The other orders were then disposed of, and the house ad journed.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

TUESDAY, MAY 21.

MR. JUSTICE FOX.

Lord Hawkesbury stated that he had recommended to the noble marquis who had originated the complaint against Mr. Justice Fox, to vary the form of his motion, and, instead of exhibiting what might seem articles of criminal complaint against that honourable person, originating in the house of lords, to word his motion as one for an address to his majesty to dismiss Mr. Justice Fox-alleging the different articles of complaint which had been exhibited against him, as grounds for this address. He therefore presumed there could be no objection to postpone the consideration of the business till the next day, when the house might resolve itself into a committee to take the motion into consideration.

The Marquis of Abercorn declared that the mode now recommended by the noble lord was that which he intended originally to have adopted, and from which he had departed in consequence of the recommendation of the house. He had no objection, therefore, to revert to it, begging it to be understood that he had on both occasions yielded to what he conceived to be the opinion of the house. He hoped, therefore, that he would not be again upbraided for proceedings to which he had only resorted in consequence of the recommendation of others. He should, the next day, follow the recommendation of his noble friend, without accompanying his motion with any observation whatever.

On the motion of Lord Auckland, the order was discharged, and the house ordered to be summoned for the next day.

On the motion of Lord Auckland, there was ordered to laid before the house, an account of the proceedings adopted towards improving the funds of the chest at Chatham.

The Earl of Suffolk wished to know if the papers he had moved for some time ago, relative to the bills drawn by the treasury in the West Indies, were likely to be soon produced.

Lord Hawkesbury said, the accounts were in preparation, but they were so voluminous he could not state with certainty when they could be completed. If the noble lord would

confine

confine his demand to any specific period, he should give every furtherance in his power to the motion.

The Earl of Suffolk declared, that he would be satisfied with an account of the bills above 2000l. His lordship then adverted to a motion he had formerly made relative to the sale of naval stores, which he first proposed to limit to one year, but afterwards withdrew.

The order of the day for taking into consideration the message of the commons, for the attendance of Lord St. Vincent before the select committee being read,

Lord Hawkesbury observed, that it was not usual for the house to come to any decision in such a case in the absence of the peer whose attendance was requested, unless where his consent was signified. As the noble lord had not appeared, nor any consent had been signified by him, it was to be presumed he was ignorant of the message which had been sent. He therefore moved that the consideration of the message be postponed.

The Lord Chancellor concurring in this opinion, the order was postponed till the next day.

On the second reading of Lingham's divorce bill, the Lord Chancellor and Lord Auckland expressed their resolution to oppose a clause for bastardizing certain of the children, Evidence was then heard in support of the adultery. Postponed till Tuesday. Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

TUESDAY, MAY 21:

Mr. Best gave notice that, on Monday next, he would move for leave to bring in a bill to amend the 4th of George II. relative to certain privileges of members.

On the motion for the third reading of the bill for supplying the cities and towns in Ireland with water,

Sir G. Hill argued that the measure was oppressive. If any town wanted water they ought to accommodate themselves at their own expence; and to enable the grand jury to mulct the inhabitants, he thought unjust. He therefore moved, that the bill be read a third time that day three months.

After a conversation of some length,

Mr. Foster observed, that the extending the power of the grand juries was to be watched with a jealous eye. He thought the bill required further consideration, and moved that it be read the third time that day fortnight.

VOL. III. 1805.

D

Sir

1

Sir G. Hill withdrew his motion; and the house divided on Mr. Foster's motion. Ayes, 28-Noes 27.

Mr. Beevy, from the exchequer, presented an account of sums expended for naval services, for the year 1801. Ordered to be printed, and lie on the table.

The bill for amending the English general turnpike road act was read a second time and committed for next day. The military expenditure bill was passed.

Sir John Newport rose to make his promised motion, relative to the expenditure of the secret service money in Ireland. He said, the legislature had restricted that expenditure; and the principles of the constitution required an account of the application of the sums employed in that service. But no such account had been given to parliament, the control of which, in this respect, was nugatory, if he should fail in the motion which he should submit to the house. There were rumours of great abuses in this expenditure; and he was sorry a noble lord who had been called upon to refute them was not in his place to wipe off the 'reproach from himself (a general laugh, Lord Castlereagh being in his seat). He begged the noble lord's pardon, and hoped he would avail himself of being present to clear himself. He complained of the expences of criminal prosecutions as enormous, no less than 110,000l. in four years. As his motion might at first seem novel, he had a precedent to state to the house. In the 5th of William and Mary, the house appointed a committee to inquire into this species of expenditure, and a report was made of members by name who received bribes from the government. He concluded by moving, that a secret committee be appointed, consisting of thirteen members of that house, not holding civil offices during pleasure under the crown, to inquire into the distribution and expenditure of secret service money in Ireland, from 1793 to 1804 inclusive, except such money as had been expended in the discovery of treasons, by the direction of the act of the 33d of the king..

Mr. Vansittart opposed the motion, as having no parliamentary ground, nor any degree of utility. He asserted, that the expenditure for criminal prosecutions in eight years, amounted to no more than 20,00cl.

Mr. Denis Browne was surprised, not at the rumours alluded to, but that the noble lord had not answered them, as he might truly say, he could not have applied sums to that supposed purpose, had he been willing to do so. Many had assumed the merit of putting down the jacobins; but it was

chiefly

chiefly the work of this secret service money, of which the worthy baronet wants an account.

Sir John Newport contended, in reply, that, as the act had expressly provided that money expended in the discovery of treasons should not be accounted for, but a discharge given without, it must mean that the other secret service money should be accounted for, there being no exemption in its behalf. He would not disguise that the object of his motion was to get at the sums of money rumoured to have been employed in bringing about the union. He thought the union would sooner or later produce great benefit; but he was not one of those who were willing to obtain a desirable end by any sort of means. If, after all, no account is to be given of this secret service money, the house will be in a situation similar to one recorded by Sir John Dalrymple. A large sum of money was given to the Earl of Breadalbane, in the reign of William III. to quiet the Highlanders. When the Earl of Stair called upon his lordship to account for the money, he answered-"The money is all spent, the Highlanders are quieted; and that is the best account among friends.”—So here, the money is gone; but the union is passed; and that is the best account among friends.

The house divided on Sir John Newport's motion.

Ayes -
Noes

f

The naval commissioners continuance bill was read a third time, and after the introduction of a clause by way of rider, to protect men from producing documents or answering questions which might criminate themselves, was passed.

Sir G. Hill gave notice of a motion for the next day with respect to the revenue of Ireland.

CURATES' BILL.

The Attorney General moved the committee on the stipendiary curates' bill.

Lord Porchester opposed the motion. To the principle and provisions of the bill he was decidedly adverse, as he conceived its object to be to render the parochial clergy entirely dependent on the will of the bishops, and its tendency to subvert the security of ecclesiastical property. If the clergy were thus to be deprived of their independence, he apprehended that a severe blow might be given to the public spirit of the country; and he deprecated any attempt to abridge the property

or consequence of those who were so distinguished for their loyalty in the most trying times. The bill proposed to transfer to curates one-fifth of the revenue of the incumbent, and he conceived it to proceed upon a most erroneous scale, as erroneous indeed in common sense, as if it were to be regulated by the thermometer. For it could not be supposed consistent with justice that there should be any variation in the revenue of the curates proportioned to the revenue of the incumbent, as the duty to be performed by all curates is the same. The principal ground of his objection to the measure was, its ob vious tendency to reduce the dignity of the clergy to such a degree, as to exclude from the pale of the church all young men of high minds or enlarged prospects, who would naturally shrink from the idea of becoming the mere slaves of the bishops. Sure he was that if it were enacted, no consul or despot would be more arbitrary than the archbishop of Canterbury. Besides this, he disliked the bill because it went to inflict a penalty upon every incumbent who might be nonresident, whatever should be the cause of his non-residence. It appeared to him, in fact, to propose a direct duty upon pluralities; upon age, which we ought to respect; and upon infirmity, which we ought to compassionate.

Mr. I. H. Browne defended the bill, conceiving it to be but just and necessary that those incumbents who did not perform the duty which their situation required of them, should be obliged to pay the curates who performed that duty for them. That was simply the object of the bill, and therefore he ap proved of it. Any faults it contained might, in his opinion, be easily corrected in the committee.

Mr. Western strongly reprobated the measure, as calcu lated to undermine the property of the church.

Mr. Burton was in favour of the bill.

Mr. C.W. Wynne disapproved of some of the clauses, which he thought might be amended in the committee; but was a friend to the main object of the bill.

Sir J. Hippisley did not rise to oppose going into a comnittee, but what he had to say was applicable rather to the high duties attached to the spiritual functions of the clergy, and to guard against their violation, than to interfere with the temporalities of their benefices. He was aware that some difficulty and embarrassment was involved with the subject that he should mention, yet in a choice of difficulties and evils it was ever prudent to choose the least. His object was to empower the bishop, in certain cases, to appoint a stipendiary

curate,