Sitting of 20 May 1805

MINUTES
On the motion of colonel Stanley, the committee to whom the petition of the duke of Atholl had been referred, were empowered to report their proceedings to the house from time to time.—Mr. Creevey moved for an account of the salaries, fees, and emoluments of the admiralty court, the register court, and the marshal court. The reason was, that the emoluments had increased to a great degree of late years, and he thought that these courts ought to be separated. Sir William Scott observed, that he had not the smallest objections to this; but it would be recollected, that he had no emolument from Sitting in the appeal court, and that he only sat there as a privy counsellor. Mr. Corry paid a high compliment to the abi
30
lity and attention of the hon. baronet, and said that it would be matter of regret to every nation in Europe, if he should not be permitted to act in the court in question. He saw no sufficient ground for the motions, and therefore would oppose them. Dr. Laurence admitted the right of any member of parliament to move for the accounts of the state of any public office, and it was almost a matter of course to grant them. But this was a court of judicature, and some strong grounds ought to be laid, before such accounts could be granted. The emoluments might be greater, because there was more business. But this was not a reason of itself for any new regulation. After a few words from sir Wm. Burroughs, Mr. Sturges Bourne, Mr. Creevey, the Attorney-General, and Mr. Vansittart, the motions were put and negatived.—Mr. Johnstone, from the office of the chief secretary of Ireland, presented an account of the number of game licences issued in that country; which was ordered to be printed.—On the motion of Mr. Huskisson, it was ordered, that there be laid before the house an account of the sums remaining unapplied, of the grants for naval service in 1800, on the 1st of September, in that year; and also of the sums actually paid in September, October, and November, of that year, as likewise of 1801.—Mr. Huskisson presented a copy of the orders given by the lords of the treasury to Claude Scott, esq. relative to the sale of neutral prizes.—The French Wine Duty bill was read a third time and passed.—The Spanish Wine Duty bill was read a second time and ordered to be committed.—The further consideration of the report of the committee on the bill for regulating the office of paymaster of the forces was postponed to Wednesday. — Mr. Alexander brought up the report of the committee of ways and means, which was agreed to.—A short conversation took place on the resolution respecting the stamp duty on banker's checks in Ireland. Mr. Foster explained that it was not his intention to lay a tax upon banker's checks; he merely meant to prevent a practice which prevailed in Ireland, and which was injurious to the revenue; the practice to which he alluded was, that of making banker's checks or small sums negotiable instruments, like bills of exchange. If they were actually bills of exchange they certainly would be liable to the stamp duty, and his only

31
object was to prevent this fraud in the revenue, by imposing a stamp duty upon checks under the value of 5l. if drawn by a person residing within ten miles of the banker, and if the check was not presented for payment within two days.—A short conversation likewise took place on the resolution for enabling his majesty to increase the number of commissioners of excise in Ireland from five to seven. Mr. Foster stated, that the business of the commissioners of excise in Ireland had of late increased so much that it would be necessary to increase their number; and in addition to their other duty it was proposed that they should now sit on the trial of revenue causes instead of the sub-commissioners. After a few words from sir J. Newport, Mr. Fitzgerald, and Mr. Ormsby, the resolution was agreed to; and bills were ordered to be brought in upon all the resolutions.—Mr. Alexander brought up the report of the committee on the bill for encouraging the consumption of beer in Ireland. Several amendments were introduced, and the bill was ordered to be read a third time on Wednesday.—Mr. Foster brought in a bill for the better regulation of duties on Irish Malt; which was read a first time.—The Irish Distillery bill was read a second time.

CORNELIUS GROGAN'S ATTAINDER.
Mr. Richard Martin, complained that the official return made to the order of the house, on his motion for the proceedings and evidence in the case of the attainder passed by the Irish Parliament against the estate of the late Cornelius Grogan, was totally inefficient and evasive, inasmuch as no part of the evidence before the committee who passed that bill, had been produced.
Mr. Foster adverted to the custom of the Irish parliament. The committee had been merely on the bill, and the evidence was not preserved. In this case it was clear it could not be produced. The records had been removed since the union, and where the notes were to be found he did not know.
Mr. Martin replied, that as the bill attainder was founded upon that evidence, the parliament ought to have preserved a record of that evidence, as its own justification; the omission to do it was, in his mind, a most gross and criminal remissness in the officers of that parliament. Mr. Grogan had, in his mind, fallen an unjust victim to the fury and prejudice of the mo
32
ment. One of his brothers was actually killed in battle, fighting against the rebels; and another brother, his next heir, severely wounded in the same action; and yet this gentleman's right too was included in the attainder. Not knowing how to come at the documents he wished for, and which he knew were in the custody of Mr. Thresham, clerk to the Irish house of commons, he said, he should move to-morrow for a committee to enquire into the state of the records of the Irish parliament.—Adjourned.

PETITION FROM HERTFORD RESPECTING THE TENTH NAVAL REPORT.
A petition of the freeholders of the county of Hertford, convened by the high sheriff at Hertford, on Saturday 18th May, 1805, and whose names are thereunto subscribed, was presented to the house by Mr. Plumer and read; setting forth, "that the petitioners have received the votes of the house of the 8th and 10th days of April last, with a satisfaction as great as have been their astonishment, indignation, and sorrow,at the gross and flagrant system of negligence and peculation which has been disclosed by the commissioners of naval enquiry; and with a gratitude proportioned to the extensive security and important national advantages thence to be expected, the petitioners beg leave to state their firm conviction, that nothing can so much contribute to the happiness of the people, the success of the contest in which the nation is engaged, and the ultimate well being of the country, as a system of economy planned with prudence, adhered to with firmness, and conducted, in its details, with diligence, caution, and integrity; impressed as they are with this conviction, the petitioners entreat, the house to accept their grateful thanks for the enquiries which it has already instituted: to the further prosecution of the object above-mentioned they earnestly pray the attention of the house, and beseech them to pursue with effect that which they have begun with so much honour, and that they will institute and persevere in a general system of enquiry which shall be co-extensive which shall be co-extensive with the abuses which may exist in the expenditure of the public money."

PETITION FROM READING RESPECTING THE TENTH NAVAL REPORT.
A petition of several inhabitants of the Borough of Reading, in the county of Berks, was presented to the house and read; setting forth, "that the petitioners beg leave to

33
convey their sincere and hearty congratulations to the house on the votes of the 8th and 10th days of April last, respecting the tenth report of the commissioners of naval enquiry; and they trust that the house will continue to scrutinize, with unceasing perseverance, the several reports that are or may be brought before them, and that they will bring forth to public view and contempt all persons, however distinguished by rank or office, who shall have been guilty of peculation, embezzlement, or misapplication of public property, and inflict on them such marks of disgrace, and such punishment, as will satisfy the expectations of an injured people consistently with the wisdom and justice of the house."

MINUTES.
Their lordships proceeded further in the appeal Redington v. Redington. Mr. Romilly was heard in continuation, and Mr. Agar on behalf of the respondent.—On the second reading of Moore's Divorce bill, Mr. Adam was heard on the part of the applicant, and evidence was examined to prove the fact of adultery committed by Mrs. Moore. After which the bill was ordered to be committed on Friday.—The Land Tax Commissioners Name bill, the Property Tax Amendment bill, and Irish First Fruits bills were read a second time.—Mr. Alexander brought up the Irish Commonable Lands bill, the Slate Duty bill, the Pancras Poor bill, and several private bills, which were all read a first time. On the Irish Commonable Lands bill, the lord chancellor said, he felt it his duty to call most emphatically their lordships' most serious and cautious attention to the measure. It was a bill which went, or rather attempted, to divide and partition, by one

29
sweeping act, the common lands of Ireland. It seemed to proceed upon an assumption, that it was as easy a matter to parcel out and divide those lands, as it would be to divide an estate between three or four members of a family. In the bill before them, there seemed to be no attention paid to the rights of lords of manor; no regulations with respect to tithes or moduses; no provisions with respect to roads, or other inclosures, which, in this country, were, upon the particular cases arising, made the subject of separate bills; no provisions for reference to juries, with respect to contingent questions of private or individual property arising, in that most of those necessary provisions or regulations which were uniformly introduced into bills of the kind in this country, were omitted, and this, in a general bill, which professed to do that, which was made the subject of distinct and separate legislative measures in this part of the united kingdom. These were considerations which their lordships would have most seriously to attend to, when the bill should come to be read a second time. For his own part, he felt these objections to the measure so strongly, that he could not suffer it to go even through its first stage, without expressing them. The bill lies over for a second reading.—The Earl of Radnor, moved, that the recent message from the commons respecting the attendance of the Earl of St. Vincent, on the select committee of that house, be taken into consideration tomorrow. Ordered.—Adjourned.