Sitting of 6 June 1805

MINUTES.
Sir Lawrence Parsons was sworn, and took his seat, on his re-election, after accepting the office of one of the commissioners of the treasury in Ireland.— Mr. Brooke presented petitions from 39,000 clothiers of the county of York; And from the clothiers of Somerset, Gloucester, and Wilts, in favour of the bill relating to their trade now before the house. Mr. Brooke observed, that the contests now existing had lasted for three years. What he wished was, an equitable arrangement between masters and workmen; he wished the law to be reduced to a compendious system, so that the masters and workmen may be able to understand it. Mr. H. Lascelles thought the present period of the session too late for introducing a bill of such magnitude; he thought arrangement necessary, and the subject of sufficient magnitude to engage the attention of government. Sir R Buxton and admiral Berkeley spoke to the same effect; the latter objected to the bill, as putting a stop to the use of all machinery. The petitions were ordered to lie on the table. —On the motion of sir C. Price, the report of the committee on the bill for the completion of the London docks was ordered to be re-committed to a committee of the whole house.—On the motion of Mr. Tierney, the further consideration of the report of the committee on the Camberwell Waterworks was put off till Monday.—On the motion of Mr. Baker, the bill for regulating contracts relating to the poor was re-committed. Some amendments were made in the committee, and the report ordered to be received tomorrow. Mr. Brooke moved that the bill for regulating the Woollen Manufacture be read a second time on Monday next.—Sir Robert Buxton moved as an amendment, that the bill be read a second
182
time this day three months. Mr. Brooke hoped the hon. baronet would withdraw his motion, in order that the opinions of gentlemen might be collected, for the purpose of preparing a bill of general arrangement against the next session. Mr. H. Lascelles wished the amendment to be withdrawn, with a view to turn the attention of his majesty's government to this subject, for the purpose of a complete arrangement early in the next session. Sir R. Buxton consented to withdraw his amendment. Admiral Berkeley consented to put off the second reading till Monday, with a view to ascertain the sentiments of government, but with the determination to move, that it should then be further put off till that day three months.—Mr. Creevey moved that the order for taking into consideration the petitions complaining of an undue election in the county of Middlesex be put off from to-morrow till to-morrow se'n-night. Ordered.—Mr. Huskisson wished, that, in consideration of the absence of the chancellor of the exchequer, from indisposition, the discussion on the Duke of Atholl's claims, with respect to the Isle of Man, should be put off till to-morrow. After some observations from lord Temple and Mr. Curwen, as to the length of time this affair had been pending, the further consideration was fixed for to-morrow.— On the motion of Mr. Whitbread, some additional accounts relative to balances in the hands of the receiver-general of the customs were ordered. Mr. Whitbread also moved, that there be laid before the house an account of the persons in whose names the navy and victualling bills funded in 1795 and 1796 had been written up at the bank; but on the suggestion of Mr. Long and Mr. Rose, he changed his motion into a notice for to-morrow.—Mr. Rose brought up the report of the committee on the Fish Bounty bill. On the motion of Mr. Vansittart, this report was ordered to be taken into further consideration on Monday.—On the motion of Mr. Vansittart, the committee on the Dublin Police bill was put off till to-morrow. It was ordered that the house should to-morrow resolve itself into a committee, to consider of certain grants for secret services in Ireland.—Mr. Sturges Bourne brought up the Loyalty Loan Compensation bill, and the bill for completing the Crinan Canal; which were read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time to-morrow; also the bill for defraying the charges of pay

183
and Clothing of the Militia of Great Britain and Ireland, the bills for Allowances to Subaltern Officers of Militia in Great Britain and Ireland, and the bill for the better collection of the Duty on Paper in Ireland.—On the motion of Mr. Foster, the house went into a committee to consider of the best means for improving the Harbour of Howth, near Dublin. A sum not exceeding 10,000l. Irish, wars ordered to be advanced out of the consolidated fund of Ireland for this purpose. The report to be received to-morrow.—The Irish Horse and Dog Duty bill was reported, and ordered to be read a third time on Monday.—On the motion of Mr. Huskisson, the house went into a committee on the Spanish Wine Duty bill. Mr. Brooke wished the additional duty on Spanish wine to be reduced from 12l. to 10l. a ton. Mr. Huskisson could not agree to this proposition, which was sisted by sir C. Price also, as unfavourable to the fair trader. Mr. Brooke's proposition was negatived, and the duty fixed at 12l. per ton. The report was ordered to be received to-morrow.—Mr. I.H. Browne moved that there be laid before the house a copy of the proceedings of the committee for making, roads in the Highlands of Scotland; which was agreed to.—The English and Irish Felons Escape bill went through a committee, and was ordered to be reported to-morrow.— A message from the lords announced their concurrence in several private bills; and also requested that the home would permit sir James Stewart, bart. and the right hon. sir John Stewart, bart. to attend the committee of the house of lords on Monday next, for the purpose of being examined on the address proposed to his majesty, relative to the charges exhibited against the hon. Luke Fox, one of the judges of the common pleas in Ireland, respecting his conduct on the circuit in the summer of 1803, if they thought proper. On the motion of Mr. Bankes, the lords' messengers were informed by the speaker, that the house would send an answer by its own messengers.

PADDINGTON CANAL COAL BILL.
On the motion of Mr. Huskisson, the house resolved itself into a committee on the report of the select committee, for allowing the importation of coal, to a certain extent, by the grand junction canal.
Sir Ralph Milbank disapproved of every thing that tended to diminish the working of the northern collieries. A diminution
184
of the shipping and seamen employed in conveying coals must follow. This trade was the best nursery of seamen, and the men engaged in it being accustomed to very dangerous seas and coasts, were particularly fitted for the most arduous services, as the best officers of the navy allowed.
Mr. Huskisson stated, that the limited conveyance of 50,000 tons by the Paddinging canal this year, was intended to enable the house to form a judgment whether the procuring a more certain supply of coals to London, in this way, is likely to be attended with any mischief to the coasting coal trade.
Sir M. W. Ridley said, the friends of the coasting coal trade were obliged to accede to the conveyance of this limited quantity, in the fear that the government would impose severer restraints upon them.
Mr. Burdon consented to go into the committee, but was sure this measure would prove completely inadequate.
Mr. Spencer Stanhope hoped the public discussion would take place in the next session. He did not think there would be a disposition to enlarge the quantity to be imported in this way, at a duty of 10s. 2d. per ton.
Mr. Huskisson moved, that 50,000 ton be allowed to be brought by the Paddington canal, paying a duty of 10s. 2d. per ton, being the duty now paid per chaldron on coals brought coastways. He stated, that the reason of charging the duty in this instance by the ton was, that the coals brought in this way were too large to be measured.—The motion was agreed to, and the report ordered to be received to-morrow.—Adjourned.

CONDUCT OF JUDGE FOX.
Upon the order of the day being moved for their lordships to resume the examination of witnesses relative to the charge preferred against the honourable Mr. justice Fox, counsel and strangers were ordered to withdraw. Their lordships remained deliberating near an hour; the learned and venerable judge was then called in, and Mr. Romilly re-commenced the examination of Mr. Armstrong, the foreman of the jury, upon whose petition and complaint the present enquiry was instituted. The witness was first asked, whether, after he had heard the evidence upon the indictment which had given rise to the conduct of the learned judge, he could conscientiously have found any of the prisoners guilty? Mr. Adam objected to this question as too general, and it was waved. The witness, on being cross-examined by Mr. Adam, stated, that the trial in question took place on the 19th of August, 1803; that additional evidence was gone into after the jury had retired; that the witness, as the foreman, delivered the verdict of acquittal, having been out about half an hour. On the 20th of August, the day after the trial, Mr. justice Fox desired the clerk of the crown to deliver to him a list of the petit jurors. When he had received the list he desired the grand jury to be called, and he stigmatised the petit jury as unworthy of being believed on oath, and unfit to act in
176
the capacity of jurors. He also ordered the clerk of the crown to deliver the list to every succeeding judge, as consisting of men unfit to act as jurors; also that the high and under sheriff should have lists delivered to them, in order that it might be known the jurors were branded with infamy by the verdict they had given, and further, that their names should be posted up in the grand jury room. The witness stated, that he had been examined on this subject before a committee of the house of lords. He added, that shortly after the circumstance to which he was deposing, he and his brother jurymen applied to counsel for advice. Upon being asked when he first saw the present petition, he said it was as long after the trial as the summer of 1804; one of the jury brought it to him for his signature. He believed the name of this juror was Fawcett. He admitted that in the part of Ireland in which he and the rest of the jury resided, though they did not receive the newspapers, they had means of knowing what passed in parliament. He knew, before he signed the petition, that a complaint had been made in the house against Mr. justice Fox. He said, Fawcett and Weir brought the petition to him; more of the jury were present at the time. It was at the house of Mr. Reid, an innkeeper; they met in a parlour of the inn. He did not know who drew up the petition. Mr. Romilly submitted that the counsel for the learned judge had no right to press this course of enquiry. Mr. Adam contended, that as the jury, by preferring a joint complaint against the learned judge, were united as plaintiffs in the same cause, whatever any of them had done or said, was capable of being proved, and was equally applicable to all.
Lord Ellenborough said, there could be no question with regard to the competency of the evidence. In all prosecutions carried on in criminal courts, it was the ordinary and constant course to examine into the motives by which the prosecutors were actuated. If it appeared that they held private assemblies, and consulted secretly together, it was a most pregnant and important fact in the consideration of the charge: it indicated the motives the prosecutors had in view; it shewed that the prosecution, instead of being founded in a sense of private injury and a regard to public justice, proceeded from malice, ill will, or some other impure motive. Not only the assembly or meeting of the prose-

177
cutors was an act material to be proved, but the declarations of any of them accompanying such act were important. The objection to the evidence, therefore, would not bear an argument. The witness proceeded to state, that he did not know who drew up the petition, or who gave instructions for it. They employed an attorney, who sometimes lived in Dublin, and sometimes in Fermanagh. This attorney was the father of one of the jurors. The witness was asked, whether he had given the same kind of evidence before the committee of the house of lords?
Lord Hawkesbury thought it irregular to refer to the evidence given before the committee.
The Duke of Clarence intimated, that, as the question had been objected to by a noble lord, it would be proper for the learned counsel to withdraw it.
Mr. Adam contended, that he had a right to ask the question, in order to compare the evidence given by the witness now, with that which had been given before. It was a course of examination which went to the credit of the witness's testimony. He therefore thought, with submission, that their lordships would allow him to proceed. Mr. Nolan supported his arguments. Mr. Romilly was heard on the other side.
The Lord Chancellor said, their lordships were called upon by the counsel for the learned judge to direct that to be done, which they had said should not be done. Their lordships had refused to communicate the evidence taken before the committee, and yet they were desired to suffer the counsel to ask questions which would oblige the witness to repeat his evidence over again.
Lord Minto observed, that he was not aware their lordships had ever come to any such decision. He did not know they had ever passed any vote upon the subject. He certainly recollected a noble lord's moving a question of the kind, but their lordships adjourned without agreeing to it. It was brought on again, but no resolution was adopted. He was of opinion that it was a question which required further deliberation; it was important to substantial justice that it should be reconsidered; not to do so would, he conceived, be a sacrifice of justice to forms. The only ground of argument stated for refusing to publish the evidence before the committee was, that it was a secret committee.
178
Why was it called a secret committee? Sure he was, it did not bear that character; nor was there, in its proceedings, any circumstance from which it could, with propriety, have been so denominated. It was so far secret, that out of regard to the learned judge, it was deemed proper not to publish the evidence before their lordships had determined upon the enquiry at their bar; but the motive for secrecy ceased, the moment their lordships were of opinion there ought to be a public investigation. As it was a proceeding connected with the administration of public justice, the character of publicity naturally attached to it. He hoped therefore that house would deliberate on the propriety of publishing the proceedings of the committee. It was obvious that if it was not published, the learned judge would have to defend himself at a very great disadvantage; while, on the other hand, every advantage would be afforded to the petitioners: while the evidence was kept secret, it was difficult even to know who the petitioners were, or whether it was the cause of the petitioners themselves, or of other parties. He alluded particularly to a noble marquis who was an accuser upon this occasion. Their lordships could not but be sensible that the accusers and the accused did not stand on equal grounds, because the former were acquainted with the whole of the evidence given before the committee, while the latter was entirely ignorant of it. Their lordships too were placed in an embarrassing and delicate situation, from which nothing but the publication of the evidence could relieve them; they had the evidence, but it should be recollected that it was given ex parte; it was the evidence of the accusers, who consequently had never been cross-examined. Their lordships came to the investigation with that impression which three weeks evidence, not cross-examined, was calculated to produce. The objection in this case was not of the same force as in ordinary cases, for though the evidence given before a grand jury was ex parte, they did not communicate it to the petit jury who tried their lordships, as grand jury, first heard the ex parte evidence, and then, with that previous impression, proceeded to try the accused. This he conceived wrong, and therefore he hoped their lordships would take the subject into their serious consideration.
Lord Sidmouth said, the he use was at

179
liberty to deliberate again on the subject of the noble lord's speech, as no formal decision had taken place. He had understood that a general admission had been made, as to the difficulty of publishing the evidence, not arising merely on the point of form, but other obstacles which stood in the way. He was however of opinion, that an adherence to forms would ultimately be attended with most substantial justice. The evidence before the committee had been taken, in order to enable their lordships to judge of the propriety of pursuing the enquiry. It was now proposed to use that evidence for a different purpose. As to the circumstance of the learned judge being ignorant of facts known to the petitioners, it was an inconvenience to which every person accused was subject. He was of opinion that there was not sufficient ground to induce their lordships to publish the evidence.
The Earl of Carlisle observed, that the evidence on the enquiry before the committee ought to be as public as the sun at noon-day. Why were short-hand writers employed to take down the evidence, if it was afterwards to be kept a profound secret. He was of opinion that their lordships, in justice to the learned and respectable magistrate at the bar, ought to allow him the benefit of his counsel having the whole of the evidence before them.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire considered the publication of evidence, so entirely ex parte as that taken before the committee, to be extremely improper.
Earl Spencer urged the measure of furnishing the learned judge at the bar with a copy of the evidence taken before the former committee. He also thought, that the present evidence should be printed for the use of the house.
Lord Hawkesbury had no objection to the evidence now going on being made public. It was not like that before the farmer committee, merely an examination in chief. The witnesses at the bar were subject to a cross-examination, and therefore their evidence would go to the world with all the colouring the parties on either side could give to it.
The Lord Chancellor stated, that it was absolutely necessary their lordships should come to some decision on the subject under consideration; but it was his opinion, that in the mean time the question proposed by the counsel should not be put. If the learned counsel were permitted to put such questions, it was evident, that, with his
180
active mind, he would easily draw from the witnesses every thing they had stated in the former committee. In order to enable their lordships to come to a decision on the main question, it was necessary that some noble lord should make a motion on the subject, and he felt it very difficult to form an opinion as to what the purport of that motion should be. It had been proposed on a former occasion to revive the committee, and whether that was the mode which ought now to be taken, he did not pretend to decide. He reminded their lordships, however, that in coming to a decision on this case, they would establish a precedent which would apply to all cases generally. Every word of the evidence taken before the committee might have redounded to the honour and credit of Mr. justice Fox; but in making this supposition, their lordships were aware that the rule of furnishing evidence might be applied to cases of a very different nature.
Lord Ellenborough agreed with the noble and learned lord, that the question should not now be put; but he was of opinion, that, unless the forms of the house precluded such questions, the general law of evidence authorized the counsel to put them. He thought that the committee had already come to a decision on the question of furnishing a copy of the evidence; but, as that was not the case, he hoped they would determine it without further delay.
Lord Minto observed, that the propriety of furnishing a copy of the evidence before the former committee, and the right of the counsel to put such questions as that now under consideration, formed, in his opinion, two separate points of discussion. He now moved that the chairman do leave the chair; and gave notice, that he would to-morrow make a motion for reviewing the former committee.—After some conversation, this motion was agreed to.—The lord chancellor having taken the woolsack, a conversation arose on the form of the motion.
Lord Hawkesbury was of opinion, that the object of reviving the committee should be expressed in the motion, whether it was to be for laying the evidence on the table, or communicating it to the learned judge. If it was produced at all, he thought it should be printed.
Lord Ellenborough suggested that the evidence should lie on the table for the inspection and reference of the counsel on both sides.
Lord Minto was at present inclined to

181
make the production of the evidence, and the future application of it, the ground of two separate motions.
The Earl of Carlisle gave notice, that he would, to-morrow, present a petition from Mr. justice Fox, praying, that the evidence taken before the former committee might be printed.—On the motion of lord Auckland, the evidence hitherto taken at the bar of the house was ordered to be printed.—Adjourned.