parliament, and had not then, nor now has, the force of law, and has been fo adjudged, as appears by Blackstone; of course the bond is wafte paper, and could not be put in force in any court of law; for I have no difficulty in affirming that a bond not to do that which God and the law of the land, not only give free to all, but recommend and encourage, is in itself illegal. I have no difficulty in afferting that no bond can legally be pleaded to prevent a perfon fo engaging himself in terms, never to ferve the king or state in any capacity, or never to marry, or not to perform that which might be beneficial to the ftate; though the perfon might have liberty to withhold his fervice, the contract not to do any fervice must be in its nature illegal; the bond is peremp torily null and void; but it furnishes a clear inference that the divorce a menfa et toro, did not prevent a marriage, and was an actual and complete separation a vinculo. The law of the land has never been changed; the divorce a menfa et toro (every link of the chain being broke) diffolved the vinculum matrimonii, and the bond not to marry is the proof, and being enforced by an illegal canon, is itself null and void, and not good even to its own penalty; fo that the learned prelate is mistaken as to his ancient and modern law. I have no difficulty in faying that I do not wifh divorces for fimple adultery to be obtained through the medium of ecclefiaftical courts, (as the law, I am perfuaded, anciently stood, and, notwithstanding the exifting practice, still ftands); but I can neither feel that it is either juft or moral to bar the door to all relief by the legiflature, for fear improper relief fhould fometimes be given; each cafe must stand on its own ground. The term which has been used, both by the learned lord, as well as the reverend prelate, of a dangerous precedent, as an argument against the admiffion of a cafe folicited, feems to me incomprehenfible; it is a contradiction in terms if we admit a cafe fit and proper to be admitted; it must be received as a useful, not a dangerous precedent : every cafe ftanding on exactly fimilar grounds fhould be equally admitted; every cafe ftanding on grounds not fimilar, does not come within the precedent. I am at a lofs to understand the danger of doing what is fit to be done. The admiffion of that which never was fit to be done, may indeed operate as a dangerous precedent, and occafion the improper introduction of a fimilar cafe equally unfit; the fitnefs or unfitness of each individual propofition, can alone justify its individual reception or rejection; and I know of no cafe which appears to me to have a jufter claim to the legislative

relief defired than the prefent. I cannot, therefore, refuse now to do that which juftice and morality demands of me, left I should hereafter be induced to do, under diffimilar circumstances, that which juftice and morality may call upon me to reject.

The house divided on the Bishop of St. Afaph's motion, when the numbers were, Contents 10-Not contents 3, confequently the bill was loft for the prefent feffion, by a majority of 7-Adjourned.

PROTEST.

Lord Auckland having moved, "That the further proceedings of this houfe on the propofed address respecting Mr. Justice Fox be poftponed to this day two months;" it paffed in the negative.

Diffentient.

1. Because the proceedings in queftion are grounded on allegations, fome of which amount to a charge of crime and mifdemeanor; and it is clearly contrary to the laws and ftatutes of this realm, that any accufation or complaint con taining a charge of crime and mifdemeanor, can originally be preferred in this houfe, or be entertained by the house, except in matters of privilege; and I am not fatisfied that the claufe of the act of fettlement refpecting the removal of the judges from their offices, in confequence of the joint addrefs of the two houfes of parliament, meant or can be con ftrued to take the judges from the general protection of the law of the land, in order to place them in a fituation of gif advantage and dependance, which does not affect any other individuals, or any other clafs of men.

2. Because, if our jurifdiction in this cafe could be established, still I fhould object to the matters alleged in the propofed addrefs, which are for words faid to have been fpoken almost two years ago, of which no notice was taken by the parties concerned till ten months afterwards, and refpecting which the evidence, after fuch a lapfe of time, is now to be received. It appears to me, that fuch a proceeding is contrary to the general analogy of law, and more efpecially objectionable as affecting a judge who may be expofed to invidious confiderations in the difcharge of his duties.

3. Because the judge who is the object of the propofed addrefs, has already been fubjected to great delays in this

inquiry,

inquiry, and to a moft diftreffing expence, in confequence of the courfe of proceeding first adopted by this houfe, and finee defifted from on better confideration.

4. Because the expence of fuch an investigation at our bar muft, both in the prefent and future cafes, produce the inevitable ruin of the judges who may be brought to answer, whether they fhall be guilty or innocent of the act of mifconduct alleged against them.

5. Because, if this proceeding were not queftionable as to law, justice, and expediency, ftill it is objectionable at this late period of the feffion, when the attendance of many peers must be withdrawn to other public duties; and when it is impoffible that the inquiry can be brought to a conclufion; and when the refult can only ferve to fend back the judge to the exercife of his judicial functions laden and prejudiced by a mafs of printed evidence taken against him, and refpecting which he will not have had the means of making bis defence,

(Signed)

AUCKLAND.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

MONDAY, JUNE 17.

The bark prefervation bill paffed through a committee. To be reported next day.

Mr. Giles brought in the bill for extending the provifions of the bank note forgery prevention bill, to all parts of the united kingdom. Read a first time, to be read a second time next day.

Lord William Ruffel! prefented a petition from certain inhabitants of Camberwell in favour of the Camberwell water-works bill. Ordered to lie on the table. Alfo a petition from certain perfons whofe names were thereunto subfcribed, against the bill for making a road under the river Thames. Referred to the committee on the bill, and the petitioners ordered to be heard by their counsel against said bill.

Lord Glenbervie brought up the report of the committee appointed to draw up an answer to fo much of the meffage of the lords of Friday as relates to the requeft of the house, that the lord prefident of the council, and Earls Buckinghamfhire and St. Vincent be permitted to attend the committee on the eleventh report. Ordered to lie on the table.

Sir W. Scott, pursuant to notice, moved for, and obtained

leave to bring in a bill, to amend an act of the 1ft of Geo. I. for augmentation of the maintenance of the poor clergy.

Mr. Tierney moved the order of the day for the further confideration of the report on the Camberwell water-works bill. He then ftated the grounds upon which the measure was founded, and the motives that had induced him to call the attention of the house so often and fo particularly to it. He concluded by moving, that the bill be recommitted. The motion was oppofed by Mr. Fonblanque. A fhort difcuffion fucceeded, in which Sir George Hill, Lord William Ruffell, and Mr. Rofe, took part, when a divifion took place: For the recommitment, 41-Againft it, 16-Majority, 25.

Sir John Newport offered fome obfervations prefatory to the motion of which he had given notice relative to the commiffioners in Ireland, for determining the claims of loyalifts who fuffered in the rebellion of 1798, and also to thofe for regulating the compenfation to be granted for property in borough franchifes injured by the union. With refpect to these two commiffions it was the honourable baronet's intention to move fpecific refolutions, as the objects for which they had been appointed must have been long fince accomplished if they had feverally discharged their duty. The honourable baronet alluded alfo to another board of commiffion, that for granting compenfation for of fices fuppreffed by the union, which had been continued longer than was neceffary, to the great expence of the public, and inferred the inexpediency of their further continuance, from the nature of the claims preferred to them, one of which had been for compenfation, on the part of a Mr. Anthony Fox, rat-catcher to the board of ordnance in Ireland (a general laugh), for loffes ftated to be fuftained by him from the junction of the English and Irish ordnance departments, in confequence of the union. The honourable baronet then moved, That it is the opinion of the house, that the objects for which a board of commiffioners in Ireland had been conftituted by the 38th, 39th, and 40th of his majefty, are or ought to have been long fince attained, and any longer continuance of it would occafion an unneceffary public expence, in the provifion for their falaries.

Mr. Vanfittart vindicated the conduct of the Irish government. He took blame to himself for not having brought in a bill that had been prepared by his predeceffor, which was to put an end to the board in a fhort time. As to the other board, there were claims yet under its confideraVOL. III. 1805.

Tt

tion

tion which would require it to be continued for fome longer term; at the fame time he admitted that a period fhould be fixed, beyond which it fhould not be continued. He did not mean to oppofe the motion directly, but, in order to give the honourable baronet an opportunity of bringing the subject under the confideration of the house, if the bill he had to bring forward fhould not be fatisfactory, he moved the previous question.

Mr. Ponfonby thought the ftatement of the right hon. gentleman fatisfactory, in which Sir John Newport concurred, and after a few words from Mr. Corry and Mr. Windham, the previous queftion was agreed to.

Sir John Newport then moved another refolution, That the board of commiffioners for determining the compenfation for loffes fuftained in property arifing out of borough franchifes by the union, ought to ceafe in fix months. On this refolution the hon. baronet proposed to take the fenfe of the house; but the previous queftion was alfo moved, and carried on this refolution without a divifion,

MIDDLESEX ELECTION.

Mr. Creevey rose to move the house to fix a day for the exchange of lists of disputed votes between the petitioning freeholders of Middlesex, and Mr. Mainwaring. He argued that the petitioning freeholders stood precisely in the situation, and were entitled to all the rights of the candidate who had declined to prosecute his claims. This he said was the intention of the act, the object of which was to prevent collusion between the candidates, to the prejudice of the freeholders. He would propose to fix the exchange of the lists for Thursday or Friday, and the consideration of the petition for some day in the next week.

Mr. H. Thornton doubted whether the petitioners were entitled to all the rights that were claimed for them. If they were entitled to come into the place of the candidate, the equity of the case appeared to require, that they should come in rather to the situation in which the candidate stood at the time of giving in his declaration of his intention of withdrawing, than to his situation at the time of the presentation of the petition. If collusion was spoken of, he saw more reason, in this instance, to apprehend collusion between the withdrawn candidate and these petitioners, than between the two candidates. Six of the principal petitioners were committeemen of Sir Francis Burdet, and the agents were the same that

had