Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

The house then divided on lord Sidmouth's amende ment:

17 Noes

36

A yes

Majority - 19 The routine business of the day was then proceeded on, and the house adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

TUESDAY, JUNE 28.
On the third reading of the Welch coal bill,
Lord Walsingham presented a petition in behalf of Mess.
Holt, Leigh, and others, against the bill, as tending to
injure their property in collieries bordering on Wales.

Lord Limerick objected to receiving the petition, on the ground that the bill objected to was one in furtherance of the supplies of the year; and he could not help considering the petition at this late period of the session, as merely an attempt to prevent the passing of the bill.

The Lord Chancellor, Lord Sidmouth, and Lord Lauderdale, contended, that the object of the bill petitioned against was, to reduce the duties on coal carried coastways to the different ports of the principality of Wales, and therefore affected only a particular part of the country ; as such, it was regular to receive petitions against it.

The petition was then ordered to lie on the table: and

Lord Bathurst gave notice, that he should to-morrow move that the bill be read a third on that day three months.

The bills on the table were then forwarded in their respective stages.

The amendments made by the house of commons in the Scotch judicature bill, were next brought under consider. ation, and

The Lord Chancellor gave notice, that he should tomorrow move certain amendments to those made by the house of commons. Lord Lauderdale was not a little surprized that the only clause which went to give effect to the original intention of the bill, viz. the diminishing the number of appeals, should have been done away by the amendments made in the commons.

CURATES' BILL. Lord Harrowby, pursuant to a notice, which he gave yesterday, rose to submit a motion to their lordship., which was suggested to him by some observations that had been made during i be discussion of this question. It was agreed, and seemed to be wished on all bands, that something should be done towards improving the condition of the inferior clergy. It had all along been his opinion, that the house was proceeding to legislate on a matter respecting which they had nothing like adequate information before them. This want of due information he felt very anxious to supply; and the object of his present motion was, to endeavour to ascertain the number of liv. ings which were under 1501. per annum. The noble lord then went into a variety of calculations, grounded on former accounts laid before the house, to shew what were the number of these livings; how many of them did not exceed 301.; how great would be the amount of the sum necessary to bring these small livings up to 1501. per annum; and how long the period of time, under the present circumstances, necessary for the attaininent of that object. It was also an object with him to ascertain how many liv. ings were assisted by queen Ann's bounty. With a view to get at this object (an act of parliament he did not think necessary to accomplish it), he should content himself now with noving an humble address to his majesty, praying he would be graciously pleased to direct that there be laid before that house an account of the number of livings under 1501. per annum.

The Archbishop of Canterbury expressed his thanks to the noble baron for the pains he had taken on this subject, and his readiness to co-operate with him in the prosecution of his object..

Lord Moira also gave his hearty concurrence to the motion, and declared that no man could be more anxious than he was to see the condision of the inferior clergy improved. It was not only the comfort of those respectable persons he had in view, but the improvement of the mio. rals of the commonalty, which improvement was intimately connected with the ease and comfort of the clergy. Perhaps, in addition to the information moved for by the noble baron, it might also be expedient to have before the bo!ise an account of the accumulation of the funds, known by the name of queen Ann's bounty.

Lord Harrowby and the Archbishop of Canterbury, in explanation, observed, that there was no accumulation of those funds.

Lord Hawkesbury approved of the motion, and assured his noble friend that every thing should be done by him to give effect to his laudable intentions and endeavours.

The question was then put on lord Harrowby's motion, which was agreed to unanimously.

- The order of the day was then read for the house to resolve its If into a commitee on the bill, when

Lord Sidmouth roe to move an instruction to the committee. In his opinio, whatever came under the description of the object which the bill had in view, might be embraced by it. Its object was to affor: relief to rea' sident curates, where that relief was justly required, and where it might be easily procured. His wish now was to extend that relief to curates appointed by lay proprietors, and his lordship concluded with moving an instruction to the committee to that effect.

Lord Hawkesbury was sorry he could not assent to the proposition of his noble friend. That proposition broacha ed an entirely new principle, which was not connected with the present bill. It should therefore be introduced. in a separate bill, and stand upon its own merits. The principle of the present bill was not new, but had already been, twice at least, recognized and sanctioned by pare liament.

The question was then put on lord Sidmouth's motion and negatived, after which the house resolved itself into the committee on the bill.

In the committee, a clause proposed by the Earl of Moira, for rendering the curates acting under the bill li. able to penalties for dilapidations on the vicarage houses, was opposed, on the ground that there was an action at common law in such cases. On a division, the clause was negatived by a majority of 26 to 0.

Another division tooklice on an amendment proposed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, on the clause cilling upon the bishop, when assigning to any curate the allery ances under this bill, to assign the reasons on which lie interfered His grace stated, that though the bishops were by the constitution responsible to the king as the beąd of the church, they were not under the controul of VOL. III. 1808.

4 F 1

the privy council. It was therefore unconstitutional now to subject them to the authority of that tribunal.

The amendment was supported by Lord Hawkesbury, and opposed by

The Lord Chancellor, who, though he allowed that the bishops were in ordinary cases responsible only to the crown, maintained that when extraordinary powers were given to them by the legislature, there was a right in the legislature to regulate and controul the exercise of those powers. On the division there appeared

For the amendment 15
Against it

16 After some further conversation on the provisions of the bill, it passed the committee without any amendment.

The report was ordered to be received to-morrow. The other orders of the day were disposed of, and the house adjourncd.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

WEDNESDAY JUNE 29.
On receiving the report of the curates' bill,

Lords Holland, Lauderdale, and Rosslyn, renewed their objections to the bill, and suggested several amendments, none of which, however, were adopted. The report was then received, and the bill ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.

The bills on the table were then advanced in their respective stages. On the motion for the third reading of the Welch coal bill, it was opposed by Lord Bathurst, and other noble lords, when a division took place : Contents

$8 Not-contents

39

Majority

1 On the motion of Lord Stanhope for deferring the third reading of the bill to this day three months, the house again divided : Contents

44 Not-contents

36

Majority

8 The bill was of course lost for the present session.

.

APPROPRIATION ACT.
On the motion for going into a comunittee on this act,

Lord Holland rose, and repeated his objections against inserting in this act the grant to the college of Maynooth, and that to the East India company. The charge in the amount of the former grant, he saw no reason to justify. It was a deviation from the principle upon which the grant had originally been made, and upon which it had been angmented in the last session of parliament. He wished to learn from the noble secretary of state, by what in ducements government had been led to diminish the grant, and thus depart from the principle which had first sug. gested it to the adoption of government, and the sanction of the last session of parliament. That principle, the world knew, was the principle of so far conciliating the catholics of Ireland.

Lord Hawkesbury acknowledged, that the grant had in some measure been diminished; but it was upon an understanding that no larger a sum should be granted than was necessary to complete the buildings that were then commenced at this establishment. It was originally intended that accommodation should be provided for a certain number of students; but when it was proposed to carry that accommodation to an unlimited extent, it was thought proper to stop at what was first conceived to be an adequate provision.

Lords Holland and Lauderdale reprobated the idea of circumscribing the privileges and powers of that house, by conforming to any understanding that might be supposed to have been agreed to in another place. There was no end to the extent to which such a mode of reason. ing might be carried, if it was sufficient to say, that 'upon an understanding beiween ministers in another place, such and such a measure was to be adopted and inserted in the appropriation act, thus attempting to deprive their lordships of the exercise of their judgment on such a measure.

Lord Hawkesbury disavowed any such design on his part, and only adverted to the principle upon which the measure had elsewhere been adopted, and not to any particular understanding between individuals of his ma. jesty's government on the subject.

« PreviousContinue »