HC Deb 26 February 1957 vol 565 cc1171-93

Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 10, leave out subsection (3).

Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—

10.6 p.m.

Mr. Hale

I was struggling, I am afraid unsuccessfully, just before seven o'clock, to bring my remarks to a close when time, like an ever-rolling stream, swept me into the non-county Borough of Stockton-on-Tees. It is such a long time ago that I feel I might almost ask for the indulgence of the House for my remarks after this long interval. Indeed, I am in the difficulty that I am not quite sure what I said. I thought that it was rather good as far as it went, but I am not sure where I had got to.

I think that I had got to the geographical point, which is interesting, because, as I understand the present situation, it is that if a clergyman is a clergyman of the Church of England in England, he is disqualified, but if he receives a benefice in Wales he is not disqualified. If that be so, and if his bishop does not like him in Parliament, he only has to promote that clergyman to a benefice in England to disqualify him again. That seems to me to be a singularly unfortunate opportunity for one of their Lordships to interfere in House of Commons affairs.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) was referring to the possible necessity, which may not be directly material, of removing the clergy from another place. Personally, I am in favour of removing another place from the clergy. But that, of course, is a point of view which I would not wish now to expand. The hon. Member for Basingstoke, in a dissertation which we all listened to with respect, because he always speaks informatively—and I think the hon. Gentleman had some support from our side of the Committee— was dealing with a wholly irrelevant proposition.

It is not for us to decide whether it is desirable for the Church to have members here. It is not for us to decide—and I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) for not giving way; I was pressed for time, but time alters all things—whether it is desirable for the Church of England to have ministers here or for the Roman Catholic Church to have priests here. It is for us to consider whether it is right for us to say that they are ipso facto debarred.

That is the material question. I could well understand that Convocation might say, "No, we do not want this." I could well understand Convocation saying, "We do not want clergy to be engaged in controversial disputes in the House of Commons." I would not agree with them. I think it is desirable that they should be. If hon. Members will only think for a minute, they will see why. When my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) with perhaps a shade less than his usual tact, said that two previous speakers had been talking tommy-rot, how salutary it would have been had a clergyman in this House listened to his speech and said: Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. It may well be that in recent debates observations could have been made better by a clergyman. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East said, "Well, of course, we know that there are anomalies, but this is not the time for dealing with anomalies". One of our troubles is that it is never the time for dealing with anomalies in this House. Almost everyone who has spoken has said that it is unjust. But supposing that a priest or a clergyman had got up and said: That which the palmerworm bath left bath the locus eaten"— he might well have drawn the attention of the hon. Member for Islington, East to the material point that it is the job of this House to deal with anomalies and to take advantage of such opportunities as offer.

Speaking seriously, I would say this. I do not believe that in a House which begins its labours with Prayer, in a House which is the legislative body of a Christian country, it is right for us to say that there is something in the office of a clergyman which debars him from taking part in our deliberations. I do not often make a personal boast, but one of the things of which I am proud is to have the honour of the friendship of distinguished members of three Churches—of a former President of Conference, of a bishop of the Catholic Church and of a canon of the Church of England. I cannot think that this House would be weaker if we had the benefit of their advice from time to time. In any event, it is for them to decide whether they would wish to come. It is not for us to say that because of their sanctity, because of their holy orders, and because of their devotion to the ethics of life they are not competent to take part in controversy, or that they would weaken this House if they came here. I feel that this is an issue of importance.

I think that it was the hon. Member for Bermondsey who said that there was no demand for it. But that never is an argument.

Mr. Mellish (Bermondsey)

I have not spoken yet.

Mr. Hale

I am not accusing my hon. Friend of having taken the vow of silence. I am sure that he will not be inhibited. It is not for us to say that. We have no right to say it.

In conclusion, I only want to say that I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley for suggesting that perhaps my recollection at some event about the late Reverend Horne Tooke was inaccurate. He said that I said—I am not sure that I said it—that the House of Commons did not take action soon after his election. The House of Commons had been very well aware of the Reverend Horne Tooke and his candidature for many years. In point of fact, he was summoned to the Bar of the House for a libel on the Speaker. He was prosecuted for sedition and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment for seditious political attacks.

The hon. Member for Dudley may well recall the situation. The Reverend Horne Tooke devised a subscription for the suffering people of Lexington, who had been attacked by British troops. There is a recent historical parallel to that which I need not go into now. He was dealt with very seriously, fined £200 and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, and he always attributed the gout from which he suffered in later life to the claret which he drank while in prison.

He stood as Parliamentary candidate for Westminster, against Charles James Fox. There is a famous case in which Fox sued him for his election expenses. The Reverend Home Tooke made a speech in which he told the jury, "We hire the Lord Chief Justice and the ushers to keep order, but not to interfere in the merits of the matter." That is a speech which I have always wanted to make myself in the courts, but have never yet found an opportunity of doing so. After that, he stood again and was defeated before his eventual election in 1801, and even then the House did not say that he was disqualified.

The House passed an Act which said that he was disqualified from further election. There was no question that that Act was passed as a punitive measure against him and for no other reason. No one can suggest that this matter was discussed on high theological grounds, or with any reference to the canon law. That is the situation as I see it.

10.15 p.m.

The only argument put forward which impressed me, if I may say so with all courtesy, was that of the hon. Member for Islington, East, who said that perhaps it was objectionable that a matter of high State principle should be decided in the form of a minor Amendment to a Bill which is substantially agreed. I could have wished that this matter had been raised as a substantive matter and had been discussed at length and considered only after consultation with the appropriate body. However, it is true to say it has been fairly well canvassed in the years which have gone by. There was the unhappy case of Mr. MacManaway, who finally lost his seat after much legislation. The arguments were then fully gone into. It is true, and clear, that up to the last minute there was a good deal of doubt about how that issue might be decided, and it was certainly an arguable point.

So we are left in the condition that some clergy are definitely disqualified, some clergy are definitely not disqualified, and others are in very grave doubt as to whether they are qualified or not. I remember the present Minister of Education, in the days before he was First Lord of the Admiralty, and in the days before he was a noble Lord, arguing that one of my hon. Friends must be disqualified because, although a Nonconformist, he had been consecrated by the hands of a bishop and that that must bring him within the purview of the Act. That view was not accepted at the time, but it is evidence of the fact that there can be a great deal of controversy about the matter.

I would also say a word about the Roman Catholic priesthood. As I understand, the reason that was given for excluding Roman Catholic priests from this House is—the argument of the Established Church does not apply to them; there is the academic argument that the Church of England is established, but it is purely academic that it is established—was that of Titus Oates, the argument that here are clergy who owe some allegiance to a head of State who does not live in this country.

I am trying to put this as fairly and as moderately as I can, and also as inoffensively as I can, but it was an offensive argument against the Catholic Church, and we should not repeat it. It is not right today to say that people are disqualified for reasons like that. Of course, it is for the hierarchy to say whether they would wish Catholic priests to come into this House. That is entirely their concern. But is it right for us to say that they are disqualified because they are in holy orders, because they are priests, and because they are persons consecrated to the service of mankind?

Therefore, although I could have wished that the matter had been raised in another form, if my hon. Friends think it necessary to press the matter to a Division I shall feel compelled to support them in the Lobby. I feel that we have not the right to exclude people merely because they are men of high character, devoted to human service, many of them with profound knowledge of political conditions and with a distinctive contribution to make to our discussions in the House which, I think, might raise and improve the tone of our debates.

Brigadier Terence Clarke (Portsmouth, West)

I can understand the predicament in which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) finds himself. Earlier in the day there were twenty Amendments in his name and he was not here to deal with any of them, and so he has had to make his speech at this time of night.

I am not interested in fighting the battle of the clergy. I am not interested in whether the clergy come into the House or not.

Mr. Mellish

On a point of order, Sir Charles. If the hon. and gallant Member is not interested in the clergy, how can he speak on a question which deals specifically with them?

The Chairman

That is what I was wondering, for the Amendment is about clergy.

Brigadier Clarke

I did not hear what the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said, but I am sure that it was irrelevant. I did hear what you said, Sir Charles. I did not hear the hon. Member's objection.

I am not concerned about whether clergy conic to the House or not. I think that anybody who has a contribution to make ought to be able to do so. The point that I am interested in raising tonight is that nearly seven years ago the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) did his very best to stop me entering the House by trying to suggest that I was disqualified because I was a soldier. Nevertheless, against every obstacle he put in my way, I was elected to the House. At that time, when he was trying to stop soldiers from coming to the House, he considered that soldiers ought to resign from the Army before they came here.

The Chairman

Whether they ought to resign or not, they do not come under the Amendment.

Brigadier Clarke

I may be skating on thin ice—[Laughter.]—nevertheless, if hon. Members opposite remain quiet for a moment, I think I shall make myself clear. The fact remains that no soldier, while still serving, can come to the House. He is disqualified, but an engine driver or a doctor working for the nationalised Health Service—

The Chairman

I must warn the hon. and gallant Member that if he does not accept my Ruling, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Brigadier Clarke

I bow to your Ruling on the matter, Sir Charles, but I feel that a soldier has as much right as a doctor or an engine driver to be a Member of the House of Commons.

Mr. Mellish

I want to revert to the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). He argued with his usual brilliant logic and I do not deny that it was the sort of case which would appeal to most hon. Members on the basis of logic. He said that he had forgotten what he had said earlier, but I took the trouble to remember much of it.

Earlier he had argued that he thought that it would be a good thing for priests of the Church of Rome and ministers of the Church of England to come to the House to express their viewpoints on war and matters of that character. He felt that it was right that in a democracy such as ours those people should have the right to become Members of Parliament. I fully understand that.

However, matters of this kind, as with so much of what goes on in this Britain of ours, are not as logical as that. We cannot wrap up democracy in small parcels and say that it is neatly done and that is how it works. We cannot do it as easily as that. My hon. Friend referred to certain clergymen coming to the House of Commons and making speeches on particular subjects, and said that they might be welcome in the cause of democracy.

I want it to be known—and this is a personal observation and I do not ask anybody to share it—that I should he utterly appalled if I faced one of the priests of my own Church on the benches opposite attacking something of which I was deeply in favour from a party point of view. Let us be realistic about this. The theory is that clergymen of the Church of England or priests of the Catholic Church can come here and express independent viewpoints. What stuff and nonsense that is. Whom are we kidding? One cannot become a Member of Parliament without being associated with a political party. We all know that. There is not a single inde- pendent Member in the House. No one can get here on the basis of being an independent Member. How long that will last, none of us knows, but that is the position today, and any clergyman who stands for Parliament will have to run on what is known as a party ticket.

I will be straight about this. I believe that in the House of Commons there are already people who are elected on the basis of religion in itself. I do not want to be offensive about this and I give this as an honest opinion. There are hon. Members from Northern Ireland who would not be in the House tonight if elections there were fought on an honest, decent, democratic basis, with no religion involved. That is a fact because religion is the one issue raised, and that alone is the sort of issue which should not be involved.

Just imagine the position if the local Labour candidate or the local Tory candidate were, say, a Catholic priest. I cannot imagine anything worse than an Election being fought under those conditions. I know the logical mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West, and he has put on record what he thinks. What about the anomaly that certain types of clergyman are allowed to become Members of this House? I do not wish to be offensive to anyone and I hope that I shall not offend hon. Members, but it is an extraordinary thing that while we would object so much to seeing our own priests as Members of Parliament, it is not the same thing if there are Members who are priests of other denominations. I hope that hon. Members will understand me, but I do not find it at all unpleasant to see priests of other denominations in the House.

Brigadier Clarke rose—

Mr. Mellish

No, I cannot give way to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. It seems stupid to give way to him.

There are some hon. Members who sit on this side of the House who are associated with Churches. I have the deepest respect for them, and I understand why they are in this House. I am glad that they are here. But having said that, I must also say that I believe this proposed alteration would be wrong and unwarranted. So far as I know, it has not been asked for. I wish that people who are interested in tying up our democracy into neat parcels would ask the people affected whether they want these things to be done. I suppose that if anyone ought to know whether this alteration is required, and whether Catholic clergy are wanted as hon. Members of this House, I ought to know something about it. There are other hon. Members who would know more than I, but I should know something. I can say that I have not heard any one of our people at any time asking for this. I believe I am right in saying—I am prepared to be corrected if I am wrong—that the late Archbishop Myers himself did not say that this alteration was required.

I warn the House to leave well alone. It may be that it is undemocratic and that the thing is not tied up in a neat parcel, but if we want to let ourselves in for a great deal of trouble, this is one way in which we can do it. I can see that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) is dying to get at me. It may be argued that if we accept this Amendment it will be a matter for the hierarchy to decide about whether or not priests should stand as candidates for Parliament. In my Church we have what we call the "lunatic fringe". A certain agitation may go on, and, as the result of any legislation which we may pass in this House, it may well be that one day such people would become candidates for Parliament. I believe that that is something which everyone of us would regret.

There is today a great need—certainly so far as my own Church is concerned—for religion to be kept away from the party political battle. I am all for the average priest or clergyman. Everyone recognises that the people attending church or chapel are people with different political views. The great thing about our democracy is that we have party political battles, a free Press and our own free Churches. If a Catholic priest sitting on the benches opposite attacked me on the policy of the party to which I am so devoted, I can assure hon. Members that I should lash him for all I was worth. Therefore, I say let us keep religion out of this and, with all respect for the democratic arguments and the neatness of parcels, I beg hon. Members not to accept this Amendment.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. J. Simon

It is a pity from some points of view that this debate was interrupted, for it has been, as, I think, those who have sat through it will agree, one of exceptional interest. Some remarkable speeches have been made in it. It has been a widely ranging debate. Mr. Horne Tooke was canvassed on both sides, showing that he is almost as controversial a figure after his death as in his life time. One hon. Gentleman went back even further in time and brought in Titus Oates as well. I was delighted that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) reminded us, in a very moving passage in his speech, that Mark Pattison is still a living force in our literature.

There have been speeches in this debate which went to the fundamental aspects of the relationship of politics and ethics, and politics and religious organisation.

The Amendment proposed and supported by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) and the hon. Member for Dudley Is designed to bring about the repeal of the Statutes which disqualify certain ministers of religion. The Act of 1801 mentioned in the hon. Gentleman's Amendment to the Fourth Schedule disqualifies any person who is ordained to the office of priest or deacon in the Church of England or the Church of Ireland. The answer to the question the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) asked is that it also disqualifies ministers of the Church of Scotland, although there is a procedure whereby they can escape the disqualification.

In addition the Act referred to in another of the Amendments put down by the hon. Members for Dagenham and Dudley, the Roman Catholic Relief Act, 1829, which was a general Measure of Catholic relief, nevertheless disqualifies any person in Holy Orders in the Church of Rome, thereby bringing that Church in that particular into the same position as the Church of England.

Subsection (3) of this Clause, which it is sought to remove by the Amendment, was, I think, inserted in the draft Bill by the Select Committee presided over by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) as a consequence to the insertion in Clause 1 of the new subsection (4) which generally exempts from dis- qualification other than the disqualifications contained in the rest of the Bill, and thereby, I suppose, throws sonic doubt on whether the Clergy Disqualification Measures were still effective.

It cannot be denied, I think, that the law at the moment is anomalous. The division of opinion has run clean across the Committee, and not down the centre of the Floor, thereby, as always when that happens, adding to the interest of the debate, and many hon. Members on both sides of the controversy have pointed out the anomalies. It cannot be denied that the law is anomalous, but this matter has been considered in the light of that by two Select Committees of very great eminence and weight.

The Select Committee on Clergy Disqualification, which had the direct cognisance and solely the cognisance of this matter found no evidence of great difficulty or hardship or any indication of public demand to for alteration of the law. That was emphasised by the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). It may appeal to the Committee as a matter of very great importance when it is sought to make a major change in the law in a matter of fundamental importance to the relation of Church and State by way of an Amendment in Committee on this Bill. The Select Committee went into the matter deeply and could find no desire at all, no public demand, for an alteration of the law.

For example, the Amendment would exempt from disqualification the Clergy of the Church of England. The Archbishop of Canterbury said, in evidence before the Select Committee: If you finally reported that it would he better to leave the thing alone I should not doubt that you will have taken the course of wisdom. The Irish Church was to the same effect.

Mr. Hugh Delargy (Thurrock)

The hon. and learned Gentleman means the Church of Ireland.

Mr. Simon

Yes. It was to the same effect. The Church of Scotland and the Episcopal Church of Scotland were also to the same effect. The Archbishop of Wales gave evidence, too.

The hon. Member was wrong when he said that the Roman Catholic Church resented its exclusion. On the contrary, as the hon. Member for Bermondsey pointed out, Archbishop Myers stated explicitly, when he gave evidence before the Select Committee, that the Church felt no grievance at the exclusion. He said: … we have no particular grievance and no particular feelings about being excluded from the House. Later, he said: … we are face to face with some internal legislation of our own which forbids any cleric to stand as a candidate for Parliament.

Mr. Wigg

I am sure that the hon. and learned Member does not want to mislead the Committee about what Archbishop Myers said. Would he permit me to draw his attention to page 45 of the Report from the Select Committee on Clergy Disqualification? The Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) put this question to him: Now the point has been put to us that if a change is going to take place, then it ought not to be for Parliament to debar people from becoming candidates as far as the Church is concerned; that ought to be a matter for the internal discipline of each church. What would be your view? Archbishop Myers replied: That represents our standard.

Mr. Simon

The hon. Member is quite right. I was quoting from the same page. It seems to me important that Archbishop Myers said specifically that they have no particular grievance and no particular feelings about being excluded. He made it clear that apart from legislation by Parliament, the Church has its own domestic legislation for exclusion.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins (Bristol, South)

What about the Free Churches?

Mr. Simon

The Free Churches are not subject to any exclusion. I pointed out at the beginning that the law may be said to be anomalous, but the fact remains that from those who are excluded there is no demand for inclusion.

The Select Committee of 1953 also referred to the risk of undesirable religious controversy if this matter were raised and seriously debated as a subject for legislation. As always, the debate this evening has been in admirable temper, but the hon. Member for Bermondsey pointed out, quite legitimately and very properly, the sort of repercussions which such discussions might have. It seems to the Government that there is a real danger of undesirable religious controversy if this matter is actively to be canvassed, and even more if it is to be implemented. I need not go further into it, because the hon. Member himself explained the sort of reactions which he would have and which I think would be common to many hon. Members.

The matter was considered not only by the Select Committee of 1953, but also by the Select Committee presided over by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South, and that Committee, dealing with the matter in the context of this Bill, decided that the position should not be changed. In those circumstances the Government are bound to give considerable weight, great weight, to those emphatic and recent expressions of view by two Select Committees of great eminence. I therefore cannot recommend acceptance of the Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Dagenham.

I now come to the Amendments moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Freeth). They have this in common with other Amendments, that they are animated by a desire to produce a logical cohesion in the law. They do so not by the method of the hon. Member for Dagenham, which is to remove all the exclusions from all ministers of religion. Their method is to bring the Church in Wales into line with the Church of England. That, of course, would still leave the anomaly, if one considers it such, that the Church of England and the Church in Wales and so on are treated differently from the Free Churches in this connection.

Mr. George Thomas (Cardiff, West)

Could the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether he has had any request from the Church in Wales that this action shall be taken?

Mr. Simon

I was just about to deal with that.

It differs from the Amendment in this respect, that the Church in Wales would have liked to be subject to the same exclusions as the Church of England, but without pressing the matter. The 1953 Select Committee was undoubtedly left with the opinion that there was no pressure at all and—I am sure the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), who was a member of that Committee, will bear this out—there was no demand for this Amendment either.

On the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend, the Government cannot fail to be impressed by the fact that two Select Committees have recommended against this amendment to the law, that there is no demand for it and, as the hon. Member for Bermondsey indicated, it is undesirable that a matter of the highest importance in the relation of Church and State should be decided in Committee by way of an Amendment to this Bill.

Under those circumstances, I must advise the Committee to reject these Amendments.

Mr. Freeth

Can my hon. and learned Friend hold out any hope at all that the Government intend to take any steps in the near future to try to iron out any of the anomalies which exist?

Mr. Simon

I think it would be wrong to hold out any real hopes. It would be raising hopes which I should not be justified in raising, because this matter has been considered by two Select Committees and there is no public demand. The matter has been discussed this very evening in a most interesting way, but I do not think that I Should be justified in saying that there is any hope of early legislation.

Mr. Delargy

I did not intend to speak until I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). I know that he prefaced his remarks by saying that he was giving a personal view, but some people might think that he was speaking with same authority. I do not share his view.

My hon. Friend addressed himself to two points. He spoke first, as did several other hon. Members, of the propriety of clergymen coming to this House. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) thinks that this House would be better for their presence. I do not know whether they themselves would be the better for coming here. I do not think that the House of Commons is a place where the flower of sanctity flourishes strongly. My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey thinks that, on the whole, it would not be a good thing if they were here, but the arrival or not of clergymen in this House has nothing whatever to do with the Amendment. It is a million to one chance that any clergyman would find his way here if this Amendment were agreed to. This is the whole point of seeking the advice of the hierarchy, a most important point to which I shall refer later—

Mr. Hale

On my hon. Friend's reference to whether a clergyman might find his way here, may I recall to his memory the fact that an old friend of both of us, the Abbé Pierre, was a member of the French Chamber of Deputies for some years after the war and, in consequence, devoted himself to most self-sacrificing social service. He founded the Compagnons de Saint Emmaus, a movement which did more than anything else to save France from decadence.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Delargy

To mention the Abbé Pierre merely proves my point. He quickly discovered, after he had been in the Chamber of Deputies a short while, that it was no place for him at all.

Mr. Hale

He lost the election.

Mr. Delargy

He did not lose the election; he resigned from the M.R.P., and quite rightly, too.

The mere fact that the Joint Under-Secretary of State and others have quoted the Archbishop of Canterbury, Archbishop Myers and the heads of other Churches as not wanting this Amendment is proof positive that if it were accepted they would not allow their priests to stand as Parliamentary candidates.

Mr. Grant-Ferris (Nantwich)

One has to face the possibility that there might be a secularised priest who had been outlawed, as it were, from his priestly duties standing as a candidate and causing a grave scandal to the whole Catholic community.

Mr. Delargy

Why should a secularised priest not stand as a Parliamentary candidate? I do not see why I should prevent him standing or his coming here.

The second point made by my hon. Friend and by the Joint Under-Secretary of State was that the persons concerned have not been consulted. Who are the persons concerned? We are the persons concerned. We are the only persons concerned, because our predecessors in this House passed, in 1829, an Act which contained an injustice and one which was based on false premises. It was passed for reasons which everybody now, I think, apart from a few cranks and crackpots, knows to be false. Our predecessors did this wrong thing and we as the persons concerned should undo the injustice perpetrated by this House in 1829. That is the simple reason why I am supporting the Amendment.

Mr. Mellish

I can understand that, but, if that is so, why did not my hon. Friend, myself and others who had a genuine reason for seeing the position altered add our names to the Amendment? Why was it left to two back benchers of our party to raise the matter without any agitation or request from anyone to do so?

Mr. Delargy

I can only speak for myself, but the simple reasons for my not putting my name to the Amendment are: first, ignorance, and, secondly, laziness. Had I been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) to do so, I should certainly have put my name to the Amendment. As I have said, I should not have intervened in the debate but for the speech of my hon Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish).

It seems to me that one of the main purposes of the Amendment is to remedy the injustice perpetrated by the Roman Catholic Relief Act, 1829, which everyone now thinks is a Measure which should no longer apply.

One last point, When the Joint Under-Secretary of State says that it would be a very undesirable thing to have acrimonious sectarian, bigoted debates here, I agree with him. It would be a most undesirable thing, but something much more undesirable is the passing of legislation to exclude it. We have no right to pass legislation which would exclude any form of debate which is in order, and for these reasons I strongly support the Amendment.

Mr. G. Thomas

I shall not detain the Committee long either, but this is a question of some substance. I listened with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) as I did to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy), and I only want to submit that we are behaving like innocents abroad if we believe that clergy take no part in politics. I should be very surprised if my hon. Friend thinks that the priests of his Church, no less than the priests of any other Church, are not interested politically and do not seek to influence the election of people to this House. That is happening all the time. It happens in Cardiff, and I have no doubt that it happens in Bermondsey. It happens in most of the constituencies of hon. Gentlemen who are present here tonight.

My attitude, as a Nonconformist, is that everyone over the age of 21, who is not a Member of the other place or debarred for certain reasons well marked out in the legislation of the land, ought to be able to stand as a candidate for membership of this House. There are many distinguished people in the Church of Rome, the Church of England and the Church in Wales who could make a great contribution to this House.

Mr. Hoy

My hon. Friend has missed out Scotland.

Mr. Thomas

I am leaving the best until last.

The question is not for us to decide. All that faces us here is the question of the rights of the citizen. What rules the churches make is a matter for them. We do not find this House full of Methodist ministers because the Methodist Church has its own understanding of the question.

I submit that the House ought not to let this matter go lightly with the Minister saying that the Government intend to do nothing at all about it simply because it is a thorny problem. Of course, it is a difficult problem, but I submit that it is almost offensive to the Free Churches that they should be put in one category and the Established Church and the Church of Rome should find themselves in another category. As for the Church in Wales, I should take strong exception, as a Nonconformist, to the House seeking to treat it on a different basis from the rest. No Church has priority in dealings with the State so far as Wales is concerned. That battle was settled a long time ago. I urge the Committee not to seek to reopen that battle in the Principality.

Sir Beverley Baxter (Southgate)

I want to make one point and, having listened to most of the debate, I feel quite deeply upon it. I can imagine the grave embarrassment of the clergyman or priest looking after his flock and, at the same time, attending to his duties here; but that, surely, is for his parishioners and for the priest himself to decide. There are priests in our Upper House. If the voters in a constituency want to return a clergyman or priest I feel that we have no right to say that he, of all people in the country, must be disqualified. It seems to me that that is not our business.

I feel very strongly that we are going beyond our rights, as a House of Commons, if we say that any citizen who is elected by the majority of the voters should he debarred from this House. That is all I have to say. I find that I cannot support this proposal and will abstain from voting.

The Attorney-General

We have had a long and interesting debate, and a wide diversity of view has been expressed on both sides. My hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary has expressed the attitude of the Government to these proposals, for reasons which, I hope, will commend themselves to the Committee.

I should like to make it clear that this is not a Bill which imposes any disqualification on clergymen. The only reason this topic comes up for discussion tonight is that there has to be provision in the Bill to make it quite clear that the Bill does not affect the present law relating to clergymen.

I would remind the Committee of the objects of the Bill. They are to avoid very awkward situations arising in relation to the holding of offices of profit and matters of that sort. It is quite incidental to the Bill, merely because there has to be what one might call a formal part to preserve the law in other respects, that the opportunity is given to raise what has been described as a thorny topic. I do not regret for one moment that it has been raised, because it has been an interesting debate.

Other speakers have said that all this is entirely academic, because if the disqualification was removed no clergyman would ever come here. However that may be, this is not a provision which seeks to impose any new disqualification at all. As my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State has said, we have had the matter considered by two Select Committees. Neither recommended that at this time any change should be made. We would really be rather unwise if we stirred up feeling on this matter where feeling does not exist already. We would be wiser if we could deal with this problem now, having put it as I hope in perspective.

We are making no change now. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Highgate (Sir B. Baxter) appreciates that we are not seeking by the Bill to impose any further disqualification at all on clergymen. All that we are seeking to do is to leave the law in relation to clergymen as it is, in view of the advice that was given by the witnesses before the Select Committees and the Reports of those Committees.

Mr. Wigg

The Attorney-General is, of course, slightly disingenuous. The Bill does not mean any new disability on the clergy. What it does is to continue an injustice which has lasted 150 years. It is not true that the Government, of their own volition, referred this matter to a Select Committee. It was the energies of my then hon. Friend, Mr. Geoffrey Bing, which secured the submission of the matter before the Select Committee, which reported on clergy disqualification on 10th June, 1953. The Government did absolutely nothing about it. No opportunity was given to the House to give its opinion on the Report of that Select Committee until the Government, in July, 1955, found themselves in some difficulty about the invalidation of two hon. Members.

That presented an opportunity to raise the matter, and it would not have been considered by that Committee but for that fact that a Motion came before the House at 10 o'clock at night and it was possible for me to be persistent enough to ensure that the Committee should consider the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) and I will carry the Amendment to a Division, and on this side of the Committee it will be a free vote. I ask the Attorney-General and his colleagues. out of respect for what the House of Commons stands for both in the present and the future, to allow hon. Members opposite the same freedom as we have on this side of the Committee and to take a decision, in accordance with their consciences, which is best directed to the

continuation of the House and its influence.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 160, Noes 38.

Division No. 74.] AYES [10.59 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter Gresham Cooke, R. Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Aitken, W. T. Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Nairn, D. L. S.
Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton) Gurden, Harold Neave, Airey
Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William Hail, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)
Arbuthnot, John Hall, John (Wycombe) O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Armstrong, C. W. Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon) Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)
Ashton, H. Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Page, R. G.
Atkins, H. E. Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd) Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Baldook, Lt.-Comdr. J. M. Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. Pargiter, G. A.
Baldwin, A. E. Hesketh, R. F. Partridge, E.
Balniel, Lord Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Peart, T. F.
Barber, Anthony Holland-Martin, C. J. Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Barter, John Hornby, R. P. Pitt, Miss E. M.
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. Plummer, Sir Leslie
Bidgood, J. C. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Pott, H. P.
Biggs-Davison, J. A. Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J. Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Bishop, F. P. Hughes-Young, M. H. C. Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Body, R. F. Hurd, A. R. Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.) Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry Redmayne, M.
Braine, B. R. Iremonger, T. L. Ridsdale, J. E.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Irvine, Bryant Goaman (Rye) Rippon, A. G. F.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. Jeger, George (Goole) Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Brooman-White, R. C. Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Bryan, P. Jennings, sir Roland (Hailam) Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Carr, Robert Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Roper, Sir Harold
Channon, Sir Henry Joseph, Sir Keith Royle, C.
Chichester-Clark, R. Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Keegan, D. Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Cole, Norman Kerr, H. W. Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Kimball, M. Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Corfield, Capt. F. V. Leburn, W. G. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Studholme, Sir Henry
Crouch, R. F. Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Currie, G. B. H. Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Dance, J. C. G. Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Temple, John M.
Davidson, Viscountess Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)
D'Avigdor-Coldsmid, Sir Henry MacColl, J. E. Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Deedes, W. F. Macdonald, Sir Peter Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Mackeson, Brig, Sir Harry Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) Vane, W. M. F.
Errington, Sir Eric Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Farey-Jones, F. W. Maddan, Martin Vickers, Miss Joan
Fell, A. Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W.(Horncastle) Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Fletcher, Eric Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark) Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)
Fletcher-Cooke, C. Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone) Markham, Major Sir Frank Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Garner-Evans, E. H. Marlowe, A. A. H. Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)
Gibson-Watt, D. Marshall, Douglas Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Glover, D. Mathew, R. Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Godber, J. B. Maude, Angus Woollam, John Victor
Gower, H. R. Mawby, R. L.
Graham, Sir Fergus Mellish, R. J. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Grant, W. (Woodside) Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. Mr. Oakshott and Mr. Gerald Wills.
Green, A. Mitchison, G. R.
NOES
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Hubbard, T. F. Short, E. W.
Awbery, S. S. Hunter, A. E. Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Benson, G. Hynd, H. (Accrington) Stones, W. (Consett)
Boyd, T. C. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Burke, W. A. Jones, David (The Hartlepools) Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) King, Dr. H. M. Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Thornton, E.
Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Wade, D. W.
Delargy, H. J. MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Wilkins, W. A.
Grimond, J. Neal, Harold (Bolsover) Zilliacus, K.
Hale, Leslie Oswald, T.
Holman, P. Pearson, A. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr) Probert, A. R. Mr. George Wigg and Mr. Parker.
Howell, Denis (All Saints) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

We have now completed the Clauses of the Bill. There are a considerable number of Amendments to be considered, and the new Clauses, but I think that with co-operation on both sides we should be able to complete the Committee stage of this very important Bill in, say, half a day's work. I would think that was reasonable. Although there are on the Notice Paper a large number of Amendments, I would have thought it not necessary, perhaps, to have a long debate on more than a few of them.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.