Gallic domination. It will not fo far infult the people of this country as to fuppofe that they are infenfible of the nature and confequences of the struggle in which we are engaged. I trust that they will not thow themselves deficient in the fpirit fuited to the circumftances in which they are placed. I trust they will fhow themselves worthy of being recognized as the countrymen of those heroes who conquered with Abercromby at Alexandria, and with Nelfon at Abou kir. There victory had accompanied enthusiastic valour, and I have no fear that on proper occafions the fame enthu fiaftic courage, the fame unconquerable fpirit will continue to be displayed. I am not infenfible of the fevere pressure which the measure I propofe will occafion. I have, however, one confolation, that I have endeavoured as far as pos fible to diffuse this preffure equally among all ranks in the community. It has been my wifh that no one should have it in his power to fay, that any particular branch of the community had been treated with rigour, or had experienced partiality. I fhall ever ftand up for economy, but it shall be an economy in which tenderness for the fubject shall be blended with regard for the effential interefts and real fecu rity of the empire.

The right hon Gentleman made a few more obfervations, in which he vindicated himself from the charge of fhrinkingfrom the financial difficulties of the country, and contended. that he had never entertained but one opinion in the event of the war, of the propriety of providing as great a proportion of the fupplies as poffible within the year. He complimented his right hon. Friend (Mr. Pitt) who had introduced it, and thought it was the only means of national fafety. He finished. by calling on the Committee at a crifis like the prefent, to act in a manner worthy of the Sovereign who ruled over them, worthy of the people whofe reprefentatives they were, worthy of the country which gave them birth. He fat down by moving the firft refolution.

The queftion was then put on the different refolutions, and agreed to without oppofition.

The Houfe being refumed, the report was ordered to be brought up next day.

The Committees of ways and means, and of fupply, were ordered to fit on Wednesday following.

On the motion of Mr. Wickham, the Irish parfonage house bill was read a fecond time, and ordered to be committed on Thursday following.

The

The Eaft India fhipping bill went through a Committee. Mr. H. Browne gave notice that in the Committee of Supply on Wednesday, he fhould move that a fum of money be granted for the repair of the roads in Scotland. Adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS,

TUESDAY, JUNE 14.

The bills on the table were read in their respective stages. Nine bills were brought from the Commons, and prefented by Mr. Buller, Mr. Wilberforce, Sir Theophilus Metclalf, and others; and severally read a first time.

CLERGY FARMING AND RESIDENCE BILL.

The order of the day for going into a Committee of the whole Houfe on this bill, having been moved and read, Lord Wallingham took his feat at the table.

Having poftponed the preamble, the Committee proceeded to difcufs the claufes; and the first which came under debate was the fecond, that which enacts that any perfon against whom an action fhall have been commenced, before the paffing of the Act, may apply to the court in which fuch action may have commenced, if fuch Court be fitting, or to any judge of fuch court, if not fitting, for an order to stay proceedings, on payment of ten pounds, in every cafe where a verdict hall have been obtained, together with the costs; and where no verdict thall have been obtained, upon payment of the costs incurred up to the time of fuch application being made, all fuch cofts to be taxed according to the practice of fuch court; in which cafe the judge is authorized to make 1uch order.

Regret and reluctance was expreffed by fome noble Lords, that an apparent breach of legislative faith was effected by this claufe, because it deprived the informer of the obtainment of the penalties on fuch fuits as he had commenced under the authority of the then exifting act of Parliament. To this it. was answered, that the informer's being allowed to recover a ten pound penalty and cofts, in the one cafe, and costs, as taxed between attorney and client, where no verdict had been obtained, was an ample reparation to the informer.

The noble Lords who took part in the difcuffion of this claufe, were Lord Auckland, Lord Alvanley, the Bishop of St. Afaph, Earl Rofslyn, and Earl Radnor. The claufe. paffed with one or two verbal amendinents.

VOL. IV. 1802-3.

X

The

The next claufe, that authorizing spiritual perfons to take houfes, though not in any city; and fpiritual perfons not having fufficient glebe, to take a portion of land by licence of the Bishop, gave rife to a very long and copious difcuffion.

The Duke of Norfolk faid, he had no objection to fuffer fpiritual perfons, who chose to lay down their clerical character, to turn farmers-but then he would move an amendment, viz. after the words " fpiritual perfons," in the second line of the claufe, to infert the words, "having no cure of fouls."

This called up the Lord Chancellor, who gave a very perfpicuous explanation of the true intent and meaning of the claufe, which did not fay one word to authorife fpiritual perfons to turn farmers. He faid, he perceived that the noble Duke had utterly mifconceived the whole clause and its real object, which arofe from his Grace's not knowing that what is understood by lawyers, by the words "to take to farm," which means not to turn farmer, but to have and to hold in farm, meaning the power to demife, and the expreffion of "to take to farm," is taken from the Latin tenere in fermam. According to 21 Henry VIII. a clergyman could not take a houfe with garden and orchard in any village, for his refidence, without being fubject to the penalties of that act, and therefore it was neceffary to give the power of taking fuch refidence to every fpiritual perfon with licence. of the Bishop.

The Duke of Norfolk faid, he faw he had miftaken the claufe, and defired to withdraw his amendment.

Amendment on motion withdrawn. The difcuffion on the claufe was then confidered for a confiderable time, by the Bishop of Durham, the Bishops of Oxford, Norwich, and London, and Lord Auckland, Lord Alvanley, the Eark of Rofslyn, the Earl of Carnarvon, the Earl of Carlisle, Lord Ellenborough, the Duke of Richmond, and the Lord Chancellor.

The Earl of Carnarvon objected to lodging the power of granting the licence to the Bishops, or to any defcriptions c.f perfons whatever. He did not mean to fay this out of dif refpect to the Bifhops, nor to convey any infinuation of their being likely to exercife any difcretion, that night be lodged in their hands, in any other but the most honourable manner; but it was the principle that he objected to, and the poffibility of fuch a power being abufed and perverted to political or other purpofes.

The

The Earl of Carlisle wifhed fonie fcale of the extent to which the Bishop fhould exercife fuch difcretion.

The Bishop of Durham propofed a maximum, which fhould limit the extent of the exercise, if a fit one could be found-or if not, a minimum, below which the Bishops fhould not allow their clergy to take additional lands to cultivate. His Lordship returned his thanks to the noble and learned Lord for the luminous explanation of the claufe which he had favoured the Committee with, and affured all the Lords prefent, that he himfelf (and he was fure he spoke the fenfe of his learned brethren) would infinitely rejoice, if he was invefted with a limited and defined difcretion, and not with an unlimited difcretion, which was an invidious power, and muft put them to much inconvenience, at the fame time that it would provoke the envy and anger of their clergy, let their endeavours to exercife it be ever fo impartial.

The Bishop of Norwich propofed a limitation, by a scale of estimation of the livings of the inferior clergy, and he would take them rather largely, at 1001. for inftance, to afford the Bishop the greater latitude as to the quantity of additional land that he should licence his clergy, according to the nature of the cafe, to take in farms. His Lordship objected to any limitation by the number of acres, because from the great variety of the foil, and the richness or poverty of the land, in different parts of the kingdom, and in different parts of the fame diocefe, twenty acres in one part or place might be of very different value to what it might be in another. The Bishop concluded with moving an amendment, founded on the propofition which he had ftated.

Every Bishop who fpoke expreffed a wish to have the difcretion they were to exercife, as to the power of granting the licence under this claufe, put under fome limitation; and faid, that in refpect to the difcretion in the claufe, the clause itself was a folitary one, as in every other clause due limitations were provided.

Some noble Lords propofed to limit the Bishop's licence to twenty acres, fome to thirty, and fome to forty.

The Duke of Richmond thought it was unjuft that the power of taking farms was not extended to ftipendiary curates and the unbeneficed clergy, as well as to beneficed clergy. His Grace fpoke at fome length on this.

Lord Ellenborough profeffed himfelf to have been much ftruck with the arguments of the noble Duke, and thought

X 3

the

the noble Duke's fuggeftions entitled to very ferious confideration.

The Lord Chancellor could not think that any wife or proper limitations could be provided, or that the claufe could be altered with any advantage whatever. If the Committee would now agree to it, under the understood idea that it was in another stage to be reconfidered, he would endeavour to reconcile his mind to such an alteration of it, as so many other noble Lords feemed to approve.

Lord Ellenborough undertook to frame fome amendments that would meet the objections which had been stated by dif ferent noble Lords, if the Committee would agree to receive the claufe.

The Duke of Richmond faid, that a more proper way of proceeding would be, not to adopt a claufe which they all thought ought to undergo farther confideration at another time, but to poftpone the claufe, and he moved it accordingly.

The Earl of Suffolk objected to the latter part of the next claufe, that of enabling ipiritual perfons to hold lands and eftates as property in the manner herein provided, as he was perfuaded it would enable them to fwallow up the tythes of all the land in the kingdom.

After much further difcuffion of this claufe,

The Committee divided on the Duke of Richmond's mo tion to poftpone the clause

Contents

Non contents

The Committee then proceeded to confider the other claufes of the bill, and several difcuffions took place on each, particularly on that which enacts that the entry of the value of each living in the King's books thall be the scale to meafure the amount of the feveral penalties by which the common informer fhould be entitled to recover.

The Lord Chancellor moved, that this clause be rejected, on the ground, that it went, in a great measure, to defeat the whole object of the bill. Every body knew that the King's books formed a moft fallacious and uncertain criterion; livings therein entered, as producing two guineas only per annum, in feveral inftances, his Lord!hip faid, to his own knowledge, were worth feven or eight hundred a year, while others

entered