ration, and animated debates. He found legislation for that purpose from sitting it laid down that, from the time of in the House. Edward I. to the year 1800, neither that House nor the Constitution of the Realm had ever recognized the right of clergymen as such to sit in Parliament. If clergymen had in fact sat, it was because the House had not recognized them as such. But whenever the House took notice of the return of clergymen it declared the return void. Reference had been made to Rushworth's case; but it would, he thought, be found that that completely broke down. Rushworth was ordained a deacon at 21, and only exercised his calling for two months, and the Committee which seated him expressly distinguished his case. As to the Bishops in the other House, they had been placed there either by statute enactment or in great official capacities; therefore, the case of the Bishops was no argument at all. They did not go through contested popular elections; they did not sit for Macclesfield or Boston, or even so immaculate a city as Oxford. He would remind the House of the words used by Lord Temple, who, in 1801, said "I conjure you to pause well . . . . . before you allow priests to desert their pulpits, to search for fame on the benches of the House of Commons, and force them to leave the plain and beaten road of religion, to wander in the crooked and uneven paths of politics; and finally, before you sink the sanctity of the clerical character in the chicanery of private prejudices, of party, and of faction."-[Parl. Hist. xxxv. 1368.] He hoped the House would reject the Bill. MR. GREGORY said, he did not attach much importance to the argument that clergymen would be damaged by taking part in contested elections. What they were really dealing with was Horne Tooke's Act. They could not ignore the circumstances which led up to that legislation; on the contrary, he thought they must take them into their present consideration. Clergymen had sat in that House previous to Horne Tooke's Act, but no objection was ever taken to them before. He asked, was this a time for continuing that disability? He believed there was nothing to apprehend from the introduction of clergymen to that House; and as the law at present stood, it operated against those who were too conscientious to relieve themselves of Holy Orders, whilst it did not prevent others who availed themselves of recent Sir John Mowbray SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, the arguments that had been advanced seemed largely to preponderate in favour of the second reading of the Bill; but he could not support it on the ground adopted by some hon. Members. He could not adopt the grounds advanced by his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers), or by the hon. Member who had just spoken. They had put it on the ground that clergymen were entitled to sit in that House until Horne Tooke's Act was passed. He believed the opposite opinion was the true one, and he had looked carefully into the matter. He believed that the greatest Parliamentary names were found in favour of the distinct and clear declaration that clergymen were ineligible to sit in the House of Commons. He might mention the names of Addington, Sir W. Scott, Mr. Law (afterwards Lord Ellenborough), Lord Eldon, and Mr. Charles Williams Winn; and this weighty roll of distinguished lawyers declared clearly on this point. As to the present Bill, it would be necessary that it should be altered. They could not take it for granted that but for Horne Tooke's Act clergymen would be entitled to a seat in that House if elected. The ground on which he would support, generally, the second reading was not because the law had been so hitherto, but because he was against the principle of religious disabilities interfering with seats in that House. That was the principle on which the Party to which he belonged had constantly acted; and step by step, and degree by degree, they had removed all the disabilities which existed by the law of Parliament or the Statutes of the Realm. He must ask, however, with regard to this Bill, what the promoters meant to do with the disabilities of the Roman Catholic clergy? Because it was impossible to pass this Bill in its present form without dealing with the 9th section of the Emancipation Act. Under that Act, Roman Catholic priests were subject to certain penalties if they sat in that House; and it would be impossible to admit one class of priests and exclude another. He thought, before the Bill went further, this was a point which the hon. Member in charge of the Bill must very seriously consider. No doubt, n old days the Secretaries of State were nearly always clergymen; and Ambassadors were more often clergymen than not. Gardiner was the Minister of Henry VIII., and the religious and secular elements were combined without difficulty. There was another difficulty, which it would be well if the hon. Member took into consideration, and that was the question of Crown patronage as it would effect clergymen. Would a clergyman holding a seat in the House, accepting preferment from the Crown, be required to vacate his seat? The object of the Act of Queen Anne was clear; and he thought this question would be a thorny one for a Committee to determine. A point was raised as to clergymen being engaged in corrupt practices. Well, they all hoped that under the Bill of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General those practices would cease to exist. But there was a much more formidable danger which threatened the right hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) and the right hon. Member for Oxford (Sir John Mowbray), and that was the formidable rivals which this Bill would, when carried, raise up. He should not be surprised to find his right hon. Friends determined opponents of the Bill, for a more formidable rivalry he could not imagine. It had been advanced by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Hinde Palmer) as an argument against the Bill, that it would create a new evil by tempting clergymen to turn their pulpits into political rostrums; but he (Sir William Harcourt) did not think that that was an evil which would be "created" by this measure, inasmuch as they had already had some experience of it. He did not think, therefore, that that was an argument that they need be afraid of. There must be some restriction in the Bill upon beneficed clergymen; and. subject to the considerations he had advanced, and on the general principle that religious disabilities ought not to be allowed to interfere with the choice of constituencies, he would support the second reading of the Bill. MR. WARTON protested against the historical disquisition, not of "Historicus," but of the learned Professor the Member for Southwark, and urged, as an argument against the Bill which had not been mentioned by any of the previous' speakers, that the Church was one of the Estates of the Realm, and as such was properly represented by Lords Spiritual in the other House of Parliament, and that it was unconstitutional for the Church to seek to extend her rights in that House. If clergymen were admitted into the House of Commons, there would be a demand that the Bishops should retire from the House of Lords. MR. T. D. SULLIVAN said, he rose for the purpose of referring to the point mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary with regard to the disabilities of Roman Catholic clergymen. He would have great pleasure in supporting this Bill if it went the whole way in the direction it professed to take; but it did not go the whole way. The Bill proposed to remove the present disability of clergymen of the Established Church to sit in the House; and he contended that if one denomination of the clergy were to be allowed to sit in the House he did not see why the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland should be excluded. If the Bill passed it would keep out the clergy of all Denominations, except those of the Church of England, and this at a time when the doors of the House of Commons were being thrown open to Infidels and Atheists. He should like to see in that House the Bishops and Priests of Ireland, and he believed they would make efficient Representatives of the Irish people. He had no doubt, if the law were altered, they would see in that House as the Representative of Tipperary, Archbishop Croke with Mr. John Dillon. He should be very glad to see in that House Dr. Nulty, who was, perhaps, better acquainted with the Land Question than any Member of that House. should like to see in that House Canon Doyle and Father Sheehy, because they would be a great advantage to its deliberations. The Bill, if passed, would exclude the Irish Catholic and Protestant clergy; and if it were passed they would soon have a new and a lively agitation in Ireland, because the Catholic and Protestant clergy of that country would not submit to lie under the disabilities which had been removed from the clergy of the Established Church in England. If the Bill were passed, the Irish people would send those clergymen to the House of Commons to fight out their battle in the same way that Mr. Bradlaugh was doing, and then it He would be found that Parliament would have to legislate upon the subject. If the hon. Member who had brought in this Bill would adopt the suggestion of its Seconder, he (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) would be glad to support it; and he believed that other Irish Members would be prepared to do the same. MR. S. LEIGHTON said, that the Act of 1870 had relieved the clergy from the professional grievance-complaint of which was made by some persons on their behalf, but not by themselves. He might refer to the case of barristers and officers of the Army, to show how inconsistent the two functions of being Members of Parliament and being actively engaged in their Professions were with the proper discharge of their duties in the latter capacity. The combination of the two functions exercised a demoralizing effect on the Bar as a Profession; the same result would be produced in the case of the clergy if they sat in that House, seeing the vast amount of patronage which was in the hands of the Government. Suppose a number of aspiring and able clergymen constantly attacking the Government, and hon. Members could easily conceive how great would be the temptation to stop their mouths by giving them some ecclesiastical preferment. Suppose the Dean of Westminster, as had been suggested, were in the House, he might in a little time become Prime Minister, and then recommend himself to the Archbishop of Canterbury and hold the two Offices together, as they had been held together before. They would thus be going back to the state of things that existed in the time of Henry VIII. It was an error to suppose that constituencies might return whom they liked, and that the House was bound to admit the person elected. Clergymen in that House would not represent the Church, but their own particular opinions, or the opinions of their constituency or of their Party. The benefit which the Bill proposed to confer was not desired by the Church, and he hoped the House would not assent to the second reading. SIR II. DRUMMOND WOLFF rose to a point of Order. He had to complain of the manner in which the Bill had been introduced. It was religious in its manner and aims, and ought, he maintained, to have been brought in in Committee of the Whole House. Mr. T. D. Sullivan SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEY said, it was so introduced. MR. NEWDEGATE said, he was reminded by the present debate of a scene once enacted in the National Convention of France, when one Anacharsis Clootz made his appearance there as the representative of All Nations. It seemed to him that if the ultra-Liberal disposition to remove all restrictions were to prevail, aliens, now excluded, would be admitted to seats in that House, and then Mr. Speaker would occupy a position analogous to that of Anacharsis Clootz. If the restrictions upon the admission of Atheists were to be removed, he should see little reason for maintaining them against the clergy. Until professed Atheists were admitted, he should abide by the exclusion of the clergy. He asked the House to consider for a moment the probable consequences of the measure it was now invited to assent to. It was his belief that the clergy were best represented by the Bishops in the House of Lords; but the authority of the Bishops was contested, and even openly defied, and if beneficed clergy were admitted to that House, their action might further weaken the authority and power of the Bishops. He saw no advantage to an Episcopal Church in counteracting the authority of the Bishops; and that must result from the admission of the inferior clergy to seats in that House, for their admission would inevitably encourge those among the clergy who were inclined to rebel against the authority of the Bishops. It was upon the practical ground that the measure tended to introduce a principle of confusion into the Constitution of this country that he took objection to it. Moreover, the admission of the clergy to seats in that House was not demanded by any considerable section of them. On the contrary, he believed that the wishes of the clergy pointed in a distinctly different direction. His hon. Friend (Mr. Leighton) had stated that many persons objected to the clergy acting as justices of the peace, and, no doubt, that was the case; but he (Mr. Newdegate) did not concur in that objection. The function of a magistrate was consistent with the Constitution of the Church of England, which defined herself to be a congregation of faithful men, and her clergy as citizens. There was, however, a broad line of distinction to be drawn between the making and the administration of the law. The clergy of the Church of England were peculiarly bound to obey the law, and he (Mr. Newdegate) held that they were peculiarly adapted and qualified to administer the law as justices of the peace; and he believed that their admission to seats in that House would be the introduction of an element of weakness, or he might rather say an aggravation of an element of weakness in the Church, that would be without any countervailing advantage to the House itself. MR. W. FOWLER said, the real question to be decided was whether there was any good reason for the exclusion of a large body of highly intelligent men from the House, and he had failed to hear a single sound argument against their admission. It was a matter for a man's own conscience to settle whether his duties as a beneficed clergyman were or were not compatible with those which he would have to discharge as a Member of Parliament. But there were many clergymen who were not beneficed, but who objected to make the declaration under the Act of 1870 which they must do before they could become Members of the House; and why should Parliament exclude them? The true test of qualification was that a Member should be the choice of a constituency, and it was not for the House to say that such or such a man should not be elected. It was absurd to suppose that a clergyman could be defiled more than any other man by having to pass through the turmoil of a contested election. He was glad, he might add, to find that no speaker, not even the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), had opposed the Bill on the ground that if it were passed its provisions should be made to include the Roman Catholic clergy. SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEY said, he was in error in stating that the Bill had been introduced in Committee of the Whole House. It had, however, been brought in in a perfectly regular way, in accordance with the precedent set in Horne Tooke's case. He would only add that if the Bill were read a second time he should be prepared to refer it to a Select Committee, by whom the various suggestions made for its amendment might be considered. He should also be prepared to introduce a clause providing that any clergyman taking SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, explained that its object was to diminish the evils of the longcredit system which obtained so largely in this country by limiting the period during which debts under £100 could be recovered to 12 months. Among the upper and middle classes it was a common thing for bills to run on for three or four years, and, as the result, people were tempted to buy articles which they could not really afford; minors ran up enormous bills without the knowledge of their parents or guardians, and wives and daughters in a similar way deceived their husbands and fathers; while the tradesman charged an excess of 16 or 17 per cent, or even more-there was a tailor's case not long ago before the Courts in which as much as 50 per cent was charged-to recoup him for the loss he sustained by waiting so long for his money. He heard the other day of a man owing as much as £14,000 to his fruiterer. The lower class, though affected in a lesser degree, suffered a good deal from the "tally" system. On the whole, therefore, the Bill would, no doubt, be of great public advantage. Tradesmen, as a rule, he believed, would welcome it, though he was not surprised to hear that it had been condemned by some of the West End tradesmen, who, having a wealthy clientèle, were interested in keeping up the long-credit system with its attendant surcharges, Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."-(Lord Randolph Churchill.) Even to West End tradesmen, however, I make the Bill compulsory; it would it would probably in the long run prove always be open to people to contract a boon by saving them from the bad themselves out of it. The limit of six debts which very frequently led them years now set to the recovery of debts into bankruptcy. Under a ready-money was a purely arbitrary one; and it system the co-operative stores, which seemed to him that 12 months, so far had done so much harm to tradesmen, as sums under £100 were concerned, would have no raison d'être, and the would be in every way a more contradesmen of the lower class would reap venient one. The noble Lord concluded a direct and immediate benefit from the by moving the second reading of the Bill by receiving the ready money which Bill. now went exclusively to the publican. He believed the working classes very seldom paid for necessaries on the spot. The long-credit system was peculiarly English. It was, at all events, quite unknown in France and America, the principal commercial rivals of England, the ready-money system obtaining almost entirely in those countries. Financially, English society at the present time was in a very unhealthy state, and the habit which so many people had of living beyond their incomes was greatly stimulated by the long-credit system. As minor evils of this system, it would be within the knowledge of many hon. Members that young men at the Universities ran themselves head over ears into debt, and that people who were not careful with their receipts were not unfrequently made to pay a bill twice or thrice over. He was aware that there was another Bill before the House on the same subject-the Limitation of Actions Bill-which had come down from the Lords in the name of Earl Cairns. But that Bill applied to all debts, no matter of what amount, and did not limit credit to less than three years. He thought that in the case of large commercial transactions interference of this kind would produce great embarrassment. Hence he had restricted his own Bill to debts incurred on account of necessaries, for which a year's credit seemed ample. It would be well, of course, to allow some interval to elapse before it passed into law, so that tradesmen might prepare for it; | but a period of commercial depression like the present was, perhaps, the most favourable for securing the public acceptance of its provisions. People, he believed, would welcome any legislation which promised to enable them to bring their expenses within their diminished incomes, and which would place the country at large in a sounder financial condition. Of course, he did not propose to Lord Randolph Churchill THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) said, no doubt, the subject was an interesting and important one. He entirely agreed with the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock with respect to the evils of long credit; but the question was whether the Bill which he had now introduced would have the effect he had in view. Under the Bill, the tradesman would not be able to refuse credit altogether; but he wouldexcept in cases of special debts exceeding £100-be able to give credit for 12 months, and recover the amount within that time. The consequence would be that although the credit would be limited from six years to 12 months, they would not diminish the number of times during which credit was given. They would put a weapon into the tradesman's power of being able to give the credit, and of having the excuse to enforce payment within 12 months. The Bill, therefore, would not abolish the evils of the credit system; on the contrary, its effect would be, in some measure, to aggravate them by giving a kind of legislative sanction to credit in the case of the smaller transactions of life, and by producing a crop of summonses at the end of every year. Besides, the foolish undergraduates and dressy women, to whom the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock had referred, would be tempted to raise their bills to more than £100, so as to escape the limitation of credit proposed in the Bill. There was a Bill before the House, sent down from the House of Lords, which had been introduced by Lord Cairns, and had received the approval of the Lord Chancellor, reducing the limit for special debts to six years, and for simple contract debts to three years. To that Bill, which would obviate the evils attending |