Sitting of 3 February 1807

MINUTES.
A ballot took place for a committee to try and determine the merits of the Shrewsbury Election Petition. The following gentlemen were appointed as the committee:—James Buller, esq., right hon. N. Vansittart, W. Gore, esq., H. Fawcett, esq., lord Folkestone, R. C. Ferguson, esq., H. C. Montgomery, esq., Oswald Markham, esq., R. Sheldon, esq., hon. John Ramsay, R. C. Carew, esq., hon. W. Quin, hon. J. Pierce. Nominees; George Johnstone, esq., Francis Horner, esq.—The Attorney-General, pursuant to notice, moved for, and obtained leave to bring in, a bill for investing certain commissioners for enquiring into the expenditure of the Barrack Department, with powers to examine parties on oath, and to call for papers and accounts. Mr. Rose entirely approved of the measure proposed by the learned gent., and gave notice, that on Thursday next he should move, for a copy of the opinion of his majesty's attorney and solicitor general upon the transactions in the Barrack Department.—Mr. Biddulph renewed his former notice of a motion, for a committee to enquire whether any alleviation of the public burthens might not be procured by the abolition of unnecessary and Sinecure Places for Tuesday next.

SCOTCH CLERGY BILL.
Mr. Kenrickpresented a petition from the committee of the commission of the general assembly of the church of Scotland, setting forth, "that the petitioners are a committee appointed by the commission of the general assembly of the church of Scotland, held at Edinburgh upon the 19th of Nov. 1806, with instructions to attend to the progress of any bill that may be introduced into parliament founded on the Resolutions lately entered into by the house of lords, respecting the courts of law in Scotland, and to adopt every prudent and temperate measure for maintaining the established rights and privileges of the Clergy of the church of Scotland; and that the petitioners have been informed, that a bill has been brought into the house for suspending, for a limited time, the powers vested in the court of session as commissioners of Teinds by an act of the Scots parliament, passed in the year 1707, c. 9, and for certain other purposes; and as the petitioners are convinced, that the provisions of the said bill will be highly prejudicial to the interests of the Clergy of Scotland, therefore praying, that the

611
same may not be passed into a law, or at least that, before any farther proceedings take place with regard to it, they may be heard, by their counsel, at the bar of the house, against the same being passed into a law." On the motion that the petition do lie on the table,
Mr. Wilberforcesaid, he bad not yet had sufficient opportunity of acquiring the necessary information upon the subject, but from the little information he had obtained, he was induced to think that it would be more adviseable to hear counsel before the house should go into a committee on the bill, because then gentlemen would in that case be in possession of the leading objections urged by the petitioners against the bill, and perhaps it would appear that all such might be so modified in the committee, as entirely to satisfy all parties; an object which, whether he considered the character of the learned lord with whom the bill originated, or the great respectability of that class of men who had now petitioned against it, was with him one of no inconsiderable importance.
The Speakerfelt it his duty to acquaint the house, that as the bill in question had been read a second time, it was not the regular usage to hear petitioners by their counsel at the bar, in any stage so intermediate as that in the present instance. When the bill was committed, it would be for the committee to exercise its own discretion; but it was more usual for the house to hear counsel upon the report being brought up.
Mr. Adambegged leave to observe, that no counsel could be heard in the present stage of the bill, and that were it even not irregular it would be inconvenient, for that he was satisfied the objections of the clergy of Scotland, for whom he entertained the most unfeigned respect, went rather to the apprehended modifications of the bill, than to the principle of the bill itself, for it was neither in the nature, nor was it any part of the object of the bill, to take away any privilege, or to infringe upon any right. He assured the hon. gent. and the house, that nothing was more foreign to the minds of those with whom the bill originated, than any sentiment hostile to the true interests of the Scotch Clergy. The object of the bill was merely to suspend for a limited time, and a very limited time, certain proceedings pending before the commissioners of Teinds, relative to the augmentation of stipends. The court of ses-
612
sions, of which those commissioners were members, would terminate its sittings on the 12th of March, and not resume them before the 12th of May, but the time of suspension was not to exceed the first day of the subsequent sessions: where then, he asked, was the ground for any reasonable complaint of delay, when the recess was to commence so soon, and the time of suspension was to be limited by its termination?
The Lord Advocate of Scotlandsaid, he should desire no better testimony to the sincerity of his good wishes to the Church of Scotland than that of the Scotch Clergy themselves. Taught, he might say, from his infancy, to hold that respectable class of the community in proper estimation, he did not think that he could be supposed capable of deliberately introducing into that house any measure that could, in the slightest degree, tend to detract from their privileges, or to alienate their rights: so far from it, that he had it in his intention to submit, upon a future day, to that house, some measure for rendering them more secure and permanent. He was, however, as willing as any gentlemen in that house could be, to hear the petitioners by their counsel: he was anxious that no possible channel of information upon that subject should be closed. The principle of the bill was not objected to, but the modifications which the bill should undergo when in the committee. He was persuaded that when the blanks were filled up in the committee, the petitioners would then see the bill in a clear point of view, and feel, as he did now, how groundless were their apprehensions. When he had the honour of submitting that bill to the house, he felt happy in the consciousness of introducing a regulation that he believed would be beneficial to the church of Scotland: but if it should appear otherwise; if there was the least ground to suspect that it might be productive of any consequences injurious to the Scots Clergy, he should feel still greater happiness in immediately withdrawing it.—The petition was then, together with another on the same subject, ordered to lie on the table, till the report of the bill; and the committee on the Scotch Clergy bill was put off to Thursday.