Sitting of 10 May 1808

KING'S MESSAGE RELATING TO THE DUCHESS OF BRUNSWICK.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerpresented the following Message from the king:
"G. R. His majesty finds it necessary to state to the house of commons, that in consequence of the disastrous defeat of the Prussian arms in the autumn of 1806, attended with the melancholy death of the
141
reigning duke of Brunswick Wolfenbuttel and the occupation of his territories by the enemy, his majesty's sister, the widow of that illustrious prince, has been compelled to seek an asylum in his majesty's dominions: immediately on her arrival in England an establishment suited to her rank, required by her misfortunes, and such as it became his majesty's affection to afford, was provided out of the Civil List; but. no provision being made in the distribution of that fund for this unforeseen charge, his majesty recommends to this house to consider of the means of enabling him to continue the support of that, establishment; and his majesty relies with perfect confidence on the loyalty and attachment of his faithful commons to make such provision as may appear proper on an occasion so interesting to his majesty's feelings, and so nearly connected with the dignity of his throne."—Ordered to be referred to the Committee of Supply.

DEMISED REVENUES OF THE CROWN.
Mr. Biddulph,in pursuance of his notice, moved for a committee to consider how far the provisions of the act of the 1st of his present majesty, by which it had been directed, that the Demised Revenues of the Crown should be carried into and made a part of the Aggregate Fund, had been complied with. The hon. gent, entered into a long explanation of the subject. He repeated his former assertions with regard to the value of these revenues, which he estimated at 200,000 l. a year, again contending that they might be applied to the public service; in the course of his speech he commented with much severity on the mismanagement of the Royal Forests, by which the timber of the country, so materially necessary to its service, was deteriorated and destroyed.
Mr. Rosequestioned the accuracy of some of the hon. gent.'s statements, and denied that the present amount of the demised crown revenues exceeded 35,000 l. out of which 10 or 12,000 l. went to various charges. He disapproved of a special committee, and thought the finance committee, of which the hon. gent, was a member, fully adequate to any desirable object the hon. gentleman had in view.—A division then took place, when the numbers were, for the motion 12; against it, 37. Majority 25.

CURATES RESIDENCE BILL.
On the motion for the recommittal of this bill,
Lord Porchesterargued against the bill, on the ground that while it violated the

142
rights of the church, it would afford no relief to the great body of the curates themselves. The object of the bill was not to augment the income of those who most wanted it; but to raise the value of a few curacies, while the greater number of those who entered holy orders were left precisely as before. To relieve these he should be perfectly willing, if it could be done; but the causes of the poverty of many of them were, first, the poverty of the benefices themselves; and secondly, the great number who pressed into holy orders without the prospect of any provision at all, except a trifling and precarious curacy. He observed, that this raising the incomes of a few curates would have no other effect, than that of inducing many more than the present average number to enter into holy orders, and by that means the poverty of the whole would be increased rather than diminished. His objection went to the principle of the bill altogether, and he should therefore move as an amendment that it be re-committed this day three months.
Mr. Windhamhad carefully applied himself to the examination of the bill, and the result was that he thought it very injudicious, very pernicious in point of principle, and inefficient as to any good practical purpose. He remarked, that two views were entertained of the nature of church property; the one was, that it was inviolable, like private property; the other, that it was merely to be considered in the nature of a salary for a particular duty, and that the legislature might interfere with it and alter it with as little ceremony as the salaries of any public office. He thought that neither of these two propositions was just in its full extent. He was disposed to concur in the theory of the right hon. gent., that it was inviolable like private property; but that the legislature had a right to interfere, so far as to provide that the duties attached to it were performed. But then he asserted, that the meddling with this property, in the manner proposed by the bill, was dangerous to the church establishment; for the bill seemed to be founded on the principle maintained by those who held that all those clergymen, who were not employed in parish duties, were useless members of that establishment. The law allowed pluralities. Clergymen, therefore, could not always reside on their livings; and attaching penalties to that which the law permitted, he contended, was unjust. It also seemed to proceed on the supposition, that the number of curates was limited. This was not the case; and the augmenting a few curacies would only bring a greater number into holy orders, and by that means increase the distress of the whole. On the whole, the bill went to a dangerous violation of church property, without any chance of improving the general condition of the curates.
Dr. Laurenceargued, that there was danger in almost every view in which the measure in question could be taken.
The Solicitor Generalsupported the bill, as a measure that was best adapted to the welfare of the church.
Mr. Whitbreadwould vote for the bill being committed. The only objection he had to it was that it did not go far enough.—The house then divided upon lord Porchester's amendment. Ayes, 11; Noes, 94; Majority, 83.

OFFICES IN REVERSION BILL.
Lord Hawkesbury,on moving the 2nd reading of this bill, stated briefly the former proceedings respecting this subject, and contended that there was a material difference between the principle of this bill, and that of the former bill, which went to the total abolition of the prerogative of granting offices in reversion, upon the mere ground of expediency, stated in the preamble, whilst, in the present bill, it was only proposed to suspend that prerogative for a limited period, and that on special ground stated in the preamble, namely, with a view to inquiries now pending in the house of commons. It was easy to conceive that such a suspension might be of mate-

140
rial importance to the objects of the Committee of Finance, in order that offices might not, in the mean time, be granted in reversion, and thereby placed beyond their controul with respect to any proposed regulation. Viewing the bill therefore in this light, he should give it his support; and although with such an object before a committee of the house of commons, no minister would advise his majesty to grant any office in reversion in the mean time, still he thought it more, constitutional to legislate in the way now proposed, than to leave it to an address of either house of parliament.
Lord Redesdalerepeated his former arguments upon this subject, and thought the bill the first step to measures pregnant with danger to the constitution, and which therefore they ought to resist in the outset. He considered the former bill as less exceptionable than the present; as in that, what was decided was broadly and fairly stated, but in this he conceived an attempt was made to draw their lordships into an approbation of measures which might prove highly injurious, and which, if rumours were to be believed, would tend to a material invasion of the constitution. The bill in itself would, if passed, be an infringement of the constitution, for which no adequate reason was stated. It was not enough to say that inquiries were pending; their lordships ought to be informed of the nature of the measures which were intended to be proposed, and for which this bill was to lead the way. The former bill had been rejected, and he thought the house ought to make a stand upon their independance, and reject this also, coming, as it did, so immediately after the rejection of the other, and standing as it did on no better, or rather on worse grounds.
Earl Grosvenorsupported the bill, in order that there might be no obstacle in the way of the labours of the committee of finance; and the more so as there was supposed to be a disposition somewhere, though not open and avowed, to throw impediments in the way of that committee. The objection of the noble and learned lord, that there was no recommendation from the crown, could surely be of little avail after the recommendations from the throne at the end of the last and the commencement of the present parliament, to adopt measures with a view to economy in the public expenditure. The noble and learned lord had talked of measures to which this would lead, and which would endanger the constitution; but what was the object of the committee of finance? simply to consider of economy, and to prevent a lavish expenditure of the public money, at a crisis like the present, when burdens, however necessary, pressed heavily upon the people. From such measures, instead of danger, the most beneficial consequences would result. He considered the present bill as of little efficacy compared with the former; but it should nevertheless have his support, rather than that no measure of the kind should be adopted.
The Earl of Moiraprofessed himself at a loss to discover any reason which existed for passing the present bill. He thought it was incumbent upon those who proposed or supported a measure which infringed upon a prerogative that had been exercised for 300 years, to shew that abuses existed in the exercise of that prerogative, or that some great public benefit would be derived from its limitation or its abolition. In this case, however, nothing of this nature had been shewn, nor was there any evidence before them that such a measure could be of the slightest utility. He thought there had been a great public delusion upon this subject, and that advantages had been held out which could not by any possibility result from this measure. He could not consider this measure as of the slightest importance with a view to economy; nor was there any information before the house to prove, in any other point of view, its necessity or expediency.
Earl Mortonobserved, that the former bill having been rejected, a new bill, of a similar description, ought not, according to the ancient usage of the constitution, to be entertained; and from the circumstances under which this bill had come up, he thought the house ought to make a stand here in support of their own independence, and reject it.
Lord Hollandthought there was little necessity for combating the arguments used against the bill, as the speech of his noble friend (the earl of Moira) who opposed the bill, and the speeches of the noble lords on the other side who also opposed the bill, answered each other. The noble lords on the other side thought the bill would actually destroy the constitution, whilst his noble friend, on the contrary, thought it a measure of no consequence. With this contrariety of opposition, there needed little to be said in support of the

bill, which he hoped would now be carried. He could discover no such cause for alarm as that stated by the noble and learned lord, nor did he know to what rumour the noble lord alluded. He agreed with the noble earl (Grosvenor) as to the comparative inefficacy of the present bill, and would rather that the former bill had been carried, but he would not run the risk of losing the measure now proposed, by giving any opposition to it upon that ground, or by proposing any alteration in it. He trusted it would now be carried, and there appeared reason to believe that it would be. If it was, he should hail it as a great and a splendid triumph obtained over that secret influence which had existed for 40 years lurking behind the throne, over those secret advisers who had attempted to curb the ostensible ministers, themselves remaining without responsibility. He hoped this had resulted from ministers having assumed courage and spirit to oppose this secret influence. He trusted it had not been the effect of a compromise, in which the justice due to a large portion of his majesty's subjects had been sacrificed. He trusted that Maynooth college had not been the object of this compromise, and that some of those ministers who had contributed to the establishment of that institution had not consented to give it up as a condition of the compromise. He trusted that this was not the case; that the passing of the bill was to be considered as fairly resulting from the circumstances under which it was introduced, and that it would not be the only beneficial measure which would result from the enquiries set on foot.
Lord Somerssupported the bill, chiefly on the ground that he conceived secret influence to have been used in the rejection of the former bill; and wherever it appeared, he thought it his duty to make a firm stand in opposition to it.—The bill was then read a second time.