Lords Sitting of 28 June 1805

MINUTES.
Pursuant to the order of the day, their lordships resolved into a committee of privileges, and lord Walsingham having taken the chair, the solicitor general was heard at considerable length, in support of the evidence adduced by the duke of Rutland, and on behalf of his title to the above barony, towards his conclusion. He said he trusted he had made out to the satisfaction of their lordships, all those propositions that proved the noble duke to be entitled to the barony; that he had always held the barony by tenure, being possessed of the territory by which it was constituted; that a barony, so held, could not descend to the heirs general, except accompanied by the territory; and that he held it impossible that the noble petitioner, lady Henry Fitzgerald, could support her claim. The chairman was then ordered to leave the chair. The farther consideration of the case was postponed, and the house resumed.—The bills upon the table were forwarded in their several stages, and several bills brought up from the commons, were read a first time.—The lord chancellor having proposed the recommitment of the Stipendiary Curates' bill, their lordships accordingly resolved into a committee on the same. Some further alterations and amendments were made, principally on the suggestion of the lord chancellor, and in the course of some discussion on the different points between his lordship and the bishop of St. Asaph; after which the house resumed, and the report was ordered to be received to-morrow.—The Irish Civil List bill, and the Poor Clergy Relief bill, severally went through committees of the whole house, and were ordered to be reported.—The second reading of the Irish Revenue Regulation bill was, on the motion of lord Hawkesbury, postponed for three months. The principal reason assigned by the noble secretary of state was, that commissioners being appointed to enquire regularly into the subject, affected by the bill, it would be desirable to have the report of those commissioners before parliament previous to the passing such a bill as that in question.

WOOLLEN MANUFACTURES' PETITION.
A petition was presented from certain persons, whose names were thereunto subscribed,
634
by lord Walsingham, against the bill, now pending before their lordships, for continuing the suspension of prosecutions until the first day of March next, of certain persons engaged in the woollen manufacturer, &c. praying that, the same may not pass into a law; and for leave to be heard by counsel against the same. The prayer of the petition was strongly opposed by
The Duke of Montrose, who observed, that with respect to the laws which had been passed relative to the machinery employed in the trade, which made part of the subject of the bill, it might be desirable to repeal, or modify them. On that, however, he meant not then to give an opinion; but, with regard to the acts, which authorised the enforcing penalties for the use of machinery in the woollen trade, it was deemed expedient, under the circumstances, to suspend prosecutions, which might have arisen, by an annual bill; and this mode of proceeding took place for the two last years, that now before their lordships went to continue that suspension for a short time longer, only till the 1st of March next, as it was proposed, the general subject should be taken up early in the next session. Were the present bill not to pass, an immediate burthen would be thrown upon those it was meant to relieve, as the act, at present in force, would expire on the 1st day of July. The noble duke moved that the bill be now read a second time.
Lord Holland thought the usual practice of hearing petitioners by councel, should not be departed from in this instance.
Lord Hawkesbury stated the grounds of dispute between the manufacturers and the workmen, to consist in the introduction of machinery, which was prohibited by various old statutes that had long ceased to be enforced. It was a question of considerable difficulty, whether these statutes should be wholly repealed, or how they might be so modified as to remove all reasonable grounds of complaint on either side.
Lord Holland professed himself to be satisfied with the explanation just given by his noble friend, and said, he only regreted that the bill did not go to the total repeal of the statutes in question.
The Lord Chancellor was adverse to the principle of suspension bills, and expressed his satisfaction at the implied pledge that the general subject was proposed to be taken up early in the next session, was agreed to by the house. The bill was then read a second time and committed for to-morrow.

CONDUCT OF JUDGE FOX.
Their lordships resolved into a committee on the bill for continuing the proceedings in the case of Mr. Justice Fox, in the next session of parliament. Some amendments were proposed by the earl of Radnor, the principal one of which was in the preamble of the bill, and adverted to the acts, with reference to which the house had proceeded in the case. To this no objection seemed to be urged; but the noble earl having, in the first instance, in his amendment, called their lordships "the house of peers," the phrase was objected to, as not the most proper, particularly by
Earl Stanhope, who said they were not a house of peers, but a house of lords; because, for instance, the bishops were not peers, but lords of parliament.
Lord Hawkesbury had no particular objection to the phrase, but thought the appellation most frequently used should be adopted. This he conceived to be "the house of lords," and such wording he had used in the first instance.
The Lord Chancellor thought, upon the whole, the term house of lords to be preferable: In a legislative sense, the house collectively, was always termed, "the lords spiritual and temporal."—The alteration in the earl of Radnor's first amendment was accordingly made, and the bill, after receiving some further amendments, was agreed to by the committee, and ordered to be reported to-morrow.

TRUST, MONIES.
Earl Stanhope called the attention of their lordships to a topic, which, he conceived, strongly called for some legislative interposition. He alluded to the circumstance of monies being vested on trust to a considerable amount, with respect to which, in consequence of trustees becoming bankrupt, or otherwise failing in their circumstances, injurious effects might arise. To prevent these was the object of the bill he should propose, and which, in his own opinion, and in those of many peers he had consulted on the subject, was very desirable. The bill was very short; its leading provision was, to enable the parties interested to petition the lord high chancellor for the time being, who was authorised by the bill to give the necessary relief. He then presented his bill, which was entitled, "an act for the better securing of trust monies."
The Lord Chancellor observed, that though a bill might be very short, a great deal might be done by it. With respect to the legisla-
636
tive measure proposed by the noble earl, he did not object to its principle, but imagined it might require some amendments in its phraseology.—The bill was then read a first time, and ordered to be printed. The remaining orders of the day were then disposed of, and some private business transacted; after which the house adjourned till tomorrow.