr had
never been argued that the King could not make •a
man a Peer, even though he should happen to be a
Priest—this certainly was giving the King a much
greater power than the House of Commons. With
resped to the Convocation, he knew it existed in
theory, but it did OA exist fbr any essential pur-
pose. They could not vote money, and. therefbre
the existence of the Constitution in theory was no
reason why Clergymen should not sit in Parliament.
Mr. EASY. having argued these points at some
length, concluded with stating, that he should vote
for the Order of the Day.
The ATTO RNEY GENERAL said, that the
Gentlemen who argued this case on the other side;
had contended that there was not the slightest doubt
in, the case ; but• instead of asserting, he wished
them to lay their finger upon that page of the Con-
sti tu t ion which warranted the principle which they
supported, or to show one solitary intance of a per-
son in Holy Orders sitting in Parliament. If such.
cases and such principles were to be found, it might
have been •in these new Constitutional Codes by
which the world had been illuminated, but certainly
not in those volumes to which he had been accus-
tomed to look, not in the great Law Authorities of
the kingdom, not in the Journals of Parliament, nor in

the History of the Country. Looking into these au_
-thotities, hq did not-find a single case of 4ny Ecclesi-
astic Sitting in that House, nor could be found such
a right any where laid down. Gentlemen bad relied
much upon the aft 1641, but that ati was made
against the Bishops, though all Clergy were included
by name. This appeared to be the Intention of the
Aft, from the words which were used in the Ad of

ifioi, by which it was repeated, for it was there
called an At ;,gainst the Bishops, and His Majesty
in giving his assent, to the Bill, used similar lan-
guags. With respe& to Cradock's 'Case, he was
declared ineligible upon the .Aft of 16.}.1, for that
Mt was repealed six months, before his elettion
was decided, and therefore this was a case directly

in point, and in favour of the doarine which he
was supporting. The ATTORNEY GINERAI. then
followed Mr. Fox and Mr ERSKINE through the
whole of their arguments,, and concluded- with
stating, that with this opinion upon the subje6t,
lie should have voted for the Noble Lord's Motion,
but as he understoo that a Bill.was to be brought

inct Parliament to settle thii pOint, he should at
preient vote for the Motion of the Right Hop. Gen.
tleman, for: the Order of the Day.

Mr. GREY took a view rf the Speech of the
Hon. Gentleman, who had argued from Parliamen-
tary usage and precedent, and also frOm the indeli-
bility of the priestly chargler, against the eligibi-
lity of the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. TOOKE). He in-
sisted that these two arguments were contradiaory.
If the Order of the Priesthood was inconsistent with
any Secular or Legislative Power, why then were
persons in Holy Orders sufrered to sit and exercise
Legislative and Judicial Power in the other House ?
On the ground of Parliamentary usage, the case -of
ineligibility did not appear to him to be clearly
made out. In this point, Mr. GR E Y examined the
circumstances recorded respeaing the ElMion of
Dr. Campocx and Mr. RUSH WORTH, quoting Mr.
FlArsELL's Reports on the latter case. To talk of
the priestly charaaer being imprinted on the mind,
was to him unintelligible ; and he would ask whether
the purity of Religion could be best answered by
forcing a person to-continue in the discharge of an
Office contrary to his inclination and judgment, and
to att the hypocrite, or by allowing him to abandon
an Office which his conscience told -him he could no
longer discharge ? He thought the better way
would be to pass a Law that no Ecclesiastifr, has ing
a seat in that House, should ever afterwards per-
form an ecclesiastical fuktion.
Mr. YANSITTART said he was one of the Com-
mittee on Rushworth's Eledion. He understood the
distiktion made in that case was, being a persons
in Deacon's and in Priest's Orders, the former be
ing considered as delible, the other not. He stated
an instance in point, of a Deacon who had resigned
his funatons into his Bishop's hands, but said no
such instance could be stated in the case of a Priest.

Mr. TOOKE, with the leave of the House, read
the opinion of Dr. Wynne, in Rushworth's case, de-
claring that he (lid not think there was any cano-
nical impediment to a person 'in Deacon's Orders
having a Seat in the House of Commons.
Sir IV. SCOTT admitted that there was no cano-
nical impediment, but insisted that the Common
Law and the'usage of
,Parliament militated against
it.

Mr. BRAGGE went at large into the question,
and ably r indicated the condua of the Committee
in their examination of the Rolls and Records of
Parliament. He concluded with declaring his ap-
probatis.m of the Motion for the Order of the Day.
Mr. Fox and Mr. GREY explained.

Mr. ABBOT argued against the eligibility of the
Clergy to a seat in Parliament, as Representatives
of the Commons ; but approved of the Motion for
the Order of the Day, and of a Bill being after..
wards brought in declaratory of the subjest..
Sir HENRY MILDMAY, the SOLICITOR GENE.
RAI., and Mr. HENNIKER MAJOR spoke to, the
same effed.

Earl TEMPLE replied to the arguments against
his Motion, and particularly objeded to those who
agreed with him in opinion as to the ineligibility of
Mr. HottNE Toox E's holding a seat in that House,
not coming to a decision upon it, but voting for the
Order of the Day. •
The CHANCELLOR of Ae EXCHEQUER
said, that he now found he was guilty of an irre.
gularity in moving for the Order of the Day, that
Order being the Motion of the Noble Earl on which
they had been debating. He begged leave, there..
fore, with the consent of the House, to withdraw his
Motion, and to substitute in its stead the Motion
for the Previon3 Question. Upon this a division
was loudly called for.

For the Previous Question 94.
Against it - 53

Majority 41
At Half-past Two o'Clock in the Morning, the
Howe adjourned,till this day.

THE SUN.

SOLEM QLIS DICIRE 7nI.SUM AVDIAT

L N'D 0 ,V, A 1 A Y 5, iSoI.

THE Paris Papers to the 2d inst. arrived this
morning. They are barren of intelligence. The
Alon;teur is still silent as to Egypt ; but the Clef
du Cabinet ventures to predift, that the intelligence'
which has reached EAT/and is unfavourable to the
British, as they have not yet published it.
We are told in the Official Paper, that according
to the determination of the Porte to release all the
French Prisoners detained at Conitamtiltople, and in
the Fortresses of the Black Sea, General SALCEIT E
Citizen BE ISSERES CHAR DOME 1., and several other
Officers of Artillery, have already arrived at An-

CONQ•

'The new Sovereign of Tuscany, who travels un.
der the name of the Du L• of Leghorn, left Madrid
on the 22.1 April.

The QUEEN and Paiscrssrs vecterday, ac-
companied by PRINCE ADOLPHUS, took an airing
in their carriages through Richmond.
Her Royal Highness the DUTCHESS of YORE
left Bath yesterday for her seat at Oatlands.
By Letters- from jersey, of-the 29th ultimo, we
learn that advices had that morning been received
by a Boat from the Coast of; France, that the French
Troops assembled at Cherbourg were very.numerous,
and in a state of great preparation, for the avowed
object of making an attack upon the Islands of
Guernsey and Jersey. Preparations were making
in both Islands for a vigorous defence.

General MACKENZIE, 'who came over last week
in one of the Packets from Cuxhaven, came from
where he had been for some time upon the
Stair. Passing through Berlin, he brought over
Dispatches with him from Lord CMOISFOR T.

14
.6
"
7:17,
NAVAL NEWS.

IV,* WI impet;um telagi, toy:tape tridenteM.
Sed mit; torte datum.

PORTSMOUTH, MAY 4.

SAILED His Majesty's Ships Brilliant and,Trent,
with a Convoy for the Downs.,; and His Majosty's
Ship Brunswick fa the Eastward.

YARMOUTH, MAY 4.

SAILED the Hazard Cutter on a Cruize..
Arrived the lospcaor Sloop, and Narcissus and
;Vette Brigs, from a Cruize.
Sailed the Four Ericnds, a Cartel, with seven
French Prisoners for Dunkirk. . •