| 
| 
| 
complaint ; 
HISTORY O 
_ to the vote of the vestry, upon the 
Subject. 
After some farther observations, 
the house divided; when the num- 
bers were, 58 for the petition, and 
124 against it. The question upon 
the third reading of the bill produced 
Some farther discussion, but it was 
at length agreed to, and the bill was 
__ passed and ordered to the lords. 
On the next day there was an 
animated discussion, and division 
fn the house of commons, on the 
Second reading of the coroner’s bill, 
Which had been introduced by Mr. 
Byng. 
’ Mr. Hobhouse opposed the bill, 
which had been in fact rejected by 
the last parliament: a great majo- 
Tity of the coroners, had made no 
that the price of provi- 
sions and the expences of living, 
had much increased, were well 
known facts: but there existed, 
however, many other places, of 
which the salariés’ had continuéd 
the same, for a long’ time ‘back. 
Upon the same principle, an appli- 
Cation might be made, to increase 
generally’ all salaries. -If this office 
of coroner was so ill rewarded, how 
came it, that it was so mach soli- 
‘cited, and that most of the coroners 
‘could afford to keep deputies? | 
' -Mr. Shaw’ Lefevre, agreed in 
opinion with Mr. Hobhouse; he 
believed the emoluments of their 
offices were considerable; he re- 
collected an instance of a shipwreck 
onthe coast near where he lived, 
where flocks of coroners came down 
from all the neighbouring districts ; 
4nd fastened, like birds of prey, 
onthe drowned mariners, in order 
to hold inquests, atid charge the dis- 
trict with their fees! He knew 
‘the office, was so desirable to many 
F EUROPE. 115 
persons, that considerable sums 
were spent to obtain it. 
Mr. Sheridan, by the description 
of the last speaker, thought instead 
of flights of coroners, it was flights 
of cormorants who came to the 
shipwreck. He supported the bil), 
as thinking the coroners’ pay at 
present insufficient. On a division, 
the second reading of the bill was 
carried by a majority of 12. 
On the 6th day of April, Sit 
William Scott moved for leave to 
bring in a bill ‘‘for amending the 
provision in the act of Henry VIIL 
relative to spiritual men holding 
farms, and residing upon their be- 
nefices.” The act which was now 
to be amended, had been made be- 
fore the reformation, when the na- 
tion was justly indignant at the cor- 
ruptions, and usurpations of the 
clérgy, who ‘were then catholics. 
Several penalties were, by that act, 
to be inflicted on those clergymen 
holding farms, or absenting them- 
selves from their benefices. Those 
penalties, however, had slept for a 
long time; till about five > years ago, 
they were called into activity, by a 
general attack on the clergy, on the 
part of common informers. A 
number of cases occurred where the 
non-residence of the rector, was by 
no means criminal ; and yet it sub- 
jected him to the penalty, The 
last patliament found it necessary, 
to re-consider this subject; which 
lord Coke said, ought to-have been 
done in his time, 70 years ago) 
the bill, that he should now pro- 
pose, was, in substance, the same 
as he had presented last year; but 
which he had withdrawn, on ac- 
count of the quantity of business 
then before the house. He took 
occasion to throw out an opinion, 
I 2 that 
