Sitting of 17 June 1805

MINUTES.
The Bark Preservation bill passed through a committee.—Mr. Giles brought in a bill for extending the provisions of the Bank Note Forgery Prevention bill to all parts of the united kingdom. Read a first time, to be read a second to-morrow. —Lord. W. Russell presented a petition from certain inhabitants of Camberwell,in favourof the Camberwell Water Works bill. Ordered to lie on the table. Also a petition from certain persons whose names were there unto subscribed, against the bill for making a Road under the River Thames. Referred to the committee on the bill, and he petitioners ordered to be heard by their
432
counsel against the said bill.—Lord Grenville brought up the report of the committee appointed to draw up an answer to so much of the message of their lordships of Friday, as relates to the request of the house, that lord Sidmouth and earls Buckinghamshire and St. Vincent, be permitted to attend the committee on the Eleventh Report. Ordered to lie on the table.—Sir W. Scott, pursuant to notice, moved for and obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend an act of the 1st of Geo I. for augmenting the maintenance of the Poor Clergy.—Mr. Tierney moved the order of the day for the further consideration of the report on the Camberwell Water Works bill. He stated at some length the grounds upon which the measure was founded, and the motives that had induced him to call the attention of the house so often and so particularly to it. He concluded by moving, that the bill be re-committed. The motion was opposed by Mr. Fonblanque. A short conversation succeeded, in which sir G. Hill, lord W. Russell, and Mr. Rose, took a part, when a division took place for the re-commitment 41, against it 16, majority 25.—Colonel Crauford expressed some unwillingness to delay any further his intended motion on the State of the Army; but as many of the papers would not be ready early enough for to-morrow, and there was no other day open this week, he felt himself under the necessity of putting it off till Monday.—Mr. Sturgess Bourne gave notice, that his right hon. friend, now absent (the chancellor of the exchequer), intended to make a motion in the committee of Ways and Means on Wednesday, for the appropriation of the surplus of the Consolidated Fund on the 5th of April last.—Mr. Grey said, there would be five millions to be appropriated for the surplus of the Consolidated Fund of this year, unless it was applied to the purposes of continental subsidy. He wished to know whether the notice had any relation to this? Mr. S. Bourne said, his notice related only to the surplus of the last year.—The Prize bill, and the Commissioners of Taxes bill was read a third time and passed. The Corn Laws Amendment bill was read a second time. The Land-Tax Redemption Regulation bill, and the Irish Civil List bill were read a second time and ordered to be committed for to-morrow.

IRISH COMMISSIONERS OF COMPENSATIONS.
Sir John Newport offered to the house some observations on the motion of which he had given notice respecting two boards of commissioners at present sitting

433
in Ireland; the one appointed by the acts of the 38th, 39th, and 40th of his majesty, for examining the claims of the loyalists who suffered during the rebellion of 1798, and the other for investigating the cases of those who claimed compensation in consequence of the union. With respect to the former commission, he contended, that the object for which they were appointed had been completed; the claims of those who suffered had been investigated and decided upon, and therefore the public ought to be relieved from the expense of paying the commissioners. He should therefore submit a resolution to that effect. The other board, for investigating the claims of those who had suffered by the union, had also had ample time to finish their labours; they had so little business before them for some time past, that they only sat on Saturdays, instead of sitting from day to day. It was true, that great numbers of claims had been laid before them for their consideration, but some of them were of so ridiculous a nature as not to have deserved attention; such, for instance, as that of Mr. Fox, ratcatcher to the board of ordnance, who claimed to be indemnified for lossess sustained by the union. He would not, however, at present propose to put an end to that commission, but he thought some time should be fixed within which they ought to decide upon all the claims before them. He concluded with moving, with respect to the former board, "That it is the opinion of this house, that the objects for which a board of commissioners in Ireland were constituted by the 38th, the 39th, and the 40th of his majesty, that is to say, to hear and determine the claims of compensation due to loyalists suffering in the rebellion of 1798, under a final provision that no claim for compensation should be received after the first day of November 1800, are or ought to have been long since effected, and that the longer continuance of that board, by rendering a further provision for their salaries necessary, would occasion a considerable and useless expenditure of public money."
Mr. Vansitlart said, he unfortunately was not in the house when the hon. baronet gave notice of his motion, and therefore did not know the day on which it was to be brought forward. He begged leave to state a few circumstances, which, he had no doubt, would convince the house that the Irish government were not inattentive to economy, nor desirous to continue these boards after their labours were completed.
434
With respect to the board for compensating loyalists, he must entirely exculpate the Irish government, and take whatever blame belonged to it on himself, because his predecessor had prepared a bill to put an end to that board before he went out of office. The right hon. gent. said, that his attention having been called to other objects, he had not yet brought it in; but it would speedily be submitted to the house; and he trusted this would be satisfactory to the hon. baronet. With respect to the other board, it appeared that there were claims now before them, some of which were of a recent date, there-for he was not prepared at present to fix the time of their duration; but he admitted that a time ought to be fixed, beyond which no further claims ought to be admitted, and that the board ought to report as soon as possible, and be put an end to. If the hon. baronet would renew his motion on a future day, he hoped that the hon. baronet would find every thing had been done that he could require. Having said thus much, he was anxious that a motion which implied a censure upon the Irish government should not pass. He therefore moved the previous question.
Mr. Ponsonby expressed his satisfaction at what had fallen from the right hon. gent., but hoped that the commissioners would in future sit from day to day.
Sir J. Newport said, after what had fallen from the right hon. gent. he would not press his first motion. With respect to the other board, he thought they ought now to limit the time within which they ought to report upon all the claims, and he hoped that the right hon. gent. would not think six months too short a period.
Mr. Vansittart said, that he had already stated that with respect to the commissioners for suffering loyalists, he meant immediately to submit a motion to the house. With regard to the board he hoped in a short time to receive orders from Ireland which would enable him to lay some proposition before the house.—The previous question was then agreed to.
Sir John Newport then moved his second resolution, viz.: "That it is the opinion of this house, that the board of commissioners in Ireland, constituted by the 40th of his majesty, for granting allowances to bodies corporate, and individuals, in respect to representative franchises extinguished by the union, and to make compensation to those persons whose offices may thereby be discontinued or diminished in value, ought

435
within the space of six months from this period, finally to adjudge and determine all such claims as now remain not disposed of, and should be then dissolved, as their longer continuance beyond such period, by rendering necessary a further provision for their salaries and expenses, would occasion a useless expenditure of public money.
Mr. Corry defended the conduct of the Irish government, but at the same time expressed his opinion that these boards ought to cease. With regard to the absurdity of some claims, that was not the fault of the commissioners: they were bound to investigate every claim that was brought before them.—The previous question was moved and carried upon this resolution.

MIDDLESEX ELECTION.
Mr. Creevey rose to move the house to fix a day for the exchange of lists of disputed votes between the petitioning freeholders of Middlesex and Mr. Mainwaring. He argued that the petitioning freeholders stood precisely in the situation, and were entitled to all the rights of the candidate who had declined to prosecute the claims. This, he said, was the intention of the act, the object of which was to prevent collusion between the candidates, to the prejudice of the freeholders. He would propose to fix the exchange of the lists for Thursday or Friday, and the consideration of the petition for some day in the next week.
Mr. H. Thornton doubted whether the petitioners were entitled to all the rights that were claimed for them. If they were entitled to come into the place of the candidate, the equity of the case seemed to require that they should come in rather to the situation in which the candidate stood at the time of giving in his declaration of his intention of withdrawing, than to his situation at the time of the presentation of the petition. If collusion was spoken of, he saw more reason, in this instance, to apprehend collusion between the withdrawing candidate and these petitioners, than between the two candidates. Six of the principal petitioners were committee-men of sir Francis Burdett, and the agents were the same that had acted for sir Francis. Mr. Mainwaring had delivered his list to the agents of sir Francis, and sir Francis, on his part, had caused no list to be delivered. Under these circumstances it was evident the petitioners would have an advantage. He conceived, therefore, that a substitution to the extent of the pecuniary rights of the candidate, would only tend to
436
the extension of that delay which had already kept Middlesex three years unrepresented. He could not, therefore, consent to any long delay now, lest it should prevent the decision from taking place within the present session.
Mr. Creevey allowed there were appearances of collusion in the circumstances adverted to by the hon. gent. He thought that some delay should be granted, from a regard to the general provisions of the act, and the general provisions of the act, and the general rights of petitioners under it; but he was ready to admit that delay should be very little in this case.
The Attorney-General agreed in the reasonableness of the arguments of the hon. gent. who spoke last, and the fairness of his admissions. He proposed the exchange of the lists to take place on Wednesday, and the ballot on Friday.—A long conversation ensued, in which Mr. Fox stated that he thought that too short a time. Mr. Mellish represented the advantage given in by Mr. Mainwaring in the notification of the oaths he meant to object to, without receiving any information from the opposite party in return. Mr. Fox considered that the petitioners, if treated bona fide as such, were not bound by any thing done by either of the other parties.—Mr. Sturges Bourne thought the petitioners not entitled to any indulgence of time, as they had held back their petition to the very last moment of the time allowed them by parliament to present it.—Mr. Fox could not admit, that when a certain time was allowed by parliament for any purpose, those to whom it was granted were liable to answer for having availed themselves of it to the full extent. Mr. Mainwaring, the elder, had delayed to the last day on which he could have presented his petition, and nobody arraigned him on that account.—Mr. Wilberforce offered a few observations. The ballot was fixed for Friday, and the exchange of lists for Thursday.—Adjourned.

MINUTES.
—The bills upon the table were forwarded in their respective stages; after which their lordships adjourned during pleasure. After a short interval, the house was resumed, when Mr. Alexander brought up from the commons the Irish Paper Duty bill, the Offenders Amendment bill, the British and Irish Militia Pay and Clothing

425
bills, and the Lottery bills.—It was ordered, on the motion of the lord chancellor, that his majesty's judges be desired to attend on to-morrow se'nnight, in order to deliver their opinions respecting the case of Thellussons and Woodfords.

CONDUCT OF JUDGE FOX.
Lord Auckland rose, pursuant to his notice, to bring forward his motion respecting the case of the above judicial character. He called the attention of their lordships to the propositions which he had on different former occasions thought it his duty to submit to the house upon the subject, and which, in general, were negatively decided upon by the house. In consequence of this, and the line of proceeding preferably adopted, their lordships were at the end of four months arrived at the examination of a second witness upon one of the charges at the bar. He continued to think, that the objections he had formerly urged were well founded; and that the power exercised by the house, on these occasions, with reference to the act of settlement, was not rightly exercised. The charge under consideration, their lordships would recollect, was not for corruption, but for words spoken so long ago from this period, as twenty-two months, and, from the period of the first notice being given to the house, it was very near ten months. The principal consideration on which he founded what he should now propose, was the expediency of concluding the proceedings for the present sessions. Their lordships should consider the time of year, and the very advanced period of the sessions: to make any tolerable progress in the investigations, it would take them at least seven or eight hours every day, and even then it would be to no purpose. Under the circumstances of the case, they would not be able to do justice to the parties, nor consequently to the public this session. For his part, he had doubts of being able to attend; but whatever progress they could make would be useless, from the circumstance of the nearly approaching end of the session. He adverted to the great number of witnesses which were to be examined, even on one side of the question; they may go on; but he could not conceive what useful end it could answer. They were further to consider how the investigation must interrupt the regular legislative business of the house. All these inconveniencies and unfavourable considerations might be got rid of, by simply adjourning the further consideration of the case till next session. His lordship concluded
426
by moving, that the farther proceedings in the investigation of the case of Mr. Justice Fox be adjourned till this day two months."
Lord Hawkesbury differed essentially from the noble baron. He thought that many of the positions he had laid down induced, the contrary effect; and, with regard to the act of settlement, their proceeding would determine whether that was a dead letter, or whether it could be acted upon; and would shew to the public what could be done under it. With regard to the noble baron's immediate proposition, he could not see upon what possible principle it was founded. For, let them ask themselves, would such a line of conduct be consistent with those regards which are due to the considerations of justice? with what was due to the individual accused? with what was due to the petitioners? with what was due to the public? And, after having proceeded so far with the case, they should now do that which would in a manner quash, and put an end to the investigation. It would be contrary to all those duties he had stated; and they were imperiously called upon to proceed, and to come to some determination upon the issue of the business. He contended, it was their bounden duty to proceed with the investigation without delay. However short the period of the session might be, it was their duty to proceed as long as they could, and to make as considerable a progress as they could, in the course of the present session. With respect to the bill he had on a former day mentioned as his intention to bring in, he was more and more convinced of the convenience and expediency of it. Their proceeding as far as they could, would evidently tend to the convenience of several individuals who might be finally examined that session, and released from further trouble and expense. It was, he repeated, the duty of the house, steadily and perseveringly to pursue the investigation to the end. He could see no solid reason which could be adduced against such a legislative measure as he intended to propose, namely, a bill for continuing the proceeding from session to session. With a reference to the act of settlement, and the general principles of the law itself, they were bound to come to some conclusion upon the present case; he therefore trusted, their lordships would resist a motion, which, in principle, would tend to put an end to the proceedings altogether.
The Earl of Carnarvon, though he seemed to admit a great deal might be urged on the

427
other side of the question, yet, upon the whole, was inclined to concur in supporting the motion. With respect to the noble secretary's intended bill, he observed, that its passing into a law would not altogether depend upon that house.
Lord Auckland observed, that if the noble secretary of state brought in a bill of the nature of that to which he had alluded, according to all precedent, the investigation must be discontinued during the progress of the bill through both houses of parliament. In the present state of public business he supposed it would take at least three weeks to pass such a bill, and it could not be expected that the session would last longer than four weeks. All the advantage, therefore, that would be gained, would, at the most, be about four days for the examination of witnesses.
The Lord Chancellor declined going into a general argument upon certain considerations connected with the subject, and adverted to by some of the noble lords; but, in reference to what was thrown out, as to the approaching period of the session, he would say, that even if they could make no more progress than four days examination, he thought it would undeniably be a gross injustice to Mr. Justice Fox, if they neglected to secure to him so much of a further examination. The two witnesses, Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Galbraith, it would be recollected, had only been examined in chief. The very least they could do would be to secure the benefit of their examination to Mr. Justice Fox. Even as the case stood, a very desirable progress might be made this session, were their lordships to set earnestly to the business: were they to come down, suppose about one o'clock, and to give six or seven hours per day for a few days to the investigation, a considerable progress might be made; but at least, he repeated, let them, on the principles of common justice, secure the cross-examination of the witnesses to whom he had alluded.
The question was then put, and lord Auckland's motion was negatived without a division. His lordship afterwards entered the following Protest on the journals.
Dissentient,—1. Because the proceedings in question are grounded on allegations, some of which amount to a charge of crime and misdemeanor; and it is clearly contrary to the laws and statutes of this realm, that any accusation or complaint containing a charge of crime and misdemeanor, can originally be preferred this
428
house, or be entertained by the house, except in matters of privilege; and I am not satisfied that the clause of the act of settlement respecting the removal of the judges from their offices, in consequence of the joint address of the two houses of parliament, meant or can be construed to take the judges from the general protection of the law of the land, in order to place them in a situation of disadvantage and dependance, which does not effect any other individuals, or any other class of men. 2. Because, if our jurisdiction in this case could be established, still I should object to matters alleged in the proposed address, which are for words said to have been spoken almost two years ago, of which no notice was taken by the parties concerned till ten months afterwards, and respecting which the evidence, after such a lapse of time, is now to be received. It appears to me, that such a proceeding is contrary to the general analogy of law, and more especially objectionable as affecting a judge who may be exposed to invidious considerations in the discharge of his duties. 3. Because the judge who is the object of the proposed address, has already been subjected to great delays in this inquiry, and to a most distressing expense, in consequence of the course of proceeding first adopted by this house, and since desisted from on better consideration 4. Because the expense of such an investigation at our bar must, both in the present and future cases, produce the inevitable ruin of the judges who may be brought to answer, whether they shall be guilty or innocent of the act of misconduct alleged against them. 5. Because, if this proceeding were not questionable as to law, justice, and expediency, still it is objection able at this late period of the session, when the attendance of many peers must be withdrawn to other public duties; and when it is impossible that the enquiry can be brought to a conclusion; and when the result can only serve to send back the judge to the exercise of his judicial functions laden and prejudiced by a mass of printed evidence taken against him, and respecting which he will not have had the means of making his defence. (Signed) Auckland.

TEUSH'S DIVORCE BILL.
The order of the day respecting this bill being read, counsel and evidence in support of the same were called to the bar. After the counsel had withdrawn,
The Bishop of St. Asaph rose; he observed, the question before their lordships was one of great and peculiar importance.

429
That house was more especially the guardians of the public morals; and against these, nothing, he conceived, could be more detrimental than the frequency of divorces, he was, therefore, upon all occasions, unwilling to concur in them; and, he thought, however hard the case might press upon a few individuals, it would, on the whole, be better if no bill of the kind were ever passed. With respect to the present case, he must say, it exhibited an instance of the grossest infidelity; it was not a single act from a sudden impulse of the passions, but a deliberate abandonment of a well-deserving woman, and a taking of a strumpet to his arms, in which he persevered many years. However, to consider the subject on general, and on public grounds, there might be something peculiarly strong and striking in a case of this kind, to induce the legislature to assent to the prayer of the petition. The case of Mrs. Addison, referred to by the learned counsel, was one totally distinct from that under consideration. In that case it was really a moral impossibility that the parties could come together; as it was proved that the husband had an adulterous intercourse with his wifes own sister. Nay, farther, the wife herself would be guilty of incest, if she returned to her husband. There was nothing of that kind to induce a moral impossibility in the present case—nothing but a strong degree of inference. They could not, consistly with a most important duty, consent to relieve the petitioner duty, consent to relieve the petitioner in the way proposed. However, he had to observe, he could not understand how the lady's circumstances could be improved by a dissolution of the marriage, which would involve a loss of the alimony. Upon the whole, the learned prelates opinion of the case was such, as to induce him to move, that, instead of "now," "the bill should be read a second time that day three months".
The Earl of Carnarvon expressed his dissent from the opinion of the learned prelate, that their lordships passing such a bill as that under consideration would operate injuriously upon the public morals. Neither was he aware of any law, or any rule of that house, which precluded a woman from addressing the legislature, and obtaining relief, as well as a man, if the particular merits of the case entitled her to it. He thought the circumstances of the case under consideration ought to induce their lordships to assent to the bill. He would ask the rev. prelate, whether it was necessary to the
430

public morals, that the husband to the lady in question should be suffered to do every thing that could disgrace her, and deprive her of the comforts of life? Whether it was necessary, for the sake of good morals, that the lady should be driven to seek relief at the door of a profligate, who had robbed her of her husbands affections, and diminished his means of maintaining her. After dwelling shortly on these topics, with some degree of warmth and feeling, his lordship proceeded to the consideration of certain canonical laws, and ecclesiastical regulations, which bore upon the subject, particularly a canon of the year 1603, which he argued was not binding upon the laity, nor upon the clergy, farther than they thought proper, and that divorces were permitted by the divine law. He then recurred to the subject of the bill, and adverted to the reduced circumstances of the lady's husband, which must affect the payment of the alimony, and argued for the passing of the bill, which would enable the petitioner to seperate herself from an unworthy husband. He was not apprehensive of the bills getting a dangerous precedent, as every case would naturally rest upon its own particular merits, and be decided upon by their lordships accordingly.
Lord Hawkesbury concurred with the rev. prelate, in a great deal of what he said upon the general subject. He observed, that no precedent whatever obtained, of a bill being granted upon the application of a woman, except in the case of Mrs. Addison, the circumstances of which were not in the least applicable to the present case. In the one instance, a reconciliation between the parties was totally out of the question; in the present, it was merely improbable. A material distinction appeared throughout. But the general question involved considerations which were to be contemplated with a reference to their effects upon society; a distinct rule and principle, with respect to such, cases, hitherto obtained: were this to be broken in upon, it would be difficult in future cases to draw the line. The very good nature of some individual peers would induce them to grant, without sufficient discrimination, that which, in the views he referred to, would eventually be detrimental and injurious.
Lord Auckland made a few general observations in favour of what fell from the rev. prelate, and the noble secretary of state. It was a point upon which he seemed to have made up his mind, and he particularly ad-

431
to the serious importance of the question, with reference to its setting a precedent for future applications.
The Lord Chancellor adverted to what he had stated on a former evening, namely, his prehension, that he should feel it his painful duty to give a negative to the farther progress of the bill, unless the counsel in support of the measure could alter the opinion he then entertained, and that he thought the best way of giving notice on the occasion. With respect to the particular case, he never recollected to hear a more favourable representation given of any woman. But yet, on those general grounds of public morality, which had been so ably adverted to by those noble lords who had preceded him, he must proceed with respect to his assent to the bill. With regard to the case of Mrs. Addison, which had been referred to, it was as distinct from that under consideration, as any case could be, and yet, even that case, in its effects without doors, had produced considerable mischief, as any of their lordships would perceive, should they take the trouble to look at certain trials. With respect to particular parts of the allegations on the part of the petitioner, there were still open different modes of redress distinct from that of divorce, and which could be recurred to. As to the question before the house, upon those great and leading principles to which he had referred, and the conviction he felt as to the probable, nay almost certain injurious effects of trenching upon them, he felt it his painful duty to give a negative to the original motion.—The house then divided; when there appeared for the bishop of St. Asaphs amendment 10—Against it 7—Majority 3.—Adjourned.