proprietor. He did not see the necessity | a few persons might meet together, of registering the names of all the pro- and by means of private scandal ruin prietors. Some were mere shareholders the character of any man. But no in a newspaper, and it would only gratify an idle curiosity to put their names in the register. He thought the Bill was in the right direction, and he hoped the House would agree to the second reading.

until

they had had an opportunity of making a statement before the Attorney General. As to the question of registration, he thought that registration was, on the whole, beneficial to the public, while he did not think it was injurious to editors of newspapers. That, however, was a matter to be discussed in Committee, and he would now content himself by asking the House to allow the Bill to be read a second time.

editor would have the protection of this Bill in such a case as that, for the editor must show that the publication was for the public benefit, and that it was not a mere private slander. The objection to Clause 3 which the hon. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Member for Northampton (Mr. LabouHENRY JAMES), said, the Bill appeared chere) had urged-namely, that the reto him to be a very useful measure, and quirement of a fiat from the Attorney he hoped it would not only be read General before proceedings for libel a second time, but that an opportu- could be commenced would have the nity would be afforded for reading it a effect of giving too much power to the third time. The House would remember Executive Government, was an objection that newspaper proprietors had formerly which he would meet by stating that the serious cause for complaint in being principle was one which had been much held liable for criminal proceedings extended of late years. He had alwhere they had not personally erred, ways given notice to persons accused and that this state of things produced to say what they had to say before he considerable discussion some years ago issued his fiat; but he would suggest to in relation to the liability of news- the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill paper proprietors. But some few years that the 2nd clause should be so altered ago, in a case that was heard before in Committee that a fiat should not be the late Lord Chief Justice, the opi-issued against editors of newspapers nion was strongly expressed by the Court that Lord Campbell's Act would protect from criminal proceedings those who had intrusted editorial duties to others and had not been deficient in any want of care themselves. This Bill did not deal with that point, because it was felt by the Committee which considered the matter last year that the law already existing afforded sufficient protection. The Bill was the result of the deliberations of a Select Committee of last Session, on which it could not be said that those interested in newspapers had anything like a preponderating influence, but in which the general public were well represented. One or two objections had been made to the Bill. It had been said that there ought to be greater clearness in the definition of what a public meeting was. As to that objection, he would only observe that those who made it should be good enough to define what was a public meeting. Directly you defined what was a public meeting you excluded all other meetings from the operation of the Bill. He thought it was much safer to leave a judicial tribunal to define the term "public meetPrima facie, he should say if reporters were admitted in order to report, the meeting would be regarded as public. The hon. Member for Rye Mr. Inderwick) said under this Bill

ing."

CLERICAL DISABILITIES ACT REPEAL
BILL.-[BILL 117.]

(Sir Gabriel Goldney, Mr. Thorold Rogers.)
SECOND READING.

Order for Second Reading read.

SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, observed that the object of the Bill was to get rid of a statute called Horne Tooke's Act, which was passed for the purpose of getting rid of a man whose political opinions were obnoxious. The Act excluded clergymen from sitting in the House of Commons. Mr. Horne Tooke was returned for Old Sarum at a time when political feeling was very strong. He (Sir Gabriel Goldney) did not know the reason why his right hon. Friend (Mr. Beresford Hope) sitting below him and others objected to clergymen sitting in the House of Commons.

as a Churchman, and as one who did all he could for the Church; and he asked the House to say that the clergy should not be treated as a different social order from the rest of the community. He was quite satisfied it would be beneficial to the Church if some clergymen were to come within an arena like the House.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."-(Sir Gabriel Goldney.)

MR. BERESFORD HOPE, in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, congratulated his hon. Friend on the array of authorities he had pressed into his service. Even the venerable "Brother Bragge," of political poetry, had made his appearance; and he presumed that Brother Bragge and Brother Hiley were kept in reserve. The present state of matters was that clergymen, whether with or without a cure of souls, could not sit and vote in the House, and his hon. Friend wished to alter that state of things. On previous occasions his

It was formerly held that clergymen sitting in Convocation were not privileged to sit in the House of Commons, because they claimed the right of taxing themselves through Convocation, instead of through the House of Commons, and it was felt that they ought not to have a double voice; but in 1846 the powers of Convocation were abolished. Clergymen were now eligible for all civil offices and functions, and why should they be excluded from the House of Commons? Why should they be ostracized from all political feeling and action? They performed all the ordinary duties of citizens, and became Guardians of the poor. It might be said that it was inconsistent to be in the pulpit one day and in the House the next; but this applied with equal force to officers in the Army and Navy. It might be said that they ought not to be in the House of Commons, but performing their duties as officers, and looking after their men. Nonconformist ministers also could sit in the House without any objection being taken on the ground that political life was inconsistent with clerical functions. The his-hon. Friend promoted a Bill to allow tory of the disabilities of the clergy was remarkable. For instance, at one time clergymen were excluded from hunting, on the ground that it was inconsistent with their duties; but a statute was passed which declared that it was necessary they should have that excellent exercise for the purpose of carrying on their duties more efficiently, and it was one of the prerogatives of the Crown that when a Bishop died his pack of hounds should go to the Crown, or that in lieu thereof compensation should be paid. In the performance of secular duties clergymen were admirable examples to the rest of the community. Nearly a third of the Bills in the Journals of the House dealt with subjects-such as Augmentation of Benefices, Burial Fees, Church Patronage, Ecclesiastical Endowments, Marriage Law Amendment Act, Poor Removal-in the discussion of which clergymen would be able to take part and give to the House the advantage of their knowledge and experience. He thought Parliament ought to abolish an Act that was passed for the purpose of excluding a man whose political opinions were adverse to the Minister of the day. Being unable to exclude him individually, they excluded the whole body of clergymen. He spoke

Sir Gabriel Goldney

clergymen who had not a cure of souls to sit and vote in the House. He (Mr. Beresford Hope) thought there were sufficient reasons even against that measure, and he had the satisfaction of carrying the House with him. There were already plenty of elements of disturbance in the House, plenty of heart-burnings, plenty of faction-he was not accusing one side or the other, but only that human nature, of which they were all sharers-plenty of misunderstanding, plenty of class grievances, plenty of everything which distempered debate and paralyzed wise counsels. Was it desirable, then, to introduce fresh elements of discord by bringing in what he must as a Churchman, a Christian, and a citizen say would be a most pestilent specimen of the genus citizen-namely, the political parson who would use his partizanship for his political advantage? He might either be a rich rector, with aspirations, or a discontented curate, with a grievance. In either case, he had his pulpit to preach in, his school to lecture in, his parish vestry, his meetings for mothers, for fathers, and for uncles, and did they want to introduce that man into Parlia ment also? Did they want to have the scandal of a man being able to spend his Sunday mornings and evenings in

the rest of the Session. The right hon.
Gentleman concluded by moving the
Amendment of which he had given
Notice.

the word "now," and at the end of
Amendment proposed, to leave out
the Question to add the words "upon
this day six months."-(Mr. Beresford
Hope.)

6

Question proposed, "That the word now' stand part of the Question."

preaching his political speeches from | if necessary, have its 201st division that the pulpit, and upon weekdays inflict morning for the purpose of relieving his tedious sermons on the House? itself from the present annoyance for Did they want such a man to be able from the rising of the sun until 4 o'clock to be able to canvass in his cassock, and then come down to the House and be addressed as the hon. and rev. Member for So-and-so? He should regard the introduction of "political parsons to the House as a fresh scandal to good order and religion and piety. His hon. Friend had given a list of a dozen Bills which he thought ought to be canvassed and traversed by clerical Members. He (Mr. Beresford Hope) prophesied, however, that if clergymen were admitted in sufficient numbers and of sufficient variety of clerical opinions to influence a debate, the non-clerical Members of the House would rise in revolt against them. In order to attain his hon. Friend's Utopia, half-a-dozen High, half-a-dozen Low, and half-a-dozen Broad Church clergymen would have to be secured. It was urged that it was hard that there should be no clergymen in that House, seeing that there were Bishops in the House of Lords; but it should be remembered that a clergyman would enter the House of Commons after a contested election and with constituents at his back. The election of a Bishop, on the other hand, was a ceremony which might be very abhorrent to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), but it had not much effect on his position in the House of Lords afterwards, and he had no constituents. The Bench of Bishops in the other House might be a valuable part of the Constitution or it might not. That was not the question before the House now, but it depended on totally different considerations; and to attempt to darken counsel and mix up that matter with the present discussion was only to show how trivial and imaginary was the grievance alleged in the case and how weak was the ground for the Bill. In conclusion, he trusted that the House, considering the present state of Public Business, would not encourage even so respectable a Member as his hon. Friend to air his crotchet at the expense of the national time; but that the House, which had already, before getting into Committee upon the one single Bill of importance, taken 200 divisions during this Session, would,

MR. THOROLD ROGERS, in supporting the second reading of the Bill, said, he would not attempt to follow the heated rhetoric and habitual prophecies of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He could not, however, share in the apprehensions entertained by that right hon. Gentleman as to the dangers that were likely to arise from the possible introduction of a clergyman into the House if a constituency could be found to return him. He thought, moreover, that if any clergyman were to resort to the objectionable means to acquire a seat in that House which the right hon. Gentleman had so graphically described, the constituency would know how to deal with him and would emphatically reject him. He maintained, further, that Horne Tooke's Act, which it was now proposed to repeal, was entirely unconstitutional, having been directed, not only against an individual, but against the privileges of a class without the smallest justification. All persons who were liable to be taxed for their lay possessions were in justice and on constitutional grounds eligible to be returned to Parliament if they were untainted by crime and subject to no legal disqualification. This was the result of the arrangement made between Clarendon and Archbishop Sheldon in 1655, as was proved by the cases cited in Bragge's Report of 1801, for all the cases in which clergymen, having spiritual fees, had been elected and were disqualified by vote of the House occured before 1655, and all cases, notably those of Gordon and Rushworth, in which their seats were unchallenged, occurred after that date. Horne Tooke himself had stood twice for Westminster before he was elected for Old Sarum, and no one thought of saying that votes given to

him were thrown away. The clergy had | Act; they had only to consider that the ceased to be represented, for purposes Preamble expressed the mind of Parliaof taxation, in Convocation, and, there- ment in passing it. Persons who found fore, they got votes for the House of that they had made a mistake in enterCommons and were eligible for seats ing the Church had already been relieved there. Mr. Horne Tooke had been a by the Act of 1870; and the present clergyman. He had abandoned his Bill was intended to carry that Act a living at an early period, and he took step further in a direction which he did a very active part in politics. He was not think would be indorsed by the opia very considerable politician, as well nion of the House. The Bill was deas a very considerable scholar, and signed to admit beneficed clergymen as also a great advocate of constitutional well as unbeneficed to the House, and if progress and reform. The passing of it passed they might have Dean Stanley the Act against him was a scandal, sitting in the House both as Dean of and being dictated by antipathy to a single Member for Westminster. The Canon individual. It was intended that the Law and the Common Law were brought Act should be confined to the clergy of into accord by Horne Tooke's Act; but the Church of England, or rather to the by passing the present Bill the discord united Church of England and Ireland; between the two systems of law would be and the question might well be raised restored. There was, he maintained, no whether the united Church of England necessity for the change, inasmuch as and Ireland, having now ceased to exist clergymen were now represented in their as it did before the Irish Church was lay capacity by their local Representadisestablished, any person could really tives, and in their clerical capacity in be brought under the penalties of the Convocation, and in the House of Lords. statute. That, however, he said only by This Bill was principally promoted, as the way. The Scotch Presbyterian mi- was well known, in the interest of an nister was somewhat differently placed individual. He objected to that. He from the Anglican clergyman, not being objected to the alteration of the Oath to a minister when he left his benefice. He please an individual, and he opposed held, however, that a clergyman was not that Bill on the ground that it was ina clergyman in the eye of the law or tended to meet the scruples of an indiwithin the range of spiritual authority vidual or of a few individuals. The unless actually in possession of a cure of only argument that he could see in souls. After Catholic Emancipation was favour of the Bill was that if they were conceded the same disabilities as attached to have the Member (Mr. Bradlaugh) to the Anglican clergy were extended to who had taken up so much of the time Roman Catholic priests, and he would of the House introduced, it might be not have the least objection to see a desirable to have a countervailing eleprovision inserted in the present Bill ment in the presence of some of the stating that if an Irish constituency clergy. They might, if this Bill were elected a Roman Catholic clergyman to passed, have the hon. and rev. Augustus that House their choice of such a Re- Smith, M.P., advertised to preach in presentative should be respected. The some Northampton church on the text passage of Horne Tooke's Act was an "Fear God and honour the King." He invasion of the rights of a section of the must oppose the second reading, seeing community, and he hoped to see the day there had been no Petitions or meetings very speedily arrive when it would be in favour of this measure. repealed.

COLONEL MAKINS said, he did not desire to enter into any historical discussion of Horne Tooke's case. It was enough to say that the Preamble of the Act which it was now sought to repeal declared that it was passed to remove doubts which existed as to the eligibility of persons in Holy Orders to sit in that House. They had nothing to do now with the motives which might have induced men to vote for or against that

Mr. Thorold Rogers

MR. HINDE PALMER said, he was as anxious as any Member to open the portals of the House to every man whom a constituency might think it right to return, without imposing on him any religious disabilities; but he was sorry that it should have been thought necessary by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just spoken to impart into the present discussion any reference to the unpleasant scenes which the House had witnessed with regard to the hou. Mem