Lords Sitting of 28 May 1805

MINUTES.
Their lordships proceeded further in the appeal Rowe v. Power Serjeant Shepherd was heard in reply, after which some questions relative to the cause were ordered to be referred to the judges for their opinion.—Colonel Stanley, and several other members of the house of commons, brought up the Salford Justices' bill, the Irish Election bill, and several private bills, which were read a first time —The Wine Duty bill, the Naval Commissioners' Renewal bill, and the Military Commissioners' bill, were read a third time and passed. The Irish Licence bill passed through a committee, and was reported.—On the occasion of the third reading of the Wine Duty bill, the earl of Suffolk took occasion to repeat his opinion, that the same indulgence, with respect to the remission of the duties upon wine, which the officers of the navy enjoyed, should be extended to those of the army; they were as well entitled to such a favour; and the loss, in point of revenue, to the government, would be comparatively small.—Lord Glenbervie, and several other members of the house of commons, brought up a message, desiring their lordships would permit the attendance of lord viscount Sidmouth, the earls of Buckinghamshire and St. Vincent, to give evidence before the select committee of the house of commons, appointed to consider the 11th report of the commissioners of naval enquiry. They were informed that the house would send an answer by messengers of its own. Lord viscount Sidmouth, and the earl of Buckinghamshire stated that they had no objection to attend.—A long conversation arose on the subject of the Pancras Poor bill. The commital of the bill stood for Thursday next; but
124
lord Suffolk wished that order might be discharged, and another made out for a more distant day. This suggestion was objected to by the earl of Westmorland, the bishop of St. Asaph, lord Auckland, and some other noble peers; when it was proposed by the earl of Westmorland, that the bill be committed on Friday next.—The bishop of St. Asaph gave notice, that on Thursday he should submit a motion to the house, which, if acceded to, must prove fatal to the bill.

WEST INDIA BILLS.
The Earl of Suffolk called to their lordships' recollection, the motion, which, about two months since, he brought forward, for the production of an account of the bills drawn from the West India islands, upon the treasury, to which their lordships then agreed, and the noble secretary, now in his place, said he had no objection to those accounts; however, they had not yet been produced, and he greatly wished them to be brought forward before the end of the session. To obviate the objections on the score of inconvenience, which were made on a former evening, he would now move an address to his majesty, that there be laid before the house "an account of all sums drawn from the West India islands upon the treasury, amounting to 1,000l. and upwards, from the 1st day of December, 1798, to the 1st of December, 1801, specifying the dates, times of payment, &c."
Lord Hawkesbury observed, that the present was, in point of fact, a part of the motion formerly made by the noble earl, to which, as far as respected the object of it, he had no objection. However, the impossibility of being able to make out accounts of so voluminous a nature as those called for, within the time elapsed, should be considered. If the noble earl would expressly state what particular point he wished to be informed upon, what particular circumstance he wished to be explained, he would endeavour to procure it, and such should be produced in the shortest possible time. The same objections, on the score of incovenience or impracticability, applied to the second motion, nearly as much as to the first. The number of sums which it would embrace, the considerable time which it must unavoidably take up, the number of clerks selected, as the most conversant in such businesses, who must be employed, and taken away from important avocations, were points worthy of serious consideration; so much so, that

125
unless some specific point were more expressly adverted to, he should feel it his duty rather to resist the present motion. It would be better, upon the whole, considering the business was in such a train of proceeding, that the original motion should be followed up.
The Earl of Suffolk disclaimed any intention or disposition of creating unnecessary trouble to any department of government. He had sat in parliament nearly twenty-five years, and this was only the second time he had moved for any papers. His first motion was made about three years ago, the object of which was to lay before the house an account of the produce of the sale of old naval stores in Great Britain. The motion was then acceded to, but the accounts had never yet been produced. He should repeat that motion this night, but he should first advert to the motives upon which he grounded the propriety and necessity of the motion he before alluded to. It appeared to him (indeed he had it from the best authority) that much abuse existed in the manner in which bills from the West Indies on the treasury were paid. In proof of the existence of that abuse, he could cite the authority of the principal West India merchants in this country, or even bring them to the bar of the house, should such be their lordships' pleasure, to corroborate and substantiate his assertions respecting the abuse he alluded to. He would now content himself with adducing one instance from a great number of others, in which a West India merchant held bills of that kind on the treasury; they were drawn at 61 days, and when they became due, he presented them for payment. Instead of receiving the cash as he expected, accommodation bills were offered at 61 days further, bearing an interest of 5l. per cent. This was understood to be the usual practice, but the merchant whom he had in his eye, pleaded the necessity he was under of paying very heavy bills that pressed upon him, and that he could not keep up his credit, unless his just demand on the treasury was punctually paid. The 5l. per cent, interest could be of little moment to him under such circumstances; he might, therefore, persist in peremptorily insisting on immediate payment, otherwise he should be under the necessity of protesting the bills. The treasury at first demurred; but seeing the firmness of the merchant's resolution, they gave him an order for the
126
money. It was unnecessary to comment upon such an abuse. The individual suffered the inconvenience of the first instance; and the public were next saddled with the additional burthen of the 5 per cent. interest for the additional 61 days.
Lord Hawkesbury expressed himself wholly unacquainted with the transactions alluded to by the noble earl; besides, it referred to a department different from that over which he had the honour to preside. He then made some remarks, following up the observations he had already made, respecting the propriety of suffering the former motion to stand.
The Earl of Suffolk took the opportunity to advert to the circumstance of no effectual attention having been paid to his motion, for an account of the proceeds of the old naval stores, which he made two years ago, and which was then ordered by the house; that was the second time he had ever moved for papers, though he had twenty-three years the honour of being a member of that house. His late motion on this subject was withdrawn, in. consequence of a mistake he had made in the year. His lordship concluded by moving, "for a return of the proceeds of the old naval stores, from the 1st of December, 1803, to the 1st of December 1804."
The Marquis of Sligo, with reference to what had been said relative to the West India bills, observed, that these bills were generally at 91 days.—After a few observations from lord Hawkesbury, the noble earl withdrew his second motion, and permitted the first to remain as it originally stood.—The earl of Suffolk then moved for the account of the produce of the sale of old naval stores, but limited the period from the first of December 1802, till the first of December, 1804, which was agreed to.

CONDUCT OF JUDGE FOX.
The Lore Chancellor rose, pursuant to notice, to submit a motion to their lordships respecting the place and manner in which Mr. Justice Fox should be allowed to attend the discussion on matters that concerned him, or even enter upon his defence and justification, should that learned gentleman deem it fit and expedient so to do. He had taken much pains to enquire into precedents to regulate what he should propose on the present occasion; but he could not meet with one that appeared to him to be exactly in point. Much difficulty arose in his mind from the manner in which the

127
spiritual peers from Ireland were summoned to attend parliament. There was also a case of the attendance of Scotch judges, who were called upon by the house in the year 1763, to deliver their opinion upon certain points to the house. The Scotch judges at that time did not stand in the same predicament as the learned gentleman now concerned, and therefore their case could not apply to the present. He felt much for the situation of the learned judges, and he was convinced that every possible mark of respect and regard should be paid to him by the house. But from the precedents which he had consulted, he was directed to think, that the learned gent. could not well sit on such an occasion in the body of that house, but that a chair should be prepared for him below the bar, and that every proper instruction should be given by the learned lord who sat on the woolsack, or the noble lord who presided at the table in committees of the house, that the learned gent. should experience every possible mark and indication of respect which the house could afford his appearance, below the bar. It was in his opinion to be left to the option of that learned person, whether or not he should attend in his judicial robes, or not. The learned lord, after further elucidations of the case, concluded with a motion for the appearance of the learned gentleman in a chair below the bar.
Lord Auckland differed somewhat in opinion from the learned lord, and conceived it to be in the spirit of the act of union, that the learned judges of Ireland should be treated as the judges of this country, who attended ad peers in that house.
Lord Carleton rose to address their lordships upon the subject. He delivered himself in low tone of voice. With respect to the learned judge, to whom their lordships present deliberations referred, he had obviously no particular interest in the question, farther than he was anxious for the preservation of his own dignity, and that of his judicial character. He called their lordships' attention to the provisions and effect of the act of settlement, under which the powers of the parliament, with respect to his majesty's judges, were derived. He was proceeding to expatiate upon this topic, when his lordship was attacked by a sudden illness, and was obliged to decline speaking. He sat down, and immediately fell backwards on his seat. The debate and business of the house were immediately
128
suspended. He was paid every attention by most of their lordships present; and when the noble viscount had somewhat recovered,
The Lord Chancellor, neatly and feelingly adverting to the unfortunate circumstance which had just taken place, said he should, under the pressure of the event, move, that the committee on the case of Mr. Justice Fox be adjourned from Thursday, till the following day; and the present debate, he would beg leave to move, should be adjourned till Thursday. These propositions seeming to meet the cordial assent of their lordships, were forthwith ordered accordingly.—Adjourned.