Sitting of 6 May 1805

MINUTES.
—The Speaker acquainted the house, that he had received from the Commissioners of Naval Enquiry, the following letter, in return to the thanks of this house of Thursday last.—"Office of Naval Enquiry, Great George Street, 4th May 1805.—Sir, We have had the honour to receive your letter of the 3d of this month, transmitting to us a copy of the resolution of the house of commons of the 2d instant.—It is most gratifying to us to learn, that our conduct as Commissioners of Naval Enquiry has been considered by the house as deserving a vote of their approbation; a testimony which is justly esteemed one of the highest honours that can be conferred on persons employed in the service of the public: we receive this mark of distinction with the greatest respect and thankfulness; and we request that you will have the goodness to communicate to the house these our sentiments.—We also beg leave
600
to express our sense of the very obliging manner in which you have been pleased to convey the resolution, of the house. We have the honour to be, sir, your most obedient, humble servants, Charles Morice Police, Ewan Law, John Ford, Henry Nicholls, Win. Mackworth. Praed."—On the motion of Dr. Duigenan, the Irish First Fruits Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed On Wednesday.— Mr. Calcraft presented the Declaration of sir Francis Burdett, which was read by the clerk. It contained a statement of the progress of the poll at the late Middlesek election, and concluded with intimating, the hon., baronet's intention not to defend his seat. [A copy of the declaration will be found in p. 211 of this volume, where it was inadvertently inserted.] That clause of the act of parliament was then read, in pursuance to the provisions of which the declaration was formed. After a few words from the secretary at war and Mr. Thornton, stating their disapprobation of a great deal of irrelevant matter in the declaration, the 7th of June was the day fixed for acting upon it.

DISMISSAL OF LORD MELVILLE.
—Mr. Whitbread rose, and observed, that whatever motives might, in the course of the business he had undertaken, have been imputed to him by the opposers of the measure, he presumed there were none who would suppose he had not, during the whole course of the proceeding, been impressed with feelings of the greatest anxiety. He confessed that the feelings of anxiety he had felt, in different stages of the discussions that had taken place, were not to be compared with those which he now experienced. He had now come to a point, and standing on which he trembled, not from any doubt of the propriety of the measure he should propose, but from his apprehensions as to the course the house of commons would adopt. There were two paths open before them. The one, as it appeared to him, led by the ways of justice to the immortal honour and renown of the house of commons; the other, if they were led by mistaken clemency to pursue it, led to the disrepute of the house of commons, and eventually to the detriment of the public interest. If it had been immediately proposed, in consequence of the. resolutions which he had the honour to submit on the 8th of April, that an address should have been presented to his. majesty, praying that lord Melville might be dismissed from all

601
the places held by him under the crown, and from the royal presence and councils, for ever—
The Chancellor of the Exchequerinterrupted the hon. gent. for the purpose of speaking to order. He really had understood that the hon. gent. had given notice of his intention to move to take into consideration his majesty's answer, and he conceived that he would have begun his observations with reference to that object. He had a communication to make to the house, which he thought would anticipate what the hon. gent. had to say; he therefore wished to put it to his candour, whether he would afford him an opportunity.
Mr. Whitbreadsaid, he meant to have concluded by, moving, that his majesty's answer should be taken into consideration. Whatever communication the right hon. gent. had to make, he thought it would come with more propriety after the motion. He apprehended that if he had made a motion on the morning after the night the resolutions were proposed and acquiesced in, that lord Melville should have been dismissed from his offices and his majesty's councils and presence, that there would not have been one dissentient voice. He apprehended, that if lord Melville had not been a member of the house of peers, but merely of Me house of commons, and he had moved for the dismissal of him as a member of the house of commons, that there would not have been a dissentient voice. In the course of this business he had shaped his conduct so as to obtain the suffrages and support of every independent member of parliament; and, in so doing; he conceived he had strictly conformed to his duty, and promoted the welfare of the public. The second day after the resolutions passed, he had moved an address to his majesty, that lord Melville should be. removed from his councils and presence, and deprived of all offices held by him under the crown. It appeared on that occasion to have been the sense of the house, that it would be better the resolutions should he carried to the foot of the throne; but he was of opinion the consequence of that measure was not precisely what would have taken place if the house had gone up with the address. The consequences he had hoped for. had not taken place. He had resigned his office at the admiralty, but his name had not been struck out of the list of the privy council. The right hon. gent. who had just intimated that he had some
602
communication to make, had not only said on a former day that his name was not struck off the privy council book, but that he saw no reason for advising his majesty to erase it. Under these circumstances, a committee had been appointed to examine further into the matters of the tenth report, as exclusively as could be of the conduct of lord Melville, and a civil prosecution had been ordered against his lordship and Mr. Trotter. A right hon. gent. had proposed, that it should be turned into a criminal prosecution. In this situation the country stood—that the house had decided that lord Melville, not accidentally or once, but during the course of a long administration, had been guilty of a breach of his duty, and a gross violation of the law, and yet no punishment had been inflicted in consequence of this decision. He knew it had been contended that lord Melville had been punished, and appeals had been made to the house whether the punishment had not been sufficiently severe. He could not easily forget the impressive words of a right hon. gent. (the master of the rolls) over against him, or his feelings and countenance, compelling sympathy, when he asked whether lord Melville had not been sufficiently punished? He wished he could borrow a little of that right hon. gent.'s accuracy of expression to call upon the house to perform what, if it did not perform, he should contend lord Melville would not be punished. if humiliation; if voluntary degradation; if the resignation of high employments under the crown, such as lord Melville thought himself capable of filling; if the feelings of a man who had held great official situations for many years; if a broken and contrite heart, hœ flammœ hœ fnsce—if these were to be considered a punishment, then it was possible lord Melville might have been punished sufficiently. In that case, his punishment was as far superior to any the house could inflict, as the hand that inflicted it was above the power of mortals. It was the duty of the house to take care that others were not betrayed into the same errors, and that men in the situaation of lord Melville should know, that if they acted as he had done they would subject themselves to degradation. It was also incumbent on the house to take care that equal justice was done to all, and that when others were writhing under punishment, delinquents of greater magnitude were not spared. The sensations of shame were not confined to men in high stations; but a

603
common clerk, detected in a fraudulent act, felt equally with the highest peer: his feelings, too, were accompanied with the loss of character, and the loss of character was attended with, the loss of bread. With regard to such a person, it highly probable that even if the law was not followed up, that his wife, children, relatives, and dependants, would be reduced to a state of misery. Such an accumulation of distress was of itself punishment enough; but justice and the law must have their victim. He therefore, in the name of minor delinquents, in the name of the public, in the name of the representative body of England, and in the name of the former vote of the house, called for that which was but bare simple justice on lord Melville. He deprecated the injury the character of the parliament of 1805 would sustain, if, after the detection of lord Melville's guilt, it should appear that parliament had stopped in its punishment, and that he had been suffered to remain a privy counsellor, particularly after the proofs against him had been so complete; when instead of any denial of the charge by lord Melville, habemus confitentem reum, he had given evidence against himself. He proceeded to infer the odium it would cast on the ministers of the day if it should appear they had endeavoured to protect such a delinquent. He highly censured that advice which had dictated the answer of his majesty. to the sheriff of London, when they waited upon his majesty with the address of the common council. After a few further observation, he moved, that his majesty's answer should be taken into consideration; observing, that he meant afterwards to move an address to his majesty, praying him to order the name of lord Melville to be erased from the privy council, and to dismiss him I from his presence for ever.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer—Before, sir, the motion is put from the chair, I think it necessary for me to make a very few observations, which appear to me of such a nature as will supersede the necessity of agitating the question at greater length, on the present occasion. When I interrupted the hon. gent. it was for the purpose of saying, that I had a communication to make to the house, which might probably render his motion unnecessary; that communication is, sir, that the object which the hon. gent. has in view, is already accomplished. I have felt it my duty to advise the erasure pt lord Melville's name from the list of his
604
majesty's privy counsellors, his majesty has acceded to this advice, and that erasure will, on the first day that a council is held, take place. Having said thus much, I shall, with the permission of the House, say a few words on the circumstances under which I formerly resisted this proposition, and those under which I have felt myself bound to yield to it. The hon. gent. has thought proper to allude to the discussion which took place on the day previous to the recess; and he says, that on that occasion, I declared that nothing then appeared to me which called for my advising his majesty to erase the name of lord Melville from the list of privy counsellors. I believe, sir, it is in the recollection of the house, that a motion similar to that now brought forward, was produced by the hon. gent. on the day to which he has alluded. On that occasion I did state that the motion appeared to me altogether unnecessary, since lord Melville had resigned his official situation, and all prospect or hope of his return to office was extinct, as long as the resolutions of the 8th of April remained in full force. Unless the house varied their decision, that determination was an insuperable bar to the noble lord's return to power. At that time it did not appear to me to be the sense of the house that such a motion should be persisted in, or that it was at all necessary after the resolutions of censure on a former evening. Many gentlemen who concurred in those resolutions thought that the wound which had been inflicted should not be aggravated by any unnecessary circumstances of severity; that when the justice of the public was satisfied, the feelings of the individual ought not to be outraged, Even several gentlemen on the other side of the house did not seem to wish that the motion should be pushed to a division. The motion was accordingly withdrawn, and in the room of it the house agreed to lay the resolutions before the throne, and to await the ultimate decision of his majesty. By following this course, it was imagined that the same result would be obtained without wounding the feelings of the noble lord, who was already sufficiently afflicted by the general decision of the house. This step then being taken, it did not strike me that it was at all expected that it was my duty especially to advise his majesty to erase the name of lord Melville from the list of his privy counsellors. If I had conceived this to be the general wish of the house, I should, unquestionably, have bowed, to it, but not

605
viewing the matter in this light, I did not conceive that I was bound to give the advice which the motion of the hon. gent. is calculated to enforce. Since that time, however, in consequence of the notice of the hon. gent. to renew his motion, I have felt it my duty to ascertain what is the prevailing feeling of gentlemen on the subject. I have had occasion to ascertain the sentiments of respectable gentlemen on both sides of the house, and seeing reason to believe that the step to which the motion of the hon. gent. is directed, was considered expedient, I have, however reluctantly from private feeling, felt it incumbent on me to propose the erasure of the noble lord's name from the list of privy counsellors. I confess, sir, and I am not ashamed to confess it, that whatever may be my deference to the house of commons, and however anxious I may be to accede to their wishes, I certainly felt a deep and bitter pang in being compelled to be the instrument of rendering still more severe the punishment of the noble lord. This is a feeling of which I am not ashamed. It is a feeling which I cannot drive from my bosom. It is a feeling which nothing but my conviction of the opinion of parliament, and my sense of public duty could possibly have overcome. After what I have said, I trust the hon. gent. will see the propriety of withdrawing his motion. Every public object is now obtained which the motion could accomplish, and I am sure the hon. gent. has candour and humanity enough not to press a discussion, the only effect of which must be to wound the already severely afflicted feelings of an unfortunate individual.
Mr. Fox—Since the right hon. gent. has told us that at last he has condescended to advise his majesty to remove lord Melville hem his privy council, I would wish to know whether that has been done in consequence of the resolutions of the house of commons? At all events, sir, we have reason to rejoice in the triumph which justice has experienced, when we consider that they were compelled at length to give this advice who were for protecting lord Melville, because he was "an old and faithful servant of the crown," and had only acted contrary to the intention of the act of parliament! Why was this advice not given immediately after the address of the 10th of April, for which the right hon. gent. expresses such profound veneration? He comments upon this address, and considers it merely as an
606
official notice to his majesty of the proceedings of the house. So it was; but why was it thought proper to give such A notice? Surely, sir, for the purpose that ministers might take such measures, as they might not be so strictly bound to take, if the notice had not been given. This, sir, was understood, and strongly urged et the time. But if the right hon. gent. then understood the sense of the. house in such a manner that he did not think it his duty to advise the erasing of lord Melville's name from the list of privy counsellors, how comes it that he has now given that advice? How has he since collected the general opinion of the house in a way to induce him to alter his sentiments so materially? But he says, that he has canvassed the opinions of several individual members. Sir, there seems to be, strong grounds to suppose that this is a compromise adopted in consequence of a ministerial intrigue, rather than an act implying any deference to the opinions of this house. I do not know that however. I am only in possession of what the public in general know on the subject.—Now, sir, one word as to the time. The right hon. gent. takes the last moment for giving this advice, in order, as far as possible, to divert the censure of this house from lord Melville. Notice was given of the proposition, the very first day, I believe, that the business came before the house. Allusions to it had been made in subsequent proceedings; but it is not till within half an hour of. its being brought forward, that the right hon. gent. comes down and makes this communication, from the well founded terror, that if he permitted the question to go to a division, he would be left in a minority. But is it now precisely the same thing as if it had. been done long before? Does it not show clearly, that every thing within the compass of possibility is to be done in favour of lord Melville? First, it was maintained that he only acted contrary to the intention of the law: then he was permitted to resign his office of first lord of the admiralty, to prevent his being turned out. And now at last, when nothing can be done to prevent it, he is erased from the privy council. The difference between its being done now and done before is, I acknowledge, as far as the public are concerned, not very material; but it will be recollected, that the right hon. gent. held out till he could hold out no longer without a certainty of being beat. I trust, however, that things will now

607
speedily be finished, however tardily they may have been begun, that the house will follow up the public opinion, and that every Measure will be taken that can afford security the people, not by making legislative provisions for the future, for these may be disregarded, as they have been already, but by inflicting proper punishment where it is deserved. This triumph has not been willingly gained, but has been extorted by the sole consideration that a majority would oppose lord Melville if he was further defended. I can assure the house that there is every symptom of the country being seriously agitated, and that it will not readily place much confidence in those who have exerted themselves so much to screen a delinquent, though they have at last been obliged, to give him up.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerstated that the resolution he had announced to the house had not the least connection with any transaction out of doors. This he most distinctly denied. As to the allusions of the hon. gent. who had just sat down, to what he called a canvas of the members, he saw nothing censurable in his availing himself of his extensive intercourse with members to ascertain their sentiments upon any public question. This was a right which belonged to any member of that house, and he believed it was the general practice with every Member who had any proposition to bring forward. When he found that any particular proceeding was wished for by a majority of the house, he thought it but right and respectful to take that proceeding at once, and thus prevent the necessity of debate. By this course the time of the house was saved, and its opinion treated with due deference. What he had done in such a way lie by no means thought inconsistent with his official duty, or the respect he owed to the constitution and privileges of that house.
Mr. Foxdisclaimed having said, that he believed the change in the right. hon. gent's. Conduct to proceed from the transaction referred to out of doors. Nor did he mean to impute blame to an endeavour to consult the opinion of members upon any public question. But he expressed his surprize that if this measure had been taken in compliance with the sense of the house, it had not been taken earlier—that it had not immediately followed those resolutions which passed the house so long since.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that there was not one word in the resolutions alluded to, recommending the removal
608
of lord Melville's name from his majesty's councils, or tall relating to it.
The Secretary at War (Mr. W. Dundas)corroborated the statement of the chancellor of the exchequer, that the resolutions referred to contained no expression of an opinion that the name of lord Melville should be erased from the list of his majesty's council. Nor did the hon. Gentleman who spoke last but one (Mr. Fox) express any wish to that effect. On the contrary, the hon. gent. was heard to glory in his own dismissal and that of another person, from the list of his majesty's council, and to state his hope that that would not by any part of the public be considered a disgrace. Was not this then pretty clearly to express an opinion, that it was not his desire to produce that effect which had been communicated to the house, with regard to lord Melville, whom it was so much the study of the hon. gent. to degrade? The house, however, witnessed the hon. gent.'s conduct, and it was for them to judge whether it sprung at, all from a love of public equity, or was influenced by any feeling of humanity. It had been stated that the noble lord was guilty of public plunder, and therefore incapable of those feelings which would entitle a man to compassion. But he most positively denied that any such guilt could be ascribed to him. That he had connived at the misconduct of Trotter, he was ready to admit, but that he had participated of any of the emoluments resulting from that misconduct he ever should contradict. Nothing had appeared before the house to justify the charge of lord Melville's having joined in public robbery, and if any gentleman should assert such a thing, he was prepared to meet him. With respect to the hon. gent.'s professed desire to punish and prevent peculation, and the improper use of the public money, the house and the country must recollect enough to he enabled to judge of the sincerity of his professions. For need it be told, that from the year 1765 to the year 1782, lord Holland derived, to his own private profit, an interest of 15,000l. per annum from the use of the public money, as paymaster of the army, and that not one farthing of this money had ever since been paid [a loud cry of Order, Order! but still the right hon. gent. proceeded]. Was not the hon. gent. aware, when he was indulging himself in what he termed speculations, but what was commonly called gambling, that he was squandering the property

609
of the public? Did he not know that the peculations of lord Holland furnished him with the means of defraying the extravagancies of early life? [Here there were strong marks of disapprobation throughout the house.] The right hon. gent. concluded with observing that he might be thought severe, but if the hon. gent. felt what he said, he had himself to thank by provoking it.
Mr. Fox.—As the right hon. gent. has thought proper to make such a pointed allusion to the conduct of my father, I hope for the indulgence of the house while I submit a few observations. For although a considerable time has elapsed since the death of the person to whom the right hon. gent. alludes, I cannot but feel a high interest in any thing that concerns his reputation. What the right hon. gent. could mean by calling him to my recollection in this instance, unless to create an uneasiness in my breast, I am at a loss to imagine. For how does the case of my father apply to that of lord Melville? The case of lord Holland is as clear as light. There was no law to forbid the paymaster of the army to apply the balances remaining in his hands to any purpose of private emolument, in the way described at the time lord Holland held that office. Taking the fact as it stands, if, as the right hon. gent. alleges, it was criminal in a public officer to make use of the public money for his own private profit, when there was no act of parliament against it, à fortiori, it was still more criminal after the act had passed. The difference between the case of lord Holland and lord Melville is this, that the conduct of the former was not against law, while that of the other was in the very teeth of a law proposed by himself. What then does the right hon. gent. gain by the reference? That the practice which obtained in the office of the paymaster of the army was generally right, I am not now going to argue. But I do remember, and it must be in the recollection of the house, that at the time the practice was under discussion, very different opinions prevailed among the most eminent lawyers in the country upon this question, whether the paymasters were accountable to the public for the interest arising out of the balances remaining in their hands. I know that the negative of this proposition was maintained by many persons of high consideration, but most certainly the weight of eminence and authority was on the other side. For it was held that the balances were not the property of the
610
public, but that of the public creditors. This question was repeatedly discussed in this house, under various administrations. I will not mention that of the marquis of Rockingham, because that ministry might be supposed to have some regard for me—but it was very fully canvassed during the ad. ministration of lord North, when, indeed, no such supposition of favour could exist. And what was the result?—why, that a committee appointed to consider the case reported that the practice referred to Was regarded as a privilege belonging to the office of paymaster of the army, and that it had universally prevailed with those, who held that office, with the exception of the father of the gentleman over against me (lord Chatham) and perhaps another. If it were deemed a criminal practice, no doubt some measure of prosecution would have been instituted. But the feeling was different. Nay, the house so felt it, and evinced its sentiment afterwards by granting an increase of the salary attached to the office, in lieu of such privilege. That sentiment was decidedly expressed in the resolution of the committee, upon which the salary of lord Melville, as treasurer of the navy, was augmented in order to compensate for the loss of the emoluments resulting from the use of the public balances, which from the period of that augmentation ,was entirely to cease. Recollecting, therefore, that the practice of which the right hon. gent. has accused my father did prevail among the paymasters of the army up to the time at which the salary of these officers was increased at the appointment of Mr. Burke and Mr. Barré, I cannot see any analogy between the case of lord Holland and lord Melville. With respect to the allusion which the right hon. gent. has made to my conduct in early life, I have to be sure, as the right hon. gent. terms it, gambled a good deal. I also feel that I continued that practice much too long, and lost a considerable sum of money. My father, no doubt, left me a large fortune but how the right hon. gent. can infer that my manner of spending that fortune can afford any proof of my connivance, in what he considers my father's improper manner of obtaining it—or that I was a party to the misappropiation of
public money, I leave it to the house to conjecture. That those who are the relative, or who have had the misfortune of being in any degree connected with lord Melville, should feel affected by the disgrace

611
into which he has fallen, is, I admit, very natural; but yet I think that such feelings should not be suffered to stand in the way of a great public duty—and certainly it would be much more delicate not at all to express them in this house. I shall now say no more than to observe, that if it were the object of the right hon. gent. to wound my feelings, he has entirely failed, and to repeat, that if he had succeeded in fixing the imputation of guilt on the conduct of My father, that success would only tend to aggravate the guilt of lord Melville.
Mr. Whitbreadsaid in explanation, he had never charged lord Melville with participating in the plunder of the public, be cause that had not appeared. If hereafter it should be made out, he would bring the charge. The inference had arisen from what he had said of lord Meiville's connivance at Mr. Trotter's misuse of the public money. He would not press his motion, though he thought the house of commons and the majesty of the crown would have been more satisfied if the erasure had taken place in consequence of the address of the house. One question only he wished to have answered before he withdrew the motion. Did lord Melville hold any office under the crown during pleasure?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he believed he did not.
Mr. Foxsaid, there was a report abroad, that one of the offices held by the noble lord, was during pleasure. The motion relative to the grants in Scotland, of which notice had been given by a noble friend of his (lord H. Petty), now absent, from a circumstance (the death of the marquis of Lansdowne) which every one regretted, would shew how this was.—Mr. Whitbread then withdrew his motion.

STIPENDIARY CURATES' BILL.
—On the second reading of the Stipendiary Curates' bill being put,
Mr. Westernrose, and said, that the subject was one of the greatest importance, and entitled to the fullest investigation. He conceived the object of the bill to be no less than a direct attack on the church establishment, and an invasion of ecclesiastical property. He could not assent to the power proposed to be vested in the bishops, which he considered sufficiently great already. He highly disapproved of any measure which subjected the clergy to the absolute dominion of those spiritual lords; and would not this be the case, if they had the power to grant the fifth of the incumbent's property
612
to the curate, and set an arbitrary valuation on the glebes which they were to occupy. With a view, therefore, of giving the incumbents, and other persons concerned in church property, a fair opportunity of considering the principle and application of the bill, he should conclude with moving, that the second reading be postponed to this day fortnight.
Mr. Creeveyseconded the motion. He said, that although this bill professed only to encourage the residence of curates, the effect of it would he to transfer to the curates. above one-fifth of the whole revenue of the rectories. He particularly objected to that clause which proposed to empower the bishops to let out the glebe to the curates, at any rent they pleased.
The Attorney. Generaldefended the principle of the bill. The principle was the same with that of several laws on the statute book. A similar bill had passed the house of commons twice lately; from which the present differed only in as far as it was framed to obviate the objections of the upper house of parliament. The grants to the curates were in consideration of residence; and both by the common law and canon law the incumbent was obliged to do the duty of the church, or forfeit by non-residence. There was nothing in the bill subversive of the principles of the constitution of the church of England, whose property and rights no man living would be more ready to uphold and assert than himself. None as there were several clauses in the bill unfilled up, if gentlemen would consent to its going into a committee, to fill up the clauses, he should propose that the report should be received on Wednesday se'nnight, a period of delay which he hoped gentlemen would allow to be quite sufficient.
Sir W. Scottcould not bring himself to think that there was any danger to be apprehended to our church establishment from the passing of this bill. When the duty was performed for the incumbents, they ought not surely to deal out with a niggard hand the stipend for that service.
Sir j. Wrottesleydid not object to the principle of the bill, but he wished the right hon. gent. (the Attorney General) to consider the propriety of giving glebes to the curates under the provisions of the bill as it now stood; if the glebe ground was in tillage, it might be ruined in a short time, or if in grass, it might be so much injured in a few years, that the loss to the incumbent would be irreparable, He had no objection

613
to the curates having the glebe, house, and garden, but he could not give his consent that the glebe be disposed of according to the valuation of the bishop.
Lord Porchesterexpressed himself against the bill, and observed, that although it was compulsory on the incumbent as to the payment of the fifth of his income if over 4.001. yet that the curate was not obliged by any clause of the bill to do the duty.
Mr. Fellowesthought that the bill did not go far enough.—Mr. Western then withdrew his amendment; after which the bill was read a second time.—Adjourned.

MINUTES.
—The bishop of Oxford presented a petition from the freeholders of Oxfordshire, praying that the restraints upon the catholics might not be repealed, which was ordered to lie on the table.—Lord Mulgrave reminded their lordships that they stood summoned for to-morrow upon a notice which he gave before the recess, relative to one of their standing orders, that which enabled any peer to move the house into a committee whenever he desired it. The more he had considered that order, the more he was convinced it ought not to remain upon the books of the house; and he should therefore, to-morrow, move to expunge it.—Lord Mulgrave said that a noble friend of his, who had undertaken to bring forward a clause to be added to the University Advowson bill, had not yet been able to complete it; and he, therefore, wished that the further consideration of the bill might be postponed till Wednesday. After a short conversation between the bishop of Oxford, the bishop of St. Asaph, the lord chancellor, and lord Mulgrave, the order for the Committee sitting this day was discharged, and fixed for Wednesday.—Adjourned.