Sitting of 5 June 1805

MINUTES.
Mr. Dennis from the Commissioners of Excise, presented accounts of balances remaining in the hands of the Receiver General of Excise, at various periods from the 5th of Jan. 1793, to 5th April last inclusive. Ordered to be printed.—Mr. Staveley from the Post-office, presented an account of balances in the hands of the Receiver General of the Post-office, which was ordered to be printed.—On the motion of Mr. Vansittart, the Committee on the Irish Revenue Jurisdiction bill, and the further consideration of the report of the Committee on the Irish Port Day bill, were postponed to this day three months.—Mr. Ormsby brought up the report of the Committee on

767
the Petition from Collyer and others, Freeholders of Middlesex, praying for compensation for loss of time in attending the Committee on the contested election for Middlesex. Ordered to be taken into consideration on Monday.—A message front' the lords intimated their lordships' concurrence in the bill for purchasing ground .in Palace Yard, the Dublin Harbour Improvement bill, the Militia Officers bill, and the Corn Import and Export Regulation bill—Mr. Fowler from the Tax-office, presented an account of the expences incurred for Officers and Commissioners under the Act for the Redemption of the Land Tax, from 5th Jan. 1804 to 5th Jan. 1805.—On the motion of Mr. Vansittart, the Irish Distillery bill, the Irish Paper Duty bill, and the Irish Hearth Duty bill, were read a third time aid passed.

TROTTERS INDEMNITY BILL.
Mr. Whitbread moved the further consideration of the third reading of this bill; which being accordingly read a third time,
Sir William Elford rose to propose his promised amendment to the preamble, which he now preferred to any emendatory clause. His object was to put those persons who should give evidence on Viscount Melville's Impeachment, into a situation free from any apprehensions they might otherwise entertain. It would tend to obtain the ends of substantial justice, and greatly to shorten the proceeding; as at present there was so great a difference between lawyers of eminence, respecting the obligation of a witness to give evidence against himself, that on the trial, it must be productive of long and frequent discussions between the counsel on both sides. The purport of his amendment was, that after the words "indemnified for any public acts," should be inserted the words "and against any public money he may have applied contrary to law, during the time that Viscount Melville was Treasurer of the Navy."
Lord Henry Petty said, that he did not rise to offer objections to any measure which professed to be calculated for obtaining the ends of substantial justice, though it could not be denied, that in this, the house was making a sacrifice of very material importance. He owned, that there was a considerable difference in the opinion of lawyers, as the hon. gent. had stated; but by all that he could learn of the subject, the preponderance was greatly in favour of a different construction from that given to the law by Mr. Dancey. It was certainly a question upon which the house ought not hastily to decide; and he therefore wished for the the introduction of some
768
words, purporting that this indulgence was granted from the necessity of the case, lest it should hereafter be construed into the format recognition of a principle.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out, from the wording of the preamble, that the amendments proposed were entirely consistent with the spirit of the bill itself. There were two things which the bill wished to provide for;—1st. That such answers as might be given which would criminate the witness should not expose him to any prosecution. The second consideration was, that the witnesses should give their evidence (whether incrimnation or exculpation) unembarrassed, and free from personal apprehensions. He thought the amendments proposed were essentially necessary for the obtaining both those objects.
Mr. Giles agreed perfectly with what had fallen from a noble friend of his (lord H. Petty), that although it might be proper to grant a complete indemnity in the present instance, yet that the house should not recognize it as a precedent to govern other cases which might be somewhat similar, and yet differing in other respects.
Mr. Sturges Bourne made a few observations in support of the amendment.—On the Speaker's putting the question. that the, bill as amended do pass,
Lord De Blaquiere rose. He said he had waited in the humble distance which became him, to see whether an object in the bill which struck him to be of much importance, might not be taken up by some person more competent than himself: that time, however, was passed; and he relied on the wonted kindness of the house to indulge him for a few, minutes in what he wished to say. Certainly he meant not, in this last stage of the bill, to encounter that doctrine, which the house seemed to warrant,—that of acquitting the principal, in order to punish the accessory. Much less did he mean, at such a moment, to enquire how far it would be consistent with the dignity and character of the house. to avail itself of any expressions which might have dropped from lord Melville when making his defence at their bar; how far it could be for the honour of parliament, or consistent with the liberal feelings of the hon. member who conducted the business, to found upon such grounds a distinct article of impeachment against that unfortunate lord, when, as was forcibly and eloquently said yesterday by an hon. friend of his (Mr. Alexander), every thing which tended to his justification was passed by without a note, and every word which made against him recorded.—The

769
noble lord said, that, notwithstanding all the amendments made in the bill, there remained something attached to Mr. Trotter, which left him not a free man. The bill went to deprive of the benefit of indemnity not only any person who should give false evidence, but any who shall suppress or refuse, fully, fairly, and truly, to disclose all and every transaction to which he may be privy, touching the conduct of lord Melville. And who was to be the judge whether Mr. Trotter does, or does not reveal and disclose fully and fairly all he may know? God, the Searcher of hearts, may do it; but it belongs not to me, said the noble lord, or to the hon. member. And was it not very possible that a weak and timid mind, such as that of Mr. Trotter was represented to be, might not recollect and precisely state, on one examination, the same facts in the manner to bear the same construction as he had stated them at another time, and yet the least prevarication, however unintentional, might expose him to the loss of the indemnities proffered, Mr. Trotter was said to he a man very weak and nervous, and that he had exhibited the strongest proofs of it before the committee, where he appeared much terrified. Put it otherwise, said the noble lord; suppose that, with a length of quiet time, Mr. Trotter should recollect many circumstances which tended to justify lord Melville's conduct, and which he had not stated yet; would it not be more than possible that the apprehensions he would be under might at least very much embarrass him in giving his testimony, for the proviso to which the noble lord alluded left not Mr. Trotter a free man. As for himself, he was neither ashamed nor afraid to profess his own opinion, that, when all this business against lord Melville should have been gone through, he entertained the most sanguine expectations the result would be, that lord Melville, at this very hour, had more than sufficiently suffered for all his neglects, and all his delinquencies, and if it was not high treason against the house so to say, he thought lord Melville had met with hard measure. Of the honour and integrity of the hon. Member who brought this business forward, however highly he might think, still he had but a very slender opinion of his moderation. Lord De Blaquiere was then proposing his amendment, when
The Speaker rose and said, that if the noble lord had any objections to the general principle of the bill, he might state them, but that it was now too late to propose any amendments.
Lord De Blaquiere said, he trusted the bill would yet be altered before it passed into a law, and that Mr. Trotter would not be left in that desperate predicament which gave him an interest in the conviction of his friend.
Mr. Whitbread, in answer to the observations of the noble lord, said, that Mr. Trotter would be sworn to tell the truth, the, whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and if he failed to comply with the obligation of his oath on these grounds, surely it would not be argued, that he had any claim to the indemnities proposed by this bill. If Mr. Trotter could, in the course of the summer, recollect any circumstance by which he might add to, or correct his evidence, before the impeachment should be closed, either in support of the accusation, or in favour of lord Melville, he would be at liberty to amend that evidence, by stating such circumstances. All his object in the case was substantial justice, and the whole truth, and surely it was but right for the house to retain this hold upon his veracity, that if he concealed any part of the truth, he. forfeited his claim to the indemnity.
Mr. Johnstone said, that however painful it was to him to differ from his hon. friend by whom the bill was introduced, he must declare his disapprobation of it, as proceeding on a principle of justice of which he could by no means admit. There was but a single precedent, that of lord Macclesfield, that bore any semblance to this case, and that he thought by no means bore upon it in every part, for this reason, that though the masters in chancery and lord Macclesfield were participators in the same crime, yet that the guilt of the masters in chancery was infinitely less than that of lord Macclesfield, whereas in the present instance, although the moral guilt of lord Melville certainly preponderated, yet, that on the question of participation, (which was that to be submitted to the decision of the lords) he was only an accessary In his opinion it would be always better to let a criminal escape without punishment, than to adopt legislative provisions for the express purpose of bringing down punishment upon him.—The bill was then passed, and Mr. Whitbread was ordered to carry it to the lords for their concurrence.

SOUTHERN WHALE FISHERY BILL.
On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill,
Lord Brooke rose to move a clause, by way of rider, proposing to exempt from the Alien Duty five other ships, which sailed from Milford Haven, and were freighted with oil fur that marker, provided, they should ar

771
rive before the 3Ist of December; these, in addition to five other ships already exempted by the bill from that duty, amounting to about 22,000l. Provided they arrived within a given period.
Mr. Rose decidedly opposed the clause, as claiming an indulgence detrimental to the revenue in favour of persons who were by no means entitled to such an indulgence upon any ground. He explained the nature of this claim. It had been thought expedient about nine years since, to give encouragement to forty families to settle at Milford Haven, on the condition of their fitting out ships in the fishery, and instructing our seamen in their skill for taking such fish; and the consequence was, that, instead of complying with the conditions to which they had pledged themselves, instead of fitting out ships in the fishery, and improving our sailors in the art, and extending thereby our great nursery for seamen, the business had dwindled down to the exertions of a single family, who amassed a considerable fortune by it, and instead of fitting out ships for the fishery, they purchased the whale oil from the American fishermen, in American ports, and imported it into England as the produce of the British fisheries, and thereby eluded the alien duties, which were the principal barriers for the encouragement and protection of the British fisheries, the rapid improvements of which, within the last few years, were owing, not at all to those settlers, but entirely to the spirit of our own merchants, and the skill and adventure of our own seamen; against whose interests and encouragement it was now proposed, by another ex-emption of five ships cargoes from the alien duty, to throw 25,000l. into the pocket of a single family. He therefore decidedly opposed the clause.
Sir Charles Price also opposed the clause upon the same ground. He observed, that the claimant, whose name was Roche, was forced to fly from France in the tyranny of Robespierre, and was encouraged, upon the conditions mentioned by the right hon. Gent. To settle in this country. He had also adventured in America; so that he was a whaler of each country, and now wanted to claim exemption from the alien duties in favour of cargoes not procured by promoting the British fishery, and the important naval objects therewith connected, but purchased in American ports, from American whalers, at a moderate price, and brought into British ports exempt from the alien duties, and to be sold at double the original cost. The more oil could be brought into this country
772
by any and all means, legal and illegal, the more advantageous would it be to him in the line of his trade; but he could not so far desert the rights of British seamen and British merchants in their own market, as. to suffer the produce or foreign fisheries to enter their ports upon equal terms, and reap the advantages due to them from their country.—The question being put, the clause was rejected; and the bill was read the third time, passed, and ordered to the lords.—Adjourned

MINUTES.
Mr. Quarme, deputy usher of the black rod, appeared at the bar, and summoned the house to attend the house of lords, to hear the royal assent given by commission to certain bills. The speaker, on his return, informed the house, that he had been in the house of lords, and heard the royal assent given by commission to the Perpetual Wine Duty bill; the Slate Duty bill; the Army Commissioners' bill; the Hull Dock bill; and several private bills.—Lord Douglas moved for a new writ for the county of Forsar, in Scotland, in the room of sir D. Carnegie, bart. deceased. Ordered.—Sir W. Lemon, brought up a petition from the nobility, gentry, clergy, and freeholders of. the county of Cornwall, on the subject of the tenth report. Ordered to lie on the table. (See Vol. iv. p. 847.)—The London Port bill was Committed, and the report ordered to be received to-morrow,—Mr. Whitbread moved for an account of the balances in the hands of the receiver-general of the customs, on the 5th of January, 5th of April, 5th of July, and 5th of October, in each year, from 1793, to the 5th of April last, with the names of the persons in whose hands the said balances respectively were. Ordered.—Sir John Stewart brought up the first report of the select committee,
168
appointed to investigate the papers relative to the repairs of the Romney and La Sensible, whilst under the command of sir H. Popham. Ordered to be printed.—Mr. Johnson, from the office of the chief secretary for Ireland, presented at the bar an account of the money expended in criminal prosecutions in Ireland. Ordered to lie on the table.—Lord W. Russell brought up the minutes of the evidence taken before the committee on the south Lambeth Water-works bill, which was ordered to be printed; and the further consideration of the report, was, on the motion of Mr. Tierney, postponed till Friday.—Colonel Stanley rose to postpone the motion of which he had given notice for this day, to refer the report of the committee on the duke of Atholl's petition, &c. respecting the Isle of Man, to the consideration of a committee of the whole house. He understood that many gentlemen who did not suppose it was fixed for this day, were disposed to deliver their sentiments upon it; in order that those gentleman should attend, as he was desirous to have the business fully discussed, he was induced to postpone it till to-morrow. Mr. Creevey observed, that as the object of his proceeding on the part of the petitioner was to invalidate an act of parliament, he wished the evidence taken before the committee to be presented, before the house should go into the consideration of the subject. In order to afford time for this, he thought it desirable that the hon. gent.'s motion should be postponed till Friday. Mr.Curwen had no doubt it would be found that many facts alledged in the report were in direct contradiction to the evidence.—The Irish Distillery bill, and the West India Free Port bill, the Auditors' bill, and the Post Horse Duty bill, were severally read a third time, and passed.—On the question that the bill for supplying certain towns in Ireland with water, be read a third time, Mr. Foster opposed it, on the ground that it gave too great a power to the grand juries. He therefore moved, that it be read a third time this day three months. Colonel Bagwell differed from his right hon. Friend who spoke last, and thought the bill gave no novel or extraordinary power to grand juries, and hoped therefore the house would agree to the third reading. Sir J. Stewart said a few words in favour of the amendment, which was carried without a division, and the bill, of course, lost.—

169
Mr. Alexander brought up the report of the committee of ways and means; the resolutions were agreed to, and bills ordered thereon. He then brought up the Tax Collectors' Amendment bill, which was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time to-morrow.

MIDDLESEX ELECTION.
Mr. Creevey presented a petition from certain freeholders of the county of Middlesex in the interest of sir Francis Burdett, praying that they may be allowed to defend the seat of the hon. baronet, &c. The petition was then read, setting forth, "that the petitioners are freeholders of the county of Middlesex, and claim to have had a right to vote at the last election of a knight of the shire for the said county; and they are informed, that a petition, signed by G. B. Mainwaring, esq. therein describing himself a candidate at the said election, and others, has been presented to the house, complaining, among other things, of the election and return of sir Francis Burdett, baronet, to serve in parliament for the said county; and that the petitioners have observed, by a notice, inserted in the London Gazette on the 7th day of May last, by order of the speaker of the house, that after the presenting of the said petition, the said sir Francis Burdett, then being the sitting member for the said county, did, on the 6th day of May last, under and by virtue of the provisions and enactments contained in the second section of an act of parliament, passed in the 28th year of his present majesty, intituled, "an act for the further regulation of the trials of controverted elections or returns of members to serve in parliament," inform the house, by a declaration in writing, subscribed by him, and delivered in at the table of the house, that it was not his intention to defend his said election or return; and therefore praying, that under and by virtue of the provisions and enactments contained in the said hereinbefore in part recited act, they may be admitted as parties in the room of the said sir Francis Burdett, and be considered as such to all intents and purposes whatever."
Mr. Creevey gave notice that it was his intention to move to-morrow, that the order which stands for Friday, for the appointment of a ballot to try the merits of the Middlesex election, shall be discharged. The hon. member added, that he should move that order to be postponed to a future day, with a view to afford a, fair time
170
to the parties to prepare and exchange lists.
The Speaker stated, in answer to a question which had been put to him, that, conformably to the terms of the act, the petitioners in this case were entitled to all the rights that belonged to the candidate on whose side they came forward.
Mr. H. Thornton wished the hon. member, who had given notice of the motion upon this subject would state the time to which he proposed to postpone the order that stood for Friday, as he apprehended it would be found to be the opinion of the house that the petitioners were not entitled to the exchange of lists.—Ordered, that the said petitioners be admitted parties in the room of the said sir Francis Burdett, bart. according to the prayer of the said petition.

PETITION FROM THE BRITISH MUSEUM, RESPECTING Mr. TOWNLEY'S COLLECTION.
The Master of the Rolls presented a petition from the trustees of the British Museum, praying the aid of parliament to enable them to purchase the collection of antient sculpture left by the late Mr. Charles Townley, of Park-street, Westminster. This collection was not to be rivalled in this country. It was one which vied with, perhaps, any private collection of similar works to be met with in any part of Europe. Such an acquisition to our national museum was much wanted. Foreigners had long since remarked, that our country was the only great state of Europe where a public collection of the famous productions of the antients, in the art of sculpture, is not to be found. In the present situation of Europe, and of this country, it was greatly to be wished that we might have within ourselves subjects in that branch of the arts for the study of our artists; and under these circumstances the British Museum has solicited the aid of parliament. On the other hand, the persons who have the direction of the affairs of the late Mr, Townley, have signified their readiness to dispose of so much of the collection as the trustees of the Museum wish, on terms deemed very reasonable. Having said this, there remained for him just to observe, that all he meant at present was to move, "that the petition be referred to a committee, and that they do consider the matter thereof, and report the same, as it shall appear to them, to the house."—Then the said petition was brought up, and read; setting forth, "that, by the munificence of parliament, the Sloanian and

171
Harleian collections of books, manuscripts, records, coins, medals, gems, and other rare and valuable articles of science and literature, have been heretofore purchased at the public expence, and placed as an addition to the Cottonian library, under the care and management of the trustees of the British Museum; and that the collection of Etruscan, Grecian, and Roman antiquities, belonging to the late sir William Hamilton, was afterwards purchased by parliament in like manner, and vested in the same trustees, to be placed in the same general repository; and that many large and valuable benefactions of books, coins, medals, and specimens of natural history, have since been received, from time to time, so as nearly to occupy the whole of the building assigned for those purposes; Oat when his majesty was graciously pleased to direct that the Egyptian antiquities, obtained in the last war by the valour of his majesty's arms, should be placed in the British Museum, a liberal aid was granted by parliament towards the erection of a suitable addition to the present building, as well for the purpose of preserving these securely and conveniently, as also for the reception of other important specimens of the fine arts, already in the possession of the trustees, and to which it was hoped that material additions might be made from time to time, which building has been undertaken accordingly, and will be nearly completed in the course of the present year; and that the, late Charles Townley, esq. who was a trustee of the British museum, did, in his life-time, by successful exertions, and at a large expence, during a long course of years, form a most valuable collection of ancient sculptured marbles, which, for their perfect condition, and exquisite taste, far exceed any private collection in this country, and are not surpassed (as it is believed) by any other of equal extent in Europe; and that the family of the late Charles Townley, esq. to whom this collection was bequeathed, in consequence of a representation to them, that the preserving and exhibiting it to the public view in the metropolis would be highly advantageous to the cultivation of the fine arts, and at the same time honourable to the memory of their deceased relation. have expressed their consent to surf ender this collection to tile public, if parliament should he disposed to purchase time Fame at the sum of 20,000l. being (as they state) far less than its value, and if the like
172
privilege were conferred upon their family as was granted, in the like cases, to the families of sir Hans Sloane and the earl of Oxford, by vesting in the heirs of the late Charles Townley, esq. the power of nominating two trustees of the British Museum in perpetual succession; and that the petitioners conceive it to be an object of great national, importance for the improvement of the fine arts, that a collection of antique sculpture, of such acknowledged and unrivalled excellence, should be acquired and preserved for public inspection and use; and they have felt it the more incumbent upon them to submit these circumstances to the consideration of parliament, as they believe it to be universally allowed, that a collection in this branch of the fine arts, to which artists can have tree access, is much wanted in this country, and as the additional buildings, already provided for by the liberality of parliament, have been planned in a manner the best adapted for receiving such a collection, and exhibiting it to the greatest advantage."
Sir William Young bore distinguished testimony to the excellence of the collection, and the great merits of Mr. Townley, not as a collector only, in which respect his merits were undoubted, but likewise as a judge of the arts, and of the greatest correctness of taste. The collection was worth four times 20,000l. He wished it to be recommended to the committee, to grant sufficient to purchase the whole collection of which the articles of sculpture, though so eminent, formed but a part. The collection was superior to any private collection in this country, and even superior to any private one, excepting four or five in Rome itself; the capital of the liberal arts, If, therefore, the representatives of Mr.Townley would be willing to part with it, he wished the committee to extend the purchase to the whole collection.
The Master of the Rolls observed, that such a purchase was no doubt desirable, but the trustees of the British Museum did not wish to overstrain the liberality of parliament.— A committee of the house was now appointed to consider of the petition, and report to the house.

NON-RESIDENCE OF IRISH CLERGY.
Sir J. Newport rose in pursuance of the notice he had given relative to the residence of the clergy in Ireland, and stated, that it was desirable a bill similar to that passed for the same purpose in this coun-

173
try should be passed for that. The honourable baronet stated the object of these motions to be, that the house should be put in full information previous to the discussion of the measure for enforcing the residence of the Irish clergy, which a learned gentlemen (Dr. Duigenan) had given notice of his intention to bring forward next session, but the adoption of which he had expected this session. If the learned gentleman should not bring forward this measure early in the next session, he felt it so material to the interest of the protestant establishment, that he should himself conceive it his duty to bring it before the house. The non-residence of the Irish clergy was a great grievance, but the union of the parishes was still as mischievous. This practice of uniting parishes, merely in order to increase the revenues of individual clergymen, was such, that in some cases there were fourteen parishes under one pastor of course there was but one protestant church in that district, in which there were 14 catholic chapels. He submitted to the house whether such a state of things was calculated to forward the interest and doctrine of the church. establishment. The hon. bart. concluded with moving, "that there be prepared, a return of the names of every dignity, prebend, benefice, donative, and parochial chapelry, within the several dioceses of Ireland, and of all the persons possessing the same who shall not have resided on such dignity, prebend, benefice, donative, or parochial chapelry, during one year last past, so far as the several archbishops or bishops may be informed thereof, in order to the same being laid before the house early the next session of parliament, by the registers of the several dioceses; distinguishing such persons as have received licence or permission from their diocesans for their non-residence." Also, "that there be prepared, by the registers of the several dioceses of Ireland, returns of the names and number of parishes comprized in each union of parishes within their respective dioceses, the period of time when such respective parishes were united, and the authority under which such union was effected, the number of acres of glebe which appertain to each parish, awl whether any glebe house is erected thereon, and the distance at which such respective parishes so united lie from each other, when such parishes are not contiguous; and whether any, and what number of churches in which
174
divine service is performed, are now severally thereon, or were at the time when such parishes were united, so far as the same can be made out, in order to the same being laid before the house early in the next session of parliament."
Mr. James Fitzgerald warmly supported the motion. He thought it evident that the protestant religion must decline in a country where there were catholic chapels for every parish, and where many parishes were without protestant places of worship.
Mr. Vansittart did not purpose to oppose the motion. He could not, however, but remark, that the returns to the order would of necessity be very imperfect, as it was not long since the practice of making diocesan returns was established in Ireland. He was decidedly against any innovation, by which the constitution of the church of Ireland might be altered. As to the other topic mentioned by the hon. baronet, namely, that of the consolidation of livings in Ireland, he believed it would be found, on enquiry, that the method was extremely salutary.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated, it was the full intention of an hon. and learned gent. (Dr. Duigenan) to propose the manner alluded to by the hon. mover for enforcing the residence of the Irish clergy.
Mr. Alexander said, that bishops in Ireland often divided parishes that were too extensive for the attendance of one rectory.
Sir George Hill bore testimony to the regular residence and laudable demeanour of the clergy in three dioceses of the north of Ireland, with which he was ell acquainted.—Both the motions were agreed to.

PRIZE AGENCY BILL.
The report of the prize agency bill was brought up, and several amendments, introduced by sir W. Scott, were agreed to.
Mr. Johnstone adverted to the charge brought before the house on a former occasion by admiral Cochrane against the king's proctor, alledging that he permitted his partner, in many cases, to act for the adverse party; and animadverted in strong terms upon such a practice, particularly in an officer who, according to the statement of the hon. mover of this bill, received not less than 13,000l. a year net profit from his business. The hon. gent. remarked that when the charge of gross malversation which he alluded to was made, the learned gent. (sir Wm. Scott), did not contradict it.

175
He concluded with moving a clause, that any proctor who shall allow his partner to take the adverse side, or who shall directly or indirectly receive any part of the profits from the proctor on the other side, or any other person, shall, upon conviction thereof, be utterly excluded from the profession, and any place whatever he may hold in the admiralty or vice-admiralty courts. And also that for every offence the offender shall forfeit 500l. to be recovered on information, &c.
Sir W. Scott did not see the necessity for this clause, as the practice it referred to was already pronounced illegal and was punishable on detection. He had no objection, however, to its import, and therefore should not oppose it.— The clause was adopted, the bill was gone through, and ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.—Adjourned.

MINUTES.
Lord Barham (late sir C. Middleton) was introduced with the accustomed formalities, sworn and took his seat. His lordship's supporters were, lords Boston and Woodhouse.—The royal assent was given by commission to the Land Tax Commissioners' Name bill, the Property Tax Amendment, the Naval Enquiry Renewal, the Military Commissioners, the Irish Spirit Licence bill, the Wine Duties bill, and the Slate Exemption Duty bill, and to thirty-two acts of a private or local description. The lords commissioners were, the lord chancellor, lord Walsingham, and lord Auckland.—The earl of Suffolk said, that with respect to the motion, of which he had given notice, he believed for that day, relative to the state of Ireland, he should defer it for the present. He did not, however, relinquish his intention, but meant to bring it forward, probably in the course of next week, but of the particular day he should take care to give due notice. On the motion of the bishop of London, and relative to which proceeding a few words were said in a very low tone or voice by the earl of Bridgewater; their lordships were ordered to be summoned for Monday next.—The earl of Suffolk, seeing a noble secretary Of state in his place, expressed his wish to learn in what state of forwardness the accounts were respecting the drawing of bills from the West India Islands upon his majesty's treasury, which had been ordered to be produced upon his motion on a former day; or, when it was probable they would be laid before the house? Lord Hawkesbury observed, he believed the papers were in that state of preparation, that they would be ready in the course of a few days. He had, however, to repent his wish, that the noble earl would particularize some fact or circumstance which, it was his wish, as the Object of his motion, to collect from the accounts in question. With respect to the case of a particular bill, to which the noble earl referred on a former evening, he had reason to think the facts were misrepresented to him; such proceedings never obtained without the

165
permission of the holder. There was an allowance of five per cent. but from this no person could derive any profit, because the bills were only paid at the bank. However, to bring the subject fully to the view of the house, he would move "for an account of all bills drawn from the West India settlements upon his majesty's treasury, beyond a certain amount, from the 1st of December, 1798, to the 1st of December, 1802, with the dates, amount of interest paid to the holder, &c. should be laid before the house." The earl of Suffolk, in explanation, contended, that he had been well informed as to what he stated on a former evening. In one of the cases, the party agreed to the proffered accommodation; in the other it was refused; he had his information from the best authority: he had also information on the subject from some of the principal West India houses. Lord Hawkesbury having moved to the foregoing effect, it was ordered accordingly.

CONDUCT OF JUDGE FOX.
On the motion of lord Auckland, the order was enforced for the exclusion of strangers; and, in consequence, the doors were kept shut for about half an hour. Immediately after our re-admission into the house, their lordships resolved into a committee, lord Walsingham in the Chair, on the case of judge Fox.
The Lord Chancellor stated, that from the best attention he could give to the subject of discussion in the committee, the last evening of their lordships' meeting, he was led to conclude, that it was impossible, consistently with the forms of the house, to give effect to the motion then made. This opinion of the noble and learned lord gave rise to a short debate, or rather conversation, in which earls Spencer and Carlisle, lords Auckland, Mulgrave, and Harrowby, and the marquises of Buckingham and Abercorn, took a part. The noble earls above mentioned expressed their regret, that it should be deemed preferable to adhere to form, in a case where the most important interests of justice were at stake.
The Earl of Carlisle, in particular, adverted to the advantage which he conceived the accusing parties must derive from the proceeding which took place in the former committee, and observed, that if these were not to be communicated to the accused, their lordships would be metamorphosed from their former capacity of
166
grand jury finding a bill, to a petit jury, whose function it was to try the cause.
Lord Auckland called to the recollection of the committee his doubts on a former evening, that the motion could not consistently be acted upon. He regretted part of the proceedings which had taken place, as contrary to his sense of propriety, but had to express his hope, that no copy of proceedings had been communicated.
Lord Mulgrave contended, that full and substantial justice might be done to that parties, notwithstanding the proceedings that had hitherto taken place; these made no difference, and could not affect the proceedings now in train, in which the case would be openly and regularly canvassed at the bar of the house, and evidence heard on both sides. The noble secretary of state observed, that if the officers of the house had done their duty, no communication of the proceedings in question could be made.
The Marquis of Buckingham made a few observations in support of what fell from noble lords on his side of the house. He considered, upon the whole, the learned judge, as being placed in a worse situation, in consequence of the proceedings hitherto adopted. He then adverted to the effect of certain proceedings which had taken place.—After the lord chancellor had shortly explained, it was ordered, that counsel and evidence should be called in. Accordingly Mr. Romilly, for the petitioners, in support of the accusation, and Messrs. Adam and Nolan in behalf of Mr. justice Fox, appeared at the bar. The learned judge himself took his seat below the centre of the bar. Mr. Romilly immediately entered upon the facts of the case. He stated he was counsel for Mr. John Fawcett, and ten other persons, who presented one of the petitions, complaining of certain parts of the conduct of Mr. justice Fox in his judicial capacity, while on the north-western circuit, in the summer of the year 1803, in Ireland. The first witness brought forward was Mr. John Fawcett above mentioned. He was very shortly examined; when Mr. Johnson, clerk of the crown for the county of Fermanagh, &c. was brought forward: this gentleman was examined in brief by Mr. Romilly, and afterwards at greater length cross-examined by Mr. Adam, on the part of Mr. justice Fox. He was shortly examined by Mr. Romilly, and was asked several questions on the part of their lord-

167
ships. Mr. William Armstrong, another of appointed to investigate the papers relative the petitioners, was the third witness called.
The Duke of Clarence objected to the examination of this witness, as he was one of the petitioners, and it was a rule of the house that no petitioner should be examined as a witness in his own cause.
Lord Ellenborough considered this rule as applying only to the civil causes which came before their lordships. In the courts below, the evidence of a prosecutor was always admissible; and, from analogy, he was of opinion that the present petitioners might be examined at the bar.—The house appeared to be of this opinion; and the counsel, who had withdrawn, were again called in. After they were called in, however, the point was argued at great length by Mr. Adam and Mr. Nolan on the one side, and. Mr. Romilly on the other. Their lordships then finally decided that the petitioners should be examined. The witness was again called in; but the farther proceedings were adjourned until to-morrow.