Sitting of 15 May 1805

MINUTES.
On the motion of the earl of Darnley, the order for summoning the house to-morrow on his motion relative to the navy was discharged. He stated as his reason for postponing the business, the recent circumstances which had occurred in the naval department, and the inconvenience which both noble lords on the other side and some of his own friends would feel in entering into the debate to-morrow. He should renew his notice in the course of next week.—The earl of Suffolk gave notice of his intention to submit to the house a motion relative to the state of Ireland. This he felt it his duty to do, in consequence of the contradictory averments made by noble lords on that subject, when an important question concerning the Roman catholics of that country was under discussion two nights ago. That due time might be given to consider the business, he should fix so, distant a day as this day fortnight for bringing forward his motion. Some of the ministerial lords having come in, the noble earl added, that the object of his motion should be for an address to his majesty, praying that he would be pleased to appoint commissioners to go over to Ireland, to investigate into the state of that country, and to report to their lordships. His lordship then proceeded to read a passage from lord Bacon, which he thought applicable to the case. He was then called to order by the lord chancellor, but persisted in his right to proceed, and concluded
2
by moving, "that the lords be summoned for this day fortnight."—Ordered.

CONDUCT OF JUDGE FOX.
Lord Auckland, after a few introductory observations, expressive of the opinion which he had frequently stated in the house, that the proceedings which obtained last session in the case of Mr. Justice Fox were incontestibly irregular, moved, "that the entry upon the journals, of the 5th of July, 1804, relative to the matters alledged in charge against Mr. Justice Fox be vacated."
The Lord Chancellor expressed his entire concurrence in this motion of his noble friend, and after some conversation had taken place between these peers, on the general subject of the case of Mr. Justice Fox, in which the former expressed his opinion, that the proceedings began de novo, in the present session, the question was put, and the erasure accordingly ordered to be made.
The Lord Chancellor then rose, to propose the resolution, of which he had given notice some time since, as declaratory of the general principle upon which the house had hitherto proceeded in the case of Mr. Justice Fox. It was important that some principle of this kind should be authoritatively laid down, as well with reference to the character of the house, and to the ends of individual and public justice, as to the precedent which the case may form, for the future direction of the house on similar occasions. The effect a the resolution, proposed by the noble and learned lord, was declaratory of its having been the object of the house, in its proceedings hitherto relative to the matters alledged in charge against the hon. Luke Fox, one of

3
his majesty's judges, &c. was to enable the house to form an opinion, whether sufficient matter obtained therein, to ground a vote for an address to his majesty, to remove the said Luke Fox from his judicial situation.—On this proposition, to which lord Auckland, under the circumstances of the case, signified his assent, some farther conversation took place between his lordship and the noble and learned lord, in which both these peers recapitulated several of the opinions they had hitherto advanced upon the subject. The resolution was at length agreed to by the house.
The Lord Chancellor resumed the subject. He adverted to the situation in which the case stood, and the propriety, in every point of view, of their lordships coming to a decision upon the case as soon as its nature would admit. He alluded to the very proper manner in which the learned gentleman, who was the subject of the discussion, had conducted himself, and to his delicacy in forbearing on many occasions to exercise his judicial functions. The mode hitherto adopted, a line of proceeding, which, from the best principles, referring either to the dignity and character of the house, the interests of the parties concerned, and the end of substantial justice he had concurred in, was necessarily attended with considerable expence to the individuals; and, as the case stood, not likely to accelerate the attainment of the objects they all had in view, a speedy dispensation of justice. After some further observations to this effect, his lordship said he should propose, that the proceedings of the committee, to whom the matter in charge, petitions, &c. had been referred, should be discontinued, and, of course, that the orders made respecting the same should be discharged. The noble lord accordingly moved to this effect. After a few remarks from lord Auckland, relative to that part of the proceedings, the motions were severally agreed to by the house.
The Lord Chancellor continued his observations upon the case, and dwelt upon the propriety, under the circumstances, of their lordships coming to a decision upon if, as soon as they consistently could. He particularly referred to the situation in which the learned gentleman, who was the object of accusation, stood. Independently of the great expence and inconvenience which must unavoidably result
4
to him, his honour and character were at stake. It might have been more conducive to the objects he had referred to, were the accused brought directly before the house, in the first instance. Under the conviction which he then felt, and for the attainment of those ends, which were evidently the objects of all their lordships, he should propose that, "on Tuesday next, the house should go into a committee, to consider of the matters alleged in charge against Mr. Justice Fox; and, under the principle he had repeatedly adverted to, for the purpose of considering whether, in the course of the investigation, there appeared in proof, sufficient matter to ground an address to his majesty, for the removal of the said judge." This proposition seemed to meet the concurrence of
Lord Auckland, who, under the principles he had already stated, as determining his mind upon the subject, particularly with reference to the existing statutes, and, he conceived, as a corollary, flowing incontestibly from what his learned friend proposed, expressed his intention, after the noble and learned lord's motion should be disposed of, to move, that if, in the course of the enquiry, by the committee of the whole house, any matters of high crime and misdemeanour should come out in proof, the same should not be therein proceeded in, but left to the course pointed out by the law, and the ordinary practice of the house in such occasions.
The Lord Chancellor, on the question being put on his proposition, which was agreed to by the house, expressed his disapprobation of what was proposed by his noble friend; in the then situation of the case, he considered it as premature and unnecessary: did charges of the nature adverted to appear in proof, it would be then time enough to bring forward such a motion.
Lord Auckland shortly answered for the propriety of what he proposed, and which he concluded in the shape of a motion.
The Lord Chancellor, after repeating some of his objections, said, he thought the best way would be to put the previous question upon his noble friend's motion. A conversation ensued, in which earl Spencer, lord Mulgrave, viscount Carleton, and the earl of Suffolk, participated; in the course of which the learned viscount supported, generally, what fell from the noble lord on the woolsack.
Lord Mulgrave expressed his opinion,

5
that, instead of the previous question being put, the noble lord's proposition should be negatived; it seemed the general sense of their lordships that the matter which formed the subject of the present consideration should be decided upon as soon as possible; but fears were entertained by some that it could not be got through this session.
Lord Auckland explained; after which, his motion was, by general consent, disposed of in a way tantamount to its being withdrawn.

UNIVERSITIES ADVOWSON BILL.
The order of the day for the third reading of this bill being read,
Lord Sidmouth rose, and repeated his objections to the present measure, He described the provisions of the clause, which some time since he had given notice of his intention to propose, and also given an outline, for the information of their lordships. The introduction of this clause he deemed necessary to modify the bill, and to counteract, in some degree, those injurious effects which he feared would proceed from the measure. The gist of the noble viscount's clause was to prohibit the universities from purchasing any new advowsons until they had augmented the smaller livings at present in their disposal, to the value of 250l. per annum each; and which his lordship proposed in the way of rider.
The Bishop of Oxford strongly opposed the noble viscount's clause, it would go to counteract the present measure; and he remarked upon the disadvantage of discussing so important a proposition upon the very last stage of a bill, which had been two months before the house. If his lordship was determined to persevere, he would recommend him to do it, by a separate bill.
The Earl of Suffolk took the opportunity to recommend forcibly the distressed situation of the poorer clergy, to the attention of their lordships.
The Bishop of St. Asaph offered some forcible objections to the clause, which, he argued, would defeat the bill, as well as prove inefficient as to its own objects.
The Earl of Westmoreland supported some of the objections of the rev. prelate.
The Lord Chancellor delivered his sentiments, and concluded by moving a slight amendment with respect to the local operation of the clause, which was agreed to by the house.—Some further conversation on the subject took place, after which their
6
lordships divided upon the amended clause; when there appeared, for its introduction, 9, against it 9. This equality of numbers, according to the rules of the house, proved fatal to the clause, which was, therefore, rejected.—Adjourned.