CLERGY FARMING AND RESIDENCE BILL.

The House resumed their confideration of the report, be ginning where they left off the preceding day, viz. at the exemption claufe, to almost every one of which Lord Grenville fpecifically objected, and three feveral divifions took place. His first objection was to exempting the chaplain of the Speaker of the House of Commons, or, as he was termed in the bill, the chaplain of the House of Commons. His Lordship grounded his objection on his own knowledge, acquired while he was connected with the chair, that it was not neceffary that a perfon holding the office of chaplain to that houfe, fhould hold a benefice with cure of fouls, in aid of the chaplainship, because it was customary, after three or four years fervice, always to recommend the chaplain to his Majefty's notice; and he was fure, in confequence, to have either a good canonry, or a valuable prebendary bestowed upon him.

The Lord Chancellor replied, and defended the exemption, although, he could not but admit, that, probably, the fpecial exemption of the chaplain of the Houfe of Commons was matter of furplufage, St. Stephen's chapel being part of the King's palace, and the chaplain confequently one of the King's clerks or chaplains.

The House divided, and the words were carried of "about ten."

To the words "the clerk of his Majefty's clofet, or his deputy clerk," Lord Grenville did not object; but he strenuously oppofed the exemption of " the chaplain general of his Majesty's forces," and was fupported by Lord Ellenborough, and the Bishop of St. Asaph in the principle, that the duties of the office were duties that were of a lay nature, and that a layman might execute it.

The Bishop of Norwich faid, ecclefiaftical matters were connected with the office, as the chaplain general appointed clergymen of different diftri&ts, and fent orders to them to adminifter the neceffary offices of the church to the several regiments quartered in thofe diftricts. He added alfo, that the chaplain general refided neceffarily in London, to receive the directions of the commander in chief, whofe chaplain he

was.

These arguments were oppofed, and it was ftill contended

that

that a layman could execute that duty as well as a clergyman. The house divided on this exemption.

Contents,

Not Contents,

5

8

The exemption of the brigade chaplain on foreign fervice, and the exemption of the chaplain on board of his Majesty's, fhips, called forth a good deal of difcuffion,

The Lord Chancellor having faid, that the former was coequal to the parochial priest, having a large flock under his cure; and the chaplains of the navy, in every fenfe of the words, fhip parochial chaplains.

The Bishop of Norwich proved the neceffity and impor-' tance, that captains in the navy fhould be encouraged to look up to the better fort of the clergy, men of governed manners, unquestionable morals, deep learning, and perfuafive eloquence, capable of winning upon the minds of their parifhioners, within whofe fight and touch they continued to be, from day to day. From fuch a defcription of fpiritual perfons only could the neceffary good effects of religion be expected to be impreffed on the minds of the crew of a man of war-and not from aw, inexperienced young men, who had just taken orders, and scarcely knew their own duties.

་

Lord Ellenborough argued ftrongly in fupport of the exemp tion, and it was carried.

Lord Grenville moved an amendment to the exemption, ofchaplains in any British fatory, or in the household of any British ambaffador, or public minifter refiding abroad,” by inferting words in fubftance and effect, actually doing the duties and duly performing the offices of fuch chaplains.' The amendment was agreed to.

Some converfation took place on the exemption of the preachers or readers to the Inns of Court.

Lord Grenville faid, thofe whofe exemption he opposed here, he faw clearly would not want advocates to fupport their caufe. The Mafter of the Rolis, he thought, thould pay a chaplain out of his own official revenues.

The Lord Chancellor, Lord Alvanley, and Lord Elen borough ftrenuoufly fupported the exemption.

The Lord Chancellor faid the noble Lord could not oppofe his objection very fericully, as he was unable to refrain from a fuit when he did oppofe the exemption, but it was highly neceffary the words thould ftand.

Lord Alvanley faid the Mafter of the Rolls' fituation was not fo good a one as the noble Lord had imagined. His

Lordship

Lordship fpoke in great praise of the utility of the inftitution of preachers or readers to the Rolls; and faid, many eminently learned and religious men had greatly diftinguished themselves in the execution of that duty; among others Bishop Burnet.

Lord Ellenborough took fimilar ground with regard to the Matter of the Temple, and mentioned Dr. Sherlock, of celebrated memory, who had held that office with great advantage to the fociety of the Inner Temple in his time, and the fame benefit would be derived from the prefent Master of the Temple's great abilities, by the young men of the prefent day.

The words were carried.

A converfation alfo took place on the exemption of the burfar, dean, vice-prefident, public tutor, or chaplain, or other fuch officer in any college or hall in either of the universitics of Oxford or Cambridge.

Lord Grenville objected to the exemption.

The Lord Chancellor replied.

Lord Ellenborough difapproved of using the word burfar, who was only a fort of steward, and might be a layman; and he alfo thought that the words or other fuch officer," were indefinite in their meaning. The words of the exemption were, however, carried.

The exemption of fellows of colleges challenged confiderable debate, in which many of the arguments urged in the many former difcuffions of the bill, were again brought forward by the Loid Chancellor in reply to Lord Grenville, who objected to the exemption of fuch perfons.

Lord Alvanley stated the practice of the college he belonged to at Cambridge, as to the practice of beneficed fellows, and referred to the Bishop of Norwich for confirmation of what he had faid.

The Bishop of Norwich rofe, and in few words repeated what he had laid on a former night, viz. that there were but xteen fellows of Trinity college, who were entitled to hold one living each, and not one half of them had a living.

The Houfe divided on this claufe, which at length was carried.

The exemption of the professor of Gresham college was strongly objected to by Lord Grenville and the Bishop of St. Afaph, as a farce and a mockery: as the duty of the profeffor hip was done by deputy in a lumber 100m over the Royal Exchange, where, not unfrequently, nobody, but fome old

woman

woman or girl, who came to gape about and fee what was going on, were given a fhilling to one and fixpence to the other, to go away. His Lordfhip faid, the college was long fince demolished (at the death of an archbishop or bishop, whofe name we did not diftinctly hear,) and the library, he believed, fold. He faid the profefforfhips were mere finecures, and that if he was to afk the profeffor of aftronomy the dif tinction of one ftar from another, he doubted much whether he could tell it; and in other matters of fcience and learning, he much queftioned whether the other profeffors were not equally ignorant and unlearned.

The Lord Chancellor read a paper which had been put into his hands, to explain what the duty of the profeffors was under the will of Sir Thomas Grefham. As to its being executed by a deputy, in a lumber-room over the Royal Exchange, it was evident that the right rev. prelate had occafionally visited that lumber-room, from the information which he had given the Houfe, that it often was the practice, if only an old woman and a little girl came, to give one a fhilling, and the other fixpence, to go away, in order to avoid reading the lecture.

The Bishop of St. Asaph faid, he had his information on this fubject from a very refpectable clergyman, refident near the Royal Exchange, who lamented his proximity to that building, as he was perpetually fent to, and intreated to go and read the lecture for one profeffor or other, and was thence often obliged to give up engagements of a more agreeable nature. His Lordthip faid, he believed the appointments to the Gresham profefforships lay with fome one or other of the city companies.

The exemption was carried in the negative.

Lord Grenville moved fome verbal amendments to the other parts of the claufe, to make them correfpond with the preceding condition of exemptions of the claufe.

As foon as the claufe was gone through, Lord Alvanley moved a provifo to be added to the claufe fubftantially the fame, though not fo in fubftance, as that which had been propofed in the Committee by the Bishop of London,

The Lord Chancellor objected to it, as the most mischievous that could poffibly be introduced into the bill. It would endanger its fate in the other Houfe, and was unnecessary. His Lordship enlarged upon this, and he used his argument in fome degree on his having reafon to believe, that the ob ject of the propofed provifo would make part of another bill,

to be propofed to Parliament in the prefent feffion, which would alfo go to the better provifion of curates, as well as their refidence.

The Bishop of London stated, that he had given up and withdrawn a provifo fimilar in effect, which he had moved in the Committee, on the ground now ftated by the noble and learned Lord, and therefore he could not fupport the claufe now moved by the noble and learned Lord oppofite to him.

Lord 'Grenville, in a very argumentative fpeech, fupported Lord Alvanley's charge, denying that the affertion of any man, however refpectable, that another bill would come into Parliament this feffion, with a provifion of the nature of that now moved, was a fit parliamentary ground for fufpendinga neceffary provifo. Who would answer for the Houfe of Commons, or even what that Houfe would do with fuch a bill, if after the end of June it were practicable to bring it in ?

The Lord Chancellor replied; and after further debate,

Lord Alvanley confented to withdraw it, and move it on the third reading.

The Earl of Radnor and Lord Grenville moved feveral amendments in other fubfequent claufes, which were negatived.

The Lord Chancellor moved feveral omiffions and infertions, which were agreed to.

One clause his Lordship undertook to revife in the morn ing, and bring it forward properly amended the next day.

Lord Grenville propofed one amendment in the clause enacting that lifts of the licences fhould be laid annually before the King in council, with the caufes of granting them," which amendment was agreed to.

At length the Houfe got through the bill, and the further confideration of the report was adjourned till the next day. The clerk having fworn fome witneffes, the Houfe adjourned.

HOUSE OF COM MONS.

THURSDAY, JUNE 23.

Edward Morris, Efq. took the oaths and his feat for Newport, in Cornwall.

Sundry accounts of Eaft India fhipping were prefented. The third reading of the woollen clothiers bill was poft

poned,