Lords Sitting of 10 June 1805

MINUTES.
A message was received from the commons, importing that the house had granted permission to sir John and to sir James Stewart, baronets, to attend their lordships' committee, if the said members thought fit.—A second message was received from the commons, presented by sir John Stewart, including an exposition of the grounds on which the committee of that house (to whom the consideration of the affair of sir Popham was referred) required the attendance of the earl of St. Vincent to be examined before them.—Lord Sidmouth shortly addressed their lordships, relative to the last message from the commons, to the purport, as we could collect, that he was authorised by his noble friend, the earl of St. Vincent, to declare that he was ready and willing to attend the committee of the commons, should their lordships please to permit him.—Lord Walsingham acquainted the house, that a noble marquis (of Abercorn), then absent, intended to submit a motion to their lordships to-morrow, respecting the sitting of the committee of the whole house on the case of Mr. justice Fox.—The bills upon the table were forwarded in their several stages.

LANCASHIRE JUSTICES' SALARY BILL.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire moved the first reading of the bill for authorising the

239
payment of a salary to the chairman of the quarter sessions of the county of Lancaster, on which
The Earl of Radnor rose, and expressed his decided disapprobation of the measure. He observed, that the office to which the bill applied was one of antient institution, greatly conducive to the public welfare; and the more so, as it was always performed gratuitously. He was willing to admit that some strong and plausible arguments would apply in the present case. Let their lordships consider the, duties which were imposed on jurymen, to be gratuitously performed, and who were able to be fined if they did not attend; in that respect, what difference should there be between the county of Lancaster and other counties? that part of the country was very populous, but was highly prosperous; why should it possess the advantages of prosperity, without at the same time suffering some of the disadvantages which resulted from it? Were the bill in question passed, there would be applications of a similar kind from other quarters. He had several other objections, but he now objected to the principle of the bill; and, under his impression of it, would move to amend the noble earl's motion, by substituting for the word "now," "this day three months."
The Earl of Buckinghamshire said, he was aware of several objections which might be made to the bill; but the truth was, that all those whom he had consulted on the occasion, were impressed with the necessity of the measure, and were of opinion, that it was impossible to carry on the business to which the bill referred, without a provision of the kind; so much so, that he thought he only discharged his duty to the public in supporting it; the part of the county of Lancaster to be affected by the bill contained an immense population, a great part of whom were manufacturers. For the three last years, the office in question was executed by a person who resided thirty miles from the place; the measure under consideration was necessary in the opinion of many conversant with the business of the courts of Justice. His lordship went into a statement of the number of cases tried in the year 1800, and the four following years, and adverted to the serious inconveniences which must ensue, were these, or the greater part of them, left to be tried at the assizes. The salary was to be given only
240
in the event of a person duly qualified for the office not being found willing to act without it. In short, from the opinions of all those he had consulted, and from those most conversant with these things in that part of the country, he was convinced it was an innovation rendered necessary by the peculiar circumstances of the case.
The Earl of Bridgewater made a few observations in favour of the measure, and, after, a few words in explanation from the earl of Radnor, the question was put, and the amendment of the latter negatived; after which the bill was read a first, time.

ST. PANCRAS POOR BILL.
The Bishop of St. Asaph rose to make his promised motion relative to this bill. He observed, the small mistake which gave rise to a precipitate reading of the bill a second time on that day fortnight, had prevented those lords who disapproved the measure from delivering their sentiments, or those who petitioned against it from being heard by their counsel at the bar. For his own part, he greatly disapproved of the bill; so much so, that he should presently move that the order for a committee sitting on the bill to-morrow be discharged, in order to follow it up, should he succeed in it, with another motion for committing the bill on that day three months. This he was induced to do, from his objections to the principle of the bill; which, in fact, was totally to repeal the act passed towards the end of last session; an act, which had much time and labour be stowed on it by several of their lordships, in a committee, and in which it was considerably amended and improved; this, the petitioners for the present bill, said, they found from experience; from time experience of not more than half a year, to be insufficient to its purposes, and they now desired its total repeal as the best means to carry its provisions into effect! Who were the persons to be called upon for this? Not the parish of St. Pancras. They were a select body or number of men, who styled themselves the guardians or directors of the poor. The object was to take the administration of such affairs from the vestry at large, the churchwardens, &c. and to vest it in the said select body. The right rev. prelate then went into the history of the original bill which came before their lordships towards the latter end of the session of 1803, and described the powers which the promoters of the bill required should be vested in them. They were to be self

241
elected; they were to assess the rates; all the vacancies were to be filled up by them; they were to produce no vouchers; they were to be their own auditors, &c. All these improper provisions were amended by their lordships. The result was, that the bill, on account of the late period of the session, was lost for that year. The bill of last year, ameliorated and improved, as he had alluded to, followed; and this bill, the parties in question say, is insufficient to its purposes, because it did not give them power enough. The present bill went to do away all the amendments made by their lordships to the last act; in fact, it repealed the original bill, of which, without a meaning to offend the aristocracy of the parish of St. Pancras, he must express his disapprobation. It reminded him of a bill, not long since, and very properly, thrown out by their lordships; the professed object of which was, the improvement of the art and mystery of chimney sweeping—[a laugh]. The object of that measure was, to place more power in the hands of a select body of opulent chimney sweepers. Were the bill under consideration suffered to go to a committee, the long and tedious discussions and hearing of counsel, who would have to argue that black was white and white was black, would be endless; for the worse the cause was, the more subtle should the distinctions necessarily be—[a laugh]. In concluding, his lordship adverted to the late period of the session, and expressed himself decidedly against the farther progress of the bill, and moved, "that the order for the committee to sit on the bill to-morrow, be discharged."
The Earl of Suffolk approved of what had fallen from the right rev. prelate, and added, that the bill in question proposed to relieve the poor, upon a principle, that those of the parish of Mary-la-Bonne were better regulated; a position which he must deny; for, in Mary-la-Bonne parish, there were upwards of 40,000l. raised, for the maintenance of 1,013 poor persons; whereas, in the parish of St. Pancras, only 10,500l. were raised for the support of about half the number; there were some other detailed considerations, he observed, to be collected from the report of the other house of parliament, which would lead him to decide against the present bill.
The Lord Chancellor, after shortly referring to what had been said by the right rev. prelate, relative to the proceedings on the former bills, and jocularly alluding to
242
what was said on the hearing of counsel, deprecated all hasty decisions on bills of such a nature as the present. He adverted to the scenes of confusion and animosity, and the numerous litigations which resulted from certain popular parochial elections, more especially in large parishes. He argued in favour of the bill's, going to a committee, and adverted to certain legal difficulties, which had arisen with respect to the operation of the existing act. After some further observations from the noble and learned lord, as to the merits of the particular question before them, the house divided on the motion of the bishop of St. Asaph; when there appeared, for that proceeding 7; against it 31; majority for th bill 24.

CONDUCT OF JUDGE FOX.
A copy of the evidence taken before the close committee of their lordships, to whom it was referred to investigate the truth of the matters alledged in charge against Mr. justice Fox, being laid on the table;
Lord Minto moved, "that the same be printed for the use of the members of the house."
The Lord Chancellor, after adverting to what had been thrown out by a noble and learned lord the other night on the subject, observed, he had anxiously enquired with respect to the proceedings then alluded to, and found, that the house had been, in these instances, so cautious, that some degree of restriction prevailed with regard to the inspection of these documents, even by peers themselves; and, the order, in which their lordships then expressed the parliamentary usage of the house, stated, that the evidence (in the case of Mr. Hastings), printed from day to day, was for the use of members of the house only. With this precedent, and under his own convictions upon the case, he would beg leave to amend the noble baron's motion, by the addition of the word "only;" so that it would appear on the journals, that those with whom perhaps it most particularly lay, had not forgotten to do what they thought their duty.
Lord Hawkesbury stated, that his idea was that the same degree of publicity ought to be given to the evidence taken before the committee, as to that given at the bar of the house. He wished for no more, nor could he take less.
The Lord Chancellor agreed so far with the noble secretary of state; but repeated his opinion of the impropriety, injustice, and probable mischievous consequences of

243
suffering general publications of unfinished trials to go forth.
Lord Minto observed, that his sole object was the attainment of substantial justice; he had no objection to the noble and learned lord's amendment, but alluded to the difference between the case of Mr. Hastings and the present, where the party had no possible means of learning what transpired in evidence on the former occasion, except through a proceeding of this kind.—The question was then put, and the motion, as amended by the lord chancellor, was agreed to.

STIPENDIARY CURATES' BILL.
The order of the day for summoning their lordships, upon the Stipendiary Curates' bill being read,
The Bishop of London rose to move the second reading of this bill. He described the leading provisions of the measure, contended for the necessity of a regulation of the kind, and expatiated on the beneficial effects which would result from it. He described with great feeling and effect the miserable and degraded situation in which numbers of the curates of the Church of England are now placed, languishing in poverty and obscurity on their present paltry and inadequate stipends. He contended that the bill could not involve an invasion of private property, as that species to which it referred was not as a freehold property, but including serious and important duties which the incumbent was bound to perform, or to provide a substitute at an adequate salary; and he argued that no well-founded objections could apply as to the discretionary powers of the bishops. He insisted on the propriety and justice of allowing the curate who performed the duties, a stipend proportionate to the amount of the living; and concluded by recommending, in pathetic terms, the cause of the unfortunate curates to the peculiar care and protection of a British house of peers! The rev. prelate then moved, that the bill be now read a second time.
The Earl of Suffolk took the opportunity to state, that, according to information on which he could rely, the small addition lately granted to the salaries had not bonâfide been paid to them; even the full amount of the poor 75l. a year. He related an anecdote of a lady, who some years since bequeathed an addition of 20l. per annum to the 50l. which the, curate of a certain parish was paid; but, instead of paying the poor man this annuity in addition, the in
244
cumbent docked his salary of an equal amount; he hoped no such practices would prevail in the cases under consideration; there should be some degree of publicity in transactions of the kind, and the value of livings, &c. should be reported to some official quarter. He was glad to understand, something of that kind was provided for in the bill. But, he observed, the situation of the curates alone should not be attended to; numbers of the poorer order of beneficed clergy were equally objects of consideration; and, of which his lordship related a striking instance, which he was a witness to in the North of England.
The Lord Chancellor, after declaring him self a warm advocate for the object of the bill, entered into a detailed consideration of several of its provisions, which he agreed were matters for serious consideration in a committee: he hoped, considering the late period of the session, no delay would take place. Some of the provisions of the bill were new to him; and due regard, he observed, should be had to the extent of the cure. Adverting to an observation which fell from the noble earl who spoke last, he said he should not turn advertiser for the complaints of curates.
The Earl of Suffolk, in explanation, said, he was indebted for much of the important information be had received on the subject, to what he had said in that way on a former occasion. He received more than 100 letters, most of them with names to them, though the general request of the writers was that their names should not be mentioned.
The Earl of Bridgewater made a few observations in favour of the bill; but thought it contained some provisions which were fit matter for future consideration and amendment.
The Marquis of Buckingham had the principle and objects of the bill warmly at heart. It was essential to follow up the imperfect measure of last year, and he had no fears as to the bishops' abusing the discretionary powers vested in them. There were, he agreed with some noble lords, certain parts of the bill worthy of serious future consideration, and susceptible of amendment; yet he seemed to say, the object of the bill was so desirable, it would be better it should pass with all its imperfections on its head, than to be totally lost.
The Bishop of St. Asaph enterted into some detailed considerations as to the merits of the measure, and adverted to some

245
serious instances, in which the residence of the incumbent was thought fully as important, if not more so, than that of the curate. Much as he had the object of the bill at heart, he could not go the length of the noble marquis in saying that he wished the bill to pass with all its imperfections; but these, he hoped, might be got rid of.
Lord Auckland spoke generally in favour of the bill; the principal object of which, the securing the residence of a clergyman in every parish, he had greatly at heart.
Earl Fitzwilliam, though friendly to the principle and object of the bill, adverted to some parts of it, which he seemed to think very objectionable, and which should be matter for serious future consideration.
The Bishop of London shortly explained; after which the question was put, and the bill read a second time; and, after a short explanatory conversation between the right rev. prelate, the lord chancellor, and lord Walsingham, was committed for Thursday.—Adjourned.