duced to prove the fact of the ordina- | person who, according to our internal tion of the gentleman who was the object of discussion. He thought it would be most preposterous if the House went into the question of law before the necessity of any discussion of such a question was rendered apparent, by the proof of the fact which it was now wished to establish. Earl Temple wished to have it distinctly understood, that he did assume Mr. Horn Tooke to be ineligible to a seat in parliament, and that it was from a conviction of this, that he had brought forward the motion. Mr. Sheridan thought that the feeble attempts to answer the objections which Mr. Fox had, in the outset of the discussion, brought forward against the motion, instead of weakening them, only tended to illustrate them in a clearer light. He contended, that the mode of proceeding which the noble lord had adopted, gave considerable colour to the supposition that the motion was not the child of his own brain, and if it could not claim any of the legal gentlemen as a father, at least it had found in them most zealous defenders! There was this difference indeed betwixt this motion and the general course of legal proceedings, that in the one there was always presented a case, whereas at present there was merely a proposition, produced on general grounds, on public rumour, and certain undefined apprehensions which existed in the minds of those who had thought it necessary to submit the affair to the House. It had been alleged, indeed, that by adopting this measure, time would be saved; but how did it appear that, even in this view, the motion would be productive of advantage? Did it not, on the contrary, tend rather to embarrass than to facilitate the discussion, by obliging the House, in the first in stance, to prosecute an inquiry, which, by the previous consideration of the general question, might be rendered unnecessary? It was absurd, then, to have two separate subjects of investigation before the House, when one of them was calculated to promote all the ends in view. The language of the motion was in fact, that it was of no consequence to ascer tain the existence of a statute on the subject, for what meaning had it at all, if this was not its exact import? We know not whether any statute excluding a person who has taken priest's orders from a seat in the House really does exist; but let us first ascertain whether the conviction is ineligible, is a priest, and then we will search for precedent in sup. port of our internal conviction! But how absurd does this mode of proceeding appear when applied to other cases! The noble lord perhaps has an internal conviction that a person who has become a bankrupt, after his election is incapable of sitting in the House. Would he in that case bring witnesses to the bar to prove the defect of his qualification? If a person who is a member of this House had received the appointment of an office abroad, would it be requisite to send persons all over Europe to prove the fact of his appointment? In a word, if any member has an internal conviction, that another member is incompetent to have a seat, would it be requisite that the House should hear evidence of the ground of this internal conviction? Yet such were the consequences resulting from the adoption of the motion in the first instance, without any previous determination. But probably it would be said, that the rumour in this case was much stronger, and that therefore the cases were by no means parallel. But it might be asked, why was the internal conviction stronger in the present instance than in any of the others, supposing the conviction ought to bear some proportion to the means of forming a judgment? The noble lord had a strong conviction that the hon. member was disqualified from sitting in the House. But might it not with more propriety be assumed, that, as no petition to the contrary had been laid on the table of the House, he had a right to sit after being returned by a certain portion of the people of Eng. land? The noble lord was therefore called on in the first instance to state that the hon. gentleman was excluded by some express branch, either of the common or statute law, and till this was done the presumption was strongly against his internal conviction. It had been said, indeed, that no other mode had been sug gested amid all the various objections now offered to the present motion. The best mode seemed to him to be, the appointment of a committee to search for precedents, on which the House might pronounce an opinion, and if it should afterwards be found necessary, they might proceed to an inquiry. Mr. W. Dundas said, if the mode of proceeding which the gentlemen on the other side contended for, were adopted, § there would be no end of inquiries; because any gentleman might gratify his curiosity by proposing any abstract question whatever, and might call upon the House to decide upon it. For instance, if any gentleman had a curiosity to know whether a man of colour was entitled to sit in that House, he might, if he pleased, (upon the principles contended for) call on the House to appoint a committee to determine it. If a person were to make a motion of that kind, would not the House have a right to ask the gentleman for what purpose he called upon the House to decide the question? Mr. Fox said, that the whole of what he had heard only determined him the more to persist in the opinion which he had at first expressed. The gentlemen on the other side did not seem to make a proper distinction between parole and written evidence, as they might affect the proceedings of that House. If they looked into the Journals, they would find innumerable papers called for and laid before the House upon which no inquiry was instituted. The only object in calling for these papers was, to obtain information, and after that was obtained, if it appeared sufficient to ground an inquiry, the House usually referred it to a committee, after they had determined upon the propriety of the inquiry. Mr. Fox repeated his distinction between the proceedings of a court of law, and what ought to be the proceedings of that House. No evidence, he contended, should be brought forward, before it was stated and proved what was the nature of the right contested. This he illustrated by a variety of examples; and wished that some member would suggest some more eligible mode of proceeding on the present question than that which had been adopted. It seemed to be feared that the discussion of it might be protracted to too great a length. If, how ever, it was more nearly inspected into, it would be found a question of much importance, and one that might lead to very serious consequences. On these grounds principally he recommended an adjourn ment, that the House might re-consider precedents, and examine how far they might coincide with a case where no petition was presented against the sitting member on the part of the electors. This he would have referred to a select committee, but one so chosen as not to leave room for the slightest suspicion of prejudice or partiality in its choice. As to the question itself, he had no opinion at present to deliver; but when it came to a decision, he would endeavour to show that it should not be approached with any unusual precipitancy, or any unusual negligence of the orders and proceedings of the House. It was said, that the representative of Old Sarum, when once elected, was of as much weight in the House as those of York or of Middlesex and he was glad that this doctrine was now so seriously stated, and so calmly listened to. It might lead to an investigation of the nature of such boroughs, and this investigation might involve very important consequences. The present discussion was, therefore, of more moment than gentlemen seemed to be aware of, and as such he wished the question to be referred to a select committee. He must now, however, move that the House do adjourn. The House divided on Mr. Fox's motion: The Earl Temple NOES {Mr. Simeon ..... So it passed in the negative. Then the main question being put, was agreed to. Mr. Boucher, the notary register of the diocese of Salisbury, was then called in, and from his examination it appeared that Mr. John Horne, B. A. of the college of St. John, Cambridge, was ordained a priest on the 23rd of Nov. 1760. Mr. Wilson, Clerk of the chapelry of New Brentford, was next examined, and from his evidence it appeared that he had been clerk of that chapel upwards of 44 years, and that during that period, he recollected that the rev. John Horne had officiated as a priest, and had administered the sacrament of the Lord's Supper in that capacity. Mr. Clithero was then examined; and his testimony proved that he had seen the rev. John Horne administer the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and that he paid him small tithes and other things by way of composition as ecclesiastical dues; that he supposed the rev. John Horne to be the same person who was since, and is now known by the name of John Horne Tooke. He heard he had the king's licence to take the latter name, and that he had often since been in his company. As to who ordained him, or whether he had ever been ordained, he was totally ignorant. Earl Temple next moved, "That a select committee be appointed to examine the Journals of this House, and records of parliament, for precedents, respecting the eligibility of persons in Holy Orders to sit in this House; and to report the same to the House." The motion was agreed to; and a committeee appointed. Report from the Select Committee respecting the Eligibility of Persons in Holy Orders to sit in the House.] April 2. Mr. Bragge presented the following REPORT. The Select Committee appointed to examine the Journals of this House, and Records of Parliament, for Precedents respecting the Eligibility of Persons in Holy Orders to sit in this House; and to report the same to the House-have proceeded in the examination directed by the House; and have agreed upon the following Report: In prosecuting the inquiry directed by the House, your Committee have thought it right to direct a search to be made into all the returns to writs issued for the election of members to serve in parliament, from the earliest period in which they are extant, to the present time; with a view of ascertaining, from the additions to the names in such returns, whether any of the clergy were therein included. They find, from the result of this search, that in the early periods, previous to the 8th Hen. IV, when the practice of returning citizens and burgesses by indentures annexed to the writ first prevailed, the names are generally returned without any addition whatever, except in the instance of knights, and the general addition to each return of "citizens and burgesses." Your Committee find, however, that in five instances during that period, particularly specified under the third head in the following part of this Report, the addition of "clericus" appears to the names therein contained. That from the 8th Hen. IV, the additions are more frequent and particular, containing often the addition "sadler, mercer," and the like; but none that of " clericus," except in the single instance of John Robson, who appears to be the person whose return was declared void by the House in the 18th Jac. I. Under the uncertainty of the possible application of some of these descriptions to persons in holy orders, your Committee have thought it fit to insert all those that can possibly admit of such a construction, though fully aware that many of them are well known to be civilians only. In the examination of the Rolls and Journals of parliament, your Committee have thought it their duty to lay before the House, such passages as came under their observation in a diligent search through the of it. The result of the whole they have arranged under the following heads: 1. Summons of of the mode of exercising their functions the clergy to parliament-particular instances attendance. 2. Taxation of the clergy. §. All there-their privileges consequent to such such instances as could furnish any presumption of individuals in holy orders having been returned as members of the House of Commons. Under this head, however, your Committee think it right to remark, that though they have inserted the case of sir Thomas Haxey, clerk, as having given rise to different opinions among writers upon this subject, they find, upon an examination directed by them into the returns, still perfect and extant in the Tower, of the 20th year of Rich. II, that no such name occurs amongst themand that, as to the name of Christopher Parkins, returned as dean of Carlisle, in the 39th and 43rd Eliz., it appears by a patent in the Rolls chapel of the 38th Eliz. that the said deanry was granted to him with the following express dispensation: "And in regard that the queen had admitted him into her family, and been accustomed to employ him in weighty concerns, she dispensed with his not being in any sacred or other orders; and also granted her dispensation to him, on account of his being married to a wife then living; and likewise dispensed with his resi dence on the deanry." 4. Proceedings in the House of Commons relative to the "Act for disabling all Persons in Holy Orders to exercise anie Temporall Jurisdic'con or Authority;" and a copy of the act itself. [No. 1, 2, and 3, contain Extracts from the Parliament Rolls from the reign of Edward I.] Extracts from the Journals. 12 Octobris, 1553.—Mr. Secretary Bourne, sir R. Southwell, Mr. Tregonwell, Mr. Mershe, Mr. Story, Mr. Gosnolde, to inquire for Alex. Newell, burgess of Loo in Cornwall. prebend of Westminster, if he may be of this House; and likewise for John Forster? Veneris 13.—It is declared by the commis sioners, that Alex. Newell, being prebendary in Westminster, and thereby having voice in the Convocation-house, cannot be a member of this House; and so agreed by the House; the queen's writ to be directed for another gess in that place. Die Junii, 1604. Mr. Tate: -Some of House be of the convocation: they to be pined to bring in a copy of the letters of hority to the convocation. Ir. Speaker: Touching such of the convoion of the House as ought not to be here. 1 Aprilis, 1614.-Sir Rich. Willyamson :O precedent for Mr. Attorney general, in - individuo: so nothing against him, but might be of the House. Considerable, as is a subject. Every freeman may be osen. The words of the writ, de probis et scretioribus: he both these -The preceents, to disable him, ought to be shewed on e other side-Doctor of Divinity.-The oroughs have chosen according to the rit. Precedents upon the same reasonDe rebus paribus pari ratione.-Precedents or the serjeant, above, and solicitor, below, he attorney. Jeffreyes, 18 Eliz.--Ruled, because no voice nor any member there. Mr. Whitlock:-No record that he can find, hat attorney, solicitor, serjeant, master of the rolls, secretary, chancellor of the exche- | quer, from 26 Hen. VIII. Onslow, solicitor: Cordell, master of the rolls.-Never any master of the rolls of the House, till Cromwell, 26 Hen. VIII, because, before, all masters of the rolls, till then, in holy orders, and so could not be of this House. Mr. Finch:-None to be excepted by law, but sheriffs, in orders, and judges. The judges must be of the Upper House, for writs of error, which must be done by their direction and advice. | 8 Feb, 1620.-Sir Geo. Moore proceedeth with his report for the third question concerning the return of a minister, returned for Morpeth in Northumberland. Sir Edw. Coke :-When he speaker, one put out: and that he saw Alex. Nowell (though he had not curam animarum) put out, because of the Convocation-house. Upon question, resolved, his return void; and a new writ to issue, for a new election. 9 Jan., 1661.-Upon reading the petition of John Wandesford, esq.; and a certificate also being produced, touching Dr. Craddock's being in holy orders: Ordered, That the matter upon the said petition and certificate be referred to the committee of privileges, to take the same into consideration; and to examine whether Dr. Joseph Craddock be in holy orders, and so disabled to sit as a member of this House; and make report of it to this House. 17 Jan., 1661.-Serjeant Charleton reports, from the committee of privileges and elections, touching the election for the borough of Richmond in the county of Yorke, that it appeared to them, that Dr. Craddock was in holy orders; and that Mr. Wandesford had the majority of voices present at the election: and the opinion of the committee, that Dr. Craddock was uncapable of being elected a burgess for the borough; and that Mr. Wandesford was duly elected, and ought to sit as burgess for the said borough of Richmond. Resolved, that this House doth agree with the committee, that Dr. Craddock was a person uncapable to be elected, and his election void: and that Mr. Wandesford was duly elected a burgess for the said borough of Richmond, and ought to sit in this House: and that the clerk of the crown, or his deputy, do attend this House with the return; and do erase out the name of Dr. Craddock, and insert the name of Mr. Wandesford. Which was the next day done at the clerk's table. Mercurii, 7 Feb., 1620.-Sir George Moore reporteth, from the committee of privileges, meeting yesterday, first in the exchequer chamber, and from thence into this House: 1. All of opinion against a clerk, returned; because had, or might have, a voice in the Convocation-house: therefore not fit to be admitted here: and would have 10 Martii, 1640.-Resolved, upon the quesfined the town but for their poverty. 2. For tion, That the legislative and judicial power, viscount Faulkeland, elected a knight, for of bishops, in the House of Peers in parliaHertfordshyre, before he was a baron of Scot-ment, is a great hindrance to the discharge land. Mr. Hackwyll, accordant: For the reason of not serving [here], because a voice, or attendeth, above; clerks [of] the Convocation, &c. Sir H. Poole :-No Englishman, but to be either of the Upper or Lower House.-Continueth a subject of this kingdom still. Sir Edo. Coke : Cannot be silent in this. | Excellent learning to determine it genere. Trial here per pures. For nobility, not by dukes, for dukes; but by the nobility, either of the Upper or Lower House, except some few cases. A knight not to be tried by knights. Every Englishman not of Upper or Lower House.Nowell put out, because had voice in Convocation. A banneret cannot serve here, in respect of the honour he bath at funerals, &c. [VOL. XXXV. ] | of their spiritual function, prejudicial to the commonwealth, and fit to be taken away by: bill; and that a bill be drawn to that purpose.. 11 Martii, 1640.--Resolved, upon the question, That for bishops, or any other clergymen whatsoever, to be in the commissions of the peace, or to have any judicial power in the star chamber, or in any civil court, is a hindrance to their spiritual function, prejudicial to the commonwealth, and fit to be taken away by a bill; and that a bill be drawn to that purpose. 3 Martii, 1641.-Prima vice lecta est Billa, An Act to restrain Bishops, and others in Holy Orders, to intermeddle with secular affairs. Aprilis, 1641.-Secunda vice lecta est Billa, An Act to restrain Bishops, and others in Holy Orders, from intermeddling with secular [4 R] affairs; upon question, committed unto the committee for the act to disable clergymen to exercise any temporal or lay office or commission. This Report was rendered necessary only by the following case in point having been omitted in the former. 21 Aprilis, 1641.-Mr. Prideaux reports Case of Mr. Rushworth.---27 Maii 1784.— the bill, intituled, "An Act, that bishops, A petition of John Barrington, esq. was deand others in Holy Orders, shall not inter-livered in at the table, and read; setting meddle with secular affairs: and the amend-forth, that, at the last election of members to ments thereunto were twice read; but, by serve in parliament for the borough of Newreason of the great business of the House, by port in the Isle of Wight, the petitioner, toformer order appointed for this time, the fur-gether with the hon. Hugh Seymour Conther consideration of the said bill, and amendments, was adjourned to the next convenient time. An act for disabling the clergy to exercise any temporal or lay office, or commission in his majesty's courts of justice within the realm of England and dominion of Wales, was this day brought from the committee; and, according to the opinion of the committee, for laying of it aside, upon the question for engrossing, it was rejected. An act for disinabling all persons in Holy Orders to exercise anie Temporal Juris diction or authority. Whereas bishopps and other persons in holie orders ought not to be intangled with secular jurisdic'con (the office of the ministery being of such greate importance that it will take up the whole man) and for that it is found by long experience that theire intermeddling with secular jurisdic'cons hath occasioned great mischiefes and scandall both to church and state. His majesty out of his religious care of the church and soules of his people is gratiously pleased that it bee enacted and by authority of this present parliament bee it enacted that no archbishopp or bishopp or other person that now is or hereafter shall bee in holy orders shall at any time after the 15th February 1641 have any scate or place suffrage or voice or use or execute any power or authority in the parliaments of this realme nor shall bee of the privy councell of his majesty his heires or successors or justice of the peace of Oyer and Terminer or Gaole delivery or execute anie temporall authority by virtue of anie commission but shall bee wholly dishabled and be encapable to have receive use or execute anie of the said offices places powers authorities and things aforesaid And bee it further enacted by the authority aforesaid that all acts from and after the said 15th day of February which shall bee done or executed by anie archbishopp or bishopp or other person whatsoever in holy orders and all and everie suffrage or voice given or delivered by them or anie of them or other thing done by them on anie of them contrarie to the purport and true meaning of this present act shall be utterly void to all intents construc'cons and purposes. April 14. Mr. Bragge brought up a Second Report from the said Committee. way, and Edward Rushworth, clerk, were candidates; and that the said Edward Rushworth, on or about the 16th of April 1780, was admitted into the holy order of deacon, by John lord bishop of Oxford, in the stead and by the desire of John late lord bishop of Winchester deceased, and by the said lord bishop was then ordained a deacon; and, on the same 16th of April, the said Edward Rushworth was licensed to serve the curacy of the church of Whitsbury, in the county of Wilts, within the diocese of Winchester, to which the said Edward Rushworth had been previously nominated and appointed by the rev. Henry Longdon, vicar of Whitsbury aforesaid at the yearly sum of 301. for his maintenance in the same; and by virtue of such ordination, the said E. Rushworth exercised for some time the function of a clerk in holy orders, by reading prayers, and preaching, in the parish church of Newport and several other churches within the diocese of Winchester; and that the said E. Rushworth, being at the time of the said election a clerk in holy orders, was not capable of being elected to serve for the said borough of Newport in parliament; and that, previous to the commencement of the poll for the said election, the electors, assembled together, were informed that the said E. Rushworth was a clerk in deacon's orders, and not eligible to serve in parliament, and such of the electors who voted for him would throw away their votes; but that, notwithstanding such public notification of the ineligibility of the said E. Rushworth to be a member of this House, several of the electors voted for the said E. Rushworth; and Henry Trattle, the mayor and returning officer of the said borough, took on himself to receive on his poll such votes for the said E. Rushworth, and made a return of the said E. Rushworth, with the said Hugh Seymour Conway, as members to serve in this present parliament for the said borough although the petitioner was duly elected, and ought to have been returned in the place and stead of the said E. Rushworth: and therefore fore praying the House to take the premises into consideration; and to give him such relief as to the House shall seem meet. Ordered, that the said petition be taken into consideration upon the 19th of August next, at three of the clock in the af ternoon. 21 Die Junii, 1784.-Resolved, that this |