Evening star., 1923-12-27
BY THE MARaUIsE DE FoNTENol

Great Britain's parliament, when it
meets early next month at Westmin-
ster will be called upon to deal with
wat is known as the clergy dis
abilities bill" It is not generally
known that, although ministers Of the
Methodist, Baptist, Free and United
Presbyterian and other Protestant de-
nominations, as well as Jewish
rabbis, enjoy their parliamentary
franchise and are allowed to Sit in
the house of commons-indeed. there
are quite a number of non-Anglican
Protestant denominations represent
ed by their divines in the new par
liament-yet that the clergy of the
Anglican State Church of England.
of the Presbyterian State Church of
Scotland and members of the Roman
Catholic priesthood, are specifically ex-
GUIDED thei errom. OF course, the An
gncan State Church Is extensively rep
resented in the upper house of the i'm
perial legislature by the leading
members of the episcopacy, some
twenty-six in number, each of them
dlocesans and sitting as so-caIieo
Spiritual lorus OF parliament. But IL
Is not represented IN any way In tina.
house of commons from whence al
the most important legislation of the
realm may be SAID to emanate.
\ y X r
The disqualification of the Roman
Catholic priests from sitting in par
! lament may be SAID to nave dated
from the time of the reformation,
when their refusal to regard the
sovereign as supreme in spirituaI
things as well as temporal was ac-
counGed and punIsned AS treason
IneSe disabilities were partially
aboilshed IN 1873 by means OF the
so-cailed Catholic relief act, which
removed most restrictions on Cath
oiics except that 1t iett them incapa-
be of filing the ottlce OF regent o.
the kinguom, and debarred their
priests from sitting in the house o.
commons.
AS for the exclusion of the clergy
of the Church of England from the
house of commons, 1t dates back to
INSTRUMENTATION days. formed
part Of the policy of Eward l. IN
organizing parliament In It's present
scheme for the representation of all
orders and classes of his subjects
They were summoned to attend his
parliament in 1895 and In the sue
ceeding parliaments OF his reign ,n g
aloof from the national parliament
and in restricting all their 1egisla-
tive powers and participation In the
government of the country to theiI
own Convocations OF Canterbury an, and
they were forfeiting their legisla-
tive powers by consenting to share
them with other classes OF the popu'
, lation. In fact, the right OF the
- - nd al n
house Of commons was. in reality
lost by disuse and was only very
occasionally exercised. potably by
Edward Rushworth, clergyman OF
the Church of England, who sat In
Wight in 1854, and of DR.. Horne
Took, who, although clergyman OF
the Church of England. represented
Salisbury in parliament in 1901, un.
til the latter. largely by reason OF
crown, enacted a law which rendered
all c1ergymen of the State Church OF
England Ineligible to sit in the house
Of commons
The Rev. DR.. John Horne Took was
one Of the stormy petrels of his time
in perpetual bad odor with the gov.
ernment. and, in 1777, incurred g
years Imprisonment by order Of
kings bench, for having published
an advertisement signed by himsel,
soliciting subscriptions for the re-
| lief of the relatives Of the Americans
murdered by the kings troops a,
lexington and at Concord" It is
,nly since his time, that Is to say
since the beginning OF the las'
injury, that clerggmen of the
.hurch of England have been ex.
| luded from the house Of commons
'or IL the election Of DR.. NOVEL;
can Of st. Paul's Cathedral. was In
validated in the sixtesnth century