Lords Sitting of 21 June 1805

MINUTES.
Mr. Lascelles brought up from the commons Mr. Pitt's Indemnity bill; which was read a first time, and ordered to be printed.—Lord Suffolk presented a petition from the church-wardens of the parish of St. Pancras, against the Pancras Poor bill. This petition, like that presented yesterday, was found to be irregular, and was withdrawn, in order that another more consistent with the orders of the house might be presented.—The Stipendiary Curates' bill being re-committed, the archbishop of Armagh moved, that the words "England and Wales" be left out, in order to make the bill applicable to Ireland also. After a long conversation, in which the archbishop of

533
Dublin, the archbishop of Canterbury, the lord Chancellor, earl Fitzwilliam, the bishop of St. Asaph, the bishop of London, &c. spoke, the motion was negatived. The chairman then reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Wednesday.

CONDUCT OF JUDGE FOX
Lord Walsingham presented a petition from Mr. Justice Fox. The petitioner, after referring to the examination of the witnesses, which took place on Wednesday last, stated, that he felt it his duty to submit to their lordships' consideration the situation in which he stood, in order that the hardship of that situation might be removed. He had learned on Wednesday, that the expenses of W. Armstrong, and others, who were parties against him, were defrayed at the public charge. These persons were not only examined as witnesses against him, but were heard by counsel, as was usual, in cases of private, petitioners. The Charges against him related to transactions which occurred so far back as the summer assizes in 1803, and he had received the first notice of the proceedings on the subject in their lordships house, through the medium of the public newspapers. The petitioner farther observed, that he had been greatly harassed, and suffered much vexation of mind, by the proceedings against him, and had been subjected to great expenses. But though the expense he had already incurred was considerable, it formed but a small part of that which he would probably be put to. He was thus placed in a situation very unequal to that in which the parties against him stood. He, a public magistrate, was obliged to defend himself at his own ex-expene, against private individuals who carried o their prosecution with the public money. The petition also lamented that the duties which many of their lordships had, at this season of the year, to perform elsewhere, necessarily educed the number of his judges, and wished that it were possible that those who might ve to decide on his case should have an opportunity of hearing the whole of the proceeding. The petition concluded by requesting the lordships to take the premises into consideration, and to adopt such measures thereon ts to them should seem proper.
The Lord Chancellor observed, that the respect which was due to the individual from whom this petition e, as well as to the important matters it contained, rendered it worthy of their lordship most serious consideration. Had it rel merely to matters of a pecuniary nature he should have
534
proposed to refer it to a committee; but as it embraced several other objects, he thought it more proper that it should become the subject of deliberation in the house. He therefore, moved, that it be taken into consideration on Tuesday next, and that their lordships be summoned for that day. Ordered.—Adjourned.