HOUSE OF LORDS.

corporate bodies, for a statement or specification of their properties, from a proceeding brought forward, as the present, by any individual peer. He believed such a proceeding was without precedent; and to set one in the present case, may be of a dangerous tendency; or, if a precedent existed, it could not be conformable to that respect to the rights of property, which he trusted all their lordships were inclined to pay.

Wednesday, May 1. [MINUTES.]-The bills upon the table were forwarded in their respective stages. A short conversation took place between the earl of Suffolk and the bishop of Oxford relative to the situation of the poorer orders of the clergy, particularly the curates, in consequence of the noble earl having Lately stated that he had received a variety of information upon the subject, some of which was of great importance, and The Lord Chancellor coincided in the rewhich he should take a future opportunity marks of the noble baron: better would it to call their lordships attention to, as he be to suffer the bill in question, beneficial deemed it well worthy the interference of as it was likely to prove, to be lost, than set the legislature; this, he seemed to say, was such a precedent as that contained in the his intention in the event of the bill now be- noble duke's motion. Did the universities fore the other house not passing.-The bi- themselves come forward and desire relief shop of Oxford observed, that to enable from specific hardships, the case would be their lordships duly to understand the sub-considerably altered.

he was in possession of important information on the subject of the motion, which he should freely communicate to their lordships.

The Duke of Norfolk questioned the justice of the noble baron's remarks. He was of opinion that all corporations were more or less in the nature of trustees, and may fairly be called upon. However, he had no objection to withdraw his motion.

ject, information on both sides the question The Bishop of Oxford shortly stated, that should be laid before the house, otherwise a decision upon it must be a very lame one. The earl of Suffolk replied, that his principal view in calling the attention of their lordships thus early to it, particularly that of the rev. prelates, was, that the information before the house might not be ex parte. -Some detailed observations were then interchanged between the above peers, respecting the situations of curates, upon some particular livings, who, the noble earl seemed to think, were not justly treated. The conversation was terminated in consequence of an observation from the Lord Chancellor, who said, that not a single word had fallen from their lordships, but what was contrary to the orders of the house.

[UNIVERSITIES ADVOWSON BILL. The order of the day being read for going into a committee upon the above bill,

Lord Hawkesbury, in a great degree, expressed his concurrence in what had fallen from the noble lords who disapproved of the motion; but in some measure the merits of such a question would depend on circumstances, so that it was impossible, with reference to the powers of parliament, to lay down a fixed principle for such cases.-The motion was then withdrawn by the noble duke, and the house, pursuant to the order of the day, having resolved itself into a com

The Duke of Norfolk said, that as he was in hopes the bill in question would be con-mittee upon the bill, siderably modified in the committee, he The Bishop of Oxford addressed the comshould not oppose that part of its progress; mittee in a speech of some length upon the but were it not so, he should certainly op-subject, in which he recapitulated his former pose the measure in a future stage. After arguments in favour of the principle of the some further observations, his grace moved, bill, and added a variety of detailed consithat an Account of the number and value derations, drawn from documents and acof the different livings in the presentation counts, to which he referred, in support of and disposal of the colleges in the univer- the measure. He contended, that it was sities, &c. be laid before the house. incumbent upon those who opposed the bill, to make out what benefit would be obtained by continuing the restriction. The repeal, properly speaking, would not be a boon, but an act of justice, on the part of parliament, and would be gratefully received by the universities. He hoped, therefore, it would not be reluctantly granted to them, and

Lord Grenville expressed his doubts of the propriety of this proceeding; besides, he believed there was no regular office, or place, at least none under government, whence the information required could be drawn; and he highly disapproved of any attempt to call upon private individuals, or

that the bill would be suffered to pass in its original shape.

approved of the suggestion, that the funds of the colleges should be applied to the enlargement of small livings, rather than to the purchase of others. The bishop of Oxford argued against the introduction of a clause to that effect. The lord chancellor thought that the enacting clause should pass in the way he had suggested; and that the provisions adverted to should be considered on a future day. The bishop of Oxford did not object to this. The bishop of St. Asaph said he would not trouble the house with his opinions in the present state of the busi

Lord Sidmouth expressed his objections against the bill in its present shape. If it appeared to be the sense of their lordships, that a bill to the general effect of the present ought to pass, he thought some modifications might beneficially be introduced; but these not being now perfectly prepared, it was his intention to propose them in a future stage of the bill. He thought that before the universities were suffered to purchase any new livings, their friends should be employed in augmenting the small livingsness; but thought the observation of a noble now in their possession, and afterwards that suitable parsonage houses should be erected

on the same.

lord (Harrowby) well worthy of attention.The question was then put, and the enacting clause agreed to.-Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Wednesday, May 1.

The speaker attended at half past three, and at four o'clock there being only $9 members present, including the speaker, the house of course adjourned to to-morrow.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Thursday, May 2. [MINUTES.]-Counsel

The Lord Chancellor supported the bill. His general grounds were those he had advanced on former occasions. He dwelt with great force and effect on the consideration of its being infinitely preferable to permit the universities of the kingdom to acquire ecclesiastical patronage (a patronage which they had always exercised in the most honourable and beneficial manner), ere it should fall into the hands of such persons, Schismatics, Methodists, and other were further sectarians, as it was likely, to a dangerous heard relative to the Scots' Appeal, Cathand destructive extent, through the present cart, bart. v. the earl of Cassilis. Several scandalous mode of traffic for church pre- private and return bills were brought up ferments. Though he widely differed from from the commons, and were severally read his noble friend (lord Sidmouth) in some a first time.-The bills upon the table were important considerations respecting the sub-forwarded in their respective stages.-Adject of the bill in question; yet there were journed. some of his suggestions he thought highly deserving of attention; such as the augmentation of small livings, &c. and which, he trusted, there would be a future opportunity of considering. With that view, he thought it would be desirable to vote the repealing clause generally; it would be proper on a future day to recommit the Bill, in order to consider of farther provisions of the nature le had alluded to.

Lord Hawkesbury supported what had fallen from his noble and learned friend.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Thursday, May 2.

[MINUTES.]-Mr. Grattan was sworn and took his seat for the borough of Malton. -A new writ was ordered for the election of a member for the borough of Helstone, in the room of John Penn, esq. who had accepted the chiltern hundreds.-The Irish Mail Coach Road bill, the Irish Loan bill, and the Irish Dollar bill, were read a second time, and ordered to be committed.-Mr. Baker obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend the act of 9 Geo. I. in regulating the duty of parish officers, so far as relates to contracts for lodging, maintaining, and employing the poor.-Mr. Leycester moved, that a message be sent to the house of lords, to request that lord Melville have leave to Lord Sidmouth spoke in explanation, as come and be examined before the committo some points in the noble baron's speech, tee to which had been referred the further intended as a refutation of certain positions examination of, the matter contained in the which he had advanced.-The bishop of tenth report of the commissioners of naval London and the earl of Suffolk shortly de- enquiry. The message was ordered, and livered their sentiments. Lord Harrowby Mr. Leycester to be the bearer of it.

Lord Grenville spoke in support of the bill in its present shape. It was a boon well deserved by the Universities, and should be dealt to them fully and liberally, and not with a sparing hand, which would imply a suspicion of probable abuse on their part.

Fife. This was necessary, as there was a report that the grant had been made in a surreptitious manner, and not on grounds satisfactory to the lords of the treasury when it came afterwards to be considered.

Mr. Bond-It is true my name appears upon the warrant; and I subscribed it without any hesitation, upon the authority of what appears at the beginning of that document, that the business was done with the concurrence of the barons of the exchequer in Scotland. I certainly take no blame to myself in the affair, since it was done with their acknowledged advice and approbation. But I think it due to this house, and to the public, on the present occasion, to advance one step farther. It was not known to me, nor, I believe, to any of my colleagues who signed the instrument, that it had reference to arrears to an amount of any consideration. Some small sum, we thought, might be comprised under that head, but that it should cover an item exceeding 3000l. I believe none of us entertained the most remote idea.-This account was also ordered.

[LORD MELVILLE'S GRANT.]-Lord H. | count was ordered, with some others of the Petty rose pursuant to his notice, to move for same nature. The noble lord then moved Certain accounts of the public income in for an account of another grant to lord MelScotland, and of certain grants out of that in-ville, of the arrears of the stewardship of come. The reason of his making these motions was, that as there was an acknowledged necessity of inquiring as much as possible into every abuse in every department of the government, those papers seemed to him well worthy of the attention of the house, as connected with that object. He stated, that it had been the practice in Scotland, originating at the union, to draw money, by anticipation, out of the hands of the receivergeneral of Scotland, by the authority of warrants from the barons of the exchequer in that country, signed by some of the lords of the treasury here. This mode of drawing the money, which had been originally designed as a security against abuse, seemed, however, to have been lately made the means of it. From 1783 to 1790, on an average, 186,000l. a year had been drawn in this way; from 1790 to 1797, it had increased to 223,000l. according to the report of the committee of finance. That committee had suggested the propriety of limiting this issue, as there was no certainty that the revenue from which it was taken could be counted upon for any certain pro- [PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PRINTER duct while it was liable to be so drawn upon oF "THE ORACLE," FOR A LIBEL ON without any regular account. The practice, THE HOUSE.]-Sir Henry Mildmay prehowever, had been suffered to continue, sented a petition from Peter Stuart, propriand the mischief of it may be conceived etor of the paper called The Oracle, then in from one instance; the grant of 15001. a custody of the serjeant at arms, by order of year to lord Melville annexed to his office the house, for a breach of privilege in a paof lord privy seal for Scotland. This grant ragraph in that paper, and moved, that the he considered a violation of the appropria- said petition be read. The petition was tion act, of the act respecting the revenue of accordingly read by the clerk, and is as folScotland also; and of Mr. Burke's act re- lows:-"fo the honourable the house of stricting the crown from granting pensions commons in parliament assembled, the petiabove 12001. without the consent of parlia- tion of Peter Stuart, printer and publisher ment, for this grant was 15001. If this of a morning newspaper intitled grant had been directly made as an addition Daily Advertiser, Oracle, and True Briton,' to the salary of the first lord of the admi- most humbly sheweth, that for the publicaralty it would not have been for life. If it tion of that part of his paper of Thursday was intended as a grant for life, the proper last, deemed highly offensive to this honourmode would have been, an application to able house, he feels the deepest regret; and parliament, stating lord Melville's merits as that although certain expressions in that the grounds on which the claim was made. paragraph be indiscreet and unguarded, and The noble lord concluded with moving, such as have incurred the displeasure of so "that there be laid before the house an ac. important a branch of the British consticount of all monies paid under warrants of tution, yet that your petitioner humbly the barons of exchequer in Scotland, direct- hopes, on this acknowledgment of his sined to the receivers of the customs and ex- cere sorrow, that this honourable house, in cise in that country, stating the persons to the plenitude of its condescension and libewhom such grants were made, and the pur-rality, will be pleased to pardon him for a poses for which, from 1797 down to the transgression solely attributable to the hasty latest period they were made." This ac- composition of a newspaper, and not to any

'The

deliberate design of offending this honour-house, whether ever any thing in the form of able house. That your petitioner is embol- apology came up to this, which not only dened to solicit your indulgence and forgive- justified what the house had thought repreness on his well founded assurance, that du- hensible, but even made accusations upon ring the several years in which he has con- the house. He also pointed out the extraducted a newspaper, it has uniformly been ordinary claim of merit in opposing certain his principle and pride zealously to support societies out of doors, which, it was modestthe character and dignity of the house of ly said, would, if not opposed by this person, commons; and that it has frequently fallen and those to whom he referred, have preto his lot to have vindicated both from the vented the house from ever sitting. He charges of societies expressly instituted to left it to the house what opinion it should bring them into public disrepute and con- form of this extraordinary petition. He tempt. In any, observations which your should not offer any new motion; but he petitioner may have published on the con- put it to the hon. baronet whether the oriduct of lord Melville, he could not but bear ginal one ought to be persevered in. The in mind, that the views of those societies, petition was, by general desire, read a seabetting domestic treason, and assisted by cond time. the co-operation of the revolutionary power Sir Henry Mildmay said, he really saw of France, would, he verily believes, have nothing improper in the petition, nor could effected the destruction of the British con- he understand why the hon. gent. should stitution, had not the wise and efficient mea- cry out so much against it. If it was the sures brought forward by that administra- allusion to lord Melville, and the credit tion, in which lord Melville held so conspi-given to him, and those who acted with him, cuous a situation, been adopted; and this for those measures which enabled the house honourable house would not, in that case, to preserve its place, he had no hesitation perhaps, have been now in existence, either for himself to avow the same sentiments. to censure lord Melville, or to pardon your petitioner. That if any thing could increase your petitioner's regret, it would be its being supposed that the objectionable paragraph was directed also against the right hon. the speaker of the house of commons; that your petitioner has no hesitation to declare, that no idea was ever more remote from his mind; and that your petitioner would be the very last person to insinuate any thing di-respectful of a character whom he, in conjunction with the whole nation, highly esteems as a private gentleman, and most profoundly venerates as the head and public organ of this hon. house.-That your peti-kuow for what other meaning this topic had tioner most humbly hopes this hon. house will consent to his release; and your petitioner will ever pray, &c. P. STUART."The petition being read, the hon. baronet moved, that the said Peter Stuart be brought to the bar and discharged.

He could not help believing that the right hon. gent. misunderstood the language of the petition. He did not see the smallest impropriety in the petition, and he therefore continued his motion.

Mr. For, although he professed himself to be no way averse to the object of the petition, thought that the petition itself was a very improper one to be presented to the house. It was unnecessary and improper to introduce in a petition of this nature, the opinions of the petitioner respecting the conduct of lord Melville in other times, and upon former occasions. He was at a loss to

been introduced, but for the object of attacking those who brought him before that house. The other topic which he had chosen for his defence, namely, the general principles on which he had long conducted a newspaper, appeared to him a most unMr. Windham called the attention of the seemly ground for the petitioner to rest hiş house to the insolence of this petition, and defence upon. In the first place, how was asked whether any thing like it had ever the house to know the fact? How was it to been known? The condescension of the be expected that they should know what petitioner in bearing testimony to the pri- newspapers he conducted, or what was his vate character of the speaker, and the office manner of conducting them? He could not he held, was indeed extraordinary. How-conceive that the house could admit of such ever far the house could go in tolerating the a ground of defence, unless ministers wished insolence offered to it, and to every thing else sacred in the state, he was decidedly of opinion that the insolence of this petition was beyond all toleration. He left it to the

now to inculcate the doctrine, that it will always be admitted as an excuse for those who may be brought before them for libelling that house, that the person who has

been guilty of it has uniformly been a supporter of administration, and of all those majorities which could be supposed to be procured by the influence of the minister, and that he had before been in the habit of only libelling those minorities which opposed the wishes of ministers.

that opinion should also dislike the statement of it in the petition. That opinion was, however, entirely agreeable to the opinion which had for many years been entertained by a great majority of that house, and of the other house of parliament, and although the petitioner might have thought his testiThe Chancellor of the Exchequer could mony of much more importance than it not well understand the conclusion drawn really was, both with respect to lord Mel by the hon. gent. from the topic he had last ville and to the speaker of that house, yet stated. If the petitioner had stated gene- he could not see any thing improper or inrally, that he had been in the habit of sup- sulting to the house in his introducing those porting administration, or any set of mini- topics in extenuation of his offence. It was sters, that would certainly have been no- in the recollection of the house, that on the thing to urge in vindication or extenuation day that this business was first brought forof the offence which drew upon him the ward, considerable stress had been laid on displeasure and punishment of the house; the majority having been formed by the but when it was recollected, that it was for decision of the speaker, and therefore the a libel on the house of commons that he libelling the majority under such circumhad been ordered into custody, it was un- stances, was an aggravated offence, as condoubtedly a topic of extenuation of the of- veying a personal libel on the character of fence to alledge, that so far from being in the the speaker, whose vote made the majority. habit of libelling them, he had always before When this had been relied upon at the time supported, as much as in him lay, the reso- the libel was complained of, it was not exlutions and decisions of the house of com-traordinary that the petitioner should posimons. He must allow, however, that the language and tone of the petition were not exactly what would have appeared to him the most proper. It was not, however, with this petitioner alone, but it appeared to him a common fault with almost all who were connected with the press, that they assumed a loftier stile, and gave themselves something more of importance, than appeared naturally to belong to them. As to the danger of the times, in which the petitioner alledges that he has supported the house of commons, in that he was fully borne out by the high authority of the right hon. gent. (Mr. Windham) who had frequently and very forcibly described those dangers in that house; and who, as well as the petitioner, had often attributed to that administration of which lord Melville formed a part, the salvation of the country. This opinion was not singular: it had been for many years the prevailing opinion of both houses of parliament, and of a considerable portion of the people of this country. If in common with them the petitioner had felt the importance of the services that had been rendered to the public by lord Melville, and those with whom he acted, it was certainly competent to him to state this cirCumstance in his vindication. He had stated the ground of his partiality to lord Melville to proceed from his opinion of the great services he had performed; it was therefore not surprising that those who do not relish VOL. IV.

tively disclaim every idea of reflecting upon the speaker, and take that opportunity of expressing his respect for his character. For his part, it appeared to him that the decision of the majority of the house of commons should at all times be treated with the greatest respect; but certainly it did not appear to him to be entitled to more respect for having been obtained by the casting vote of the speaker than those decisions which are agreed to, either unanimously, or by very large majorities of the house. The only topics then which were objected to in the petition, were those expressions with respect to the speaker which appeared very naturally to have been introduced in consequence of his having been supposed to have libelled the speaker, and his professions of respect for lord Melville's services, which were urged in extenuation of the zeal with which he undertook to defend his character. All the rest of the petition was merely the expression of sorrow and contrition for having offended the house, and this part certainly could not be objected to.

Mr. Windham begged the house would observe how small a part of this petition was taken up with expressions of sorrow and contrition in comparison to what had been allotted to the other topics. It cer tainly could not be supposed that he disagreed altogether from the opinions stated in those topics, and more particularly in that one which was complimentary to the speak

2 N