The Sun.
London, England, 1809-03-01 00:00:00

NEW DOCKS AT PURFLEET.

A Member moved for leave to bring in Bills to
confirm an agreement between Government. and
Samuel Whitbread, Esq. for certain lands purchased
of him at•Purfcet, and also to make compensation
fur certain other lands and hereditanients, purchased
in the same place for the purpose of having docks
there.—Leave given.

Lord FOLKESTONE, pursuant to his notice of yes-
terday, rose to move, that the House be called over
on Wednesday the Bth of March. The question to
come before the House that day 'was of the utmost
importance, and therefore he conceived that the
fullest possible attendance of Members was. neces-
sary. With that view, and with that only, it was
that he should now move for a call of the House on
that day..
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER Said,,titat
he should ,not. have thought it necessary to► make
such a motion, when he considered the manner in
which the House had been attended during the
whole of the time when the important subject al-
luded to by
.the Noble Lord was under investigation,
and therefore he had no doubt of a fell attendance
upon' the day appointed for taking that most im-
portant subject again into consideration. The quei.
Con, as the Noble Lord had jtKtly observed, was one
of the utmost importance, and it was his own wish
that in all its parts it should peet7the most grave
jand solemn consideration before the. full6t possible
'attendance of Members.' lie therefore. abstained
from ally resistance to the motion, feeling, as he did
that however unbeeessary he might conceive it to
be, yet any opposition to it on his part would be
subject to animadversions not et the most liberal na-
ture. But in giving his assent to the motion, he
truitted'that the ritivslipt-t of that day would not be
further delayed. The'rnoticin•might haVe the effect
of securing the attendance of all Members in town,
or within a 'short difitanee, but It could not be ex-
pected that in so short a notice as eight or ten days,
any thing like an 'effectual tall of the House could
be had. But it was not because the call could not
operate to its fullest extent that it was not 'therefore
to he adopted.

Lord F.OLKSTONR assured tire. Right lion. Gen-
tleman, that he bad no intention of further 00+
potting tike busine4s,neither was any stick Intention
entertained by his Hon. Friend (Mr. Wardle).
Mr. BRAOGE BATHURST thought the twit of the
House equally unnecessary and improper. He
should think it quite impossible that in so short a
Period as eight days, it would have any effect in
bringing Gentlemen from the remotest corners of the
United Kingdom. It would be merely a call in
name, and nut in effect. From • the full attendance
of Members during the whole of the Inquiry, there
could be no doubt of a full attendance on the night
Of discussion ; and.although a tolerable opinion of a
subject might be found on written evidence, yet
perhaps, it was going too tar to call on Members
corning from a distance, who would °not have time
to examine and consider the printed evidence, after
their arrival in town, in order to form their opi-
nions, to decide upon so solemn a subject, perhaps
the day after.
Mr. CILAULES ADAMS approveu
tutmotion for a
Call of the House, and thought, that although it
could not be expected to procure the attendance of
MeMbers from Scotland and Ireland, yet if it only
obtained that of half a dozen additional Members,
upon such an occasion, even that would be of some
importance.

General GASCOYNE also thought the Call could
not be effeetual. It appeared to him that to attempt
enforcing this call at so short a notice, would be an
abuse of the power of the House, and tend to defeat
its authority on future, occasions. Members at a
distance would suppose it a serious call, and no doubt
expect that they would be allowed, a subsequent day
to offer their excuses s so that the obAed of the pre.
sent call would he defeated.

Lord lisotatsTora said, he felt the Call could not'
be soeffe6tive as was desirable, upon so' short a no.
tire; .and was himself very sorry it had not occurred
to him to move tor it at an earlier.clay. He hoped,
however, the House, in justice' to its authority,
would 'enforce the call for the Bth of March; for
hoWever it might be afterwards disposed to excuse
those Members who could skew reasonable, cause
for their, non-attendance theo, he could hardly sup.
pose. that some question would not arise out of the
proceedings of 'that day of the utmost moment,
Which would, at au, early subsequent day, call for
sOlemn decision, and consequently render necessary,
the fullest possible attendance of IVlernbers. ' ,
Mr.,.llmmas opposed the motion. He thought
that' call of the House,• On so short a notice, was
unprecedented. it eras something so preposterous,
that when he heawl. of. the Noble Lord's avowed
intention, he thought it quite iropossible that he
could 'be serious. The attendance of the House
already upon this subje4 had been remarkably
full; they had divided more than a,majority of the
whole liouie, and he did riot think that at the pre-
sent lotion, and at so short a notice, :there was any
chatka of a further attendance. besides, bq would

ask, was it a desirable thing that Members who had
never heard ib \A ord of the evidence in this case,
should be called on to decide upon the question, who
perhaps would not arrive fill the day before, and
could not have time to read or consider the written
evidence ? There were mantMembers who did net
wish to interfere on this question. Was it desirable
to bring such men from the remotest corners of Ire-
land or Scotland? And,. besides,- though the-House-
had authority to enforce their attendance at a call on
that day, it had no authority afterwards to prevent
their goiog out again, or to force them to vote. - He
was docidedly adverse to the call, and should take
the sense of the House upon it.
Sir Jot is NEWPORT said, that the Hon. Member
who had all of a sudden shewn so much tenderness
towardi the Members from Ireland, and reluaance
to inconvenience them, bad asserted, that a call at
so short, a notice was unprecedented. He would
beg leave, however, to refer him to the Journals,
so recently as the i ith of last February, where there
was an order that the House be called over on the
following day.
Mr. 13/m(2s 'answered, that this was in the case
of a ballot for an Eleaidn Committee, where the call
was pendipg de die in diem.
Lord VOLE.STONE instanced another case on the
Journals, during the discussion of the Slave Trade
in Int , where there was a call of the House at
eight days. • •
The question 3,V35,110W put on Lord FOLISTONE'S
motion, when the Hotise divided— •

Ayes
rues
Majority tar the Call

11
is
.--47

On re-admission to the gallery we found
Sir G. F,. HILL speaking in opposition to the mo-
tion of Mr: -Nlonigamery, for, leave to bring in a
Bill, to quiet, all. doubts respeAing the tenure of
freehold property byAoman Catholics in Ireland 'on
the ground that' the Bill was unnecessary,ow it
was.founded merely upon an,obje6tion made by one
of the Counsel in, thePonegal t;le6lion Committee,
t 9 the vote: of a particular Catholic elector, which
objcdion was unanimously over-ruled by that Corn-
mittee, and consequently-could not stand in proof
of the necessity of a Bill which was only calcUlated
to excite doubts whew no doubts existed.
Sir Armen VlLLL'lnikant said,, that considering
the effect which this discussion might have upon the
minds of the persons possessing property of the
description alluded to, in Ireland, he could not but
wish that the klon, Member had mentioned the
.subject to lint before he introduced' it into%the
House, in order that an, opportunity might have
been giVen cif 'consulting with those persons. who
might be supposed the most capable of giving an
opinion upOn, the subjea. The poiut which the
Honourable Member proposed to settle by this Bill,
arose in an Election Committee; but it was deter-
Mined itt the Cortimittee precisely in the same man-
.ner which it was proposed to explain the law in this
Bill. It appeared to him,, trieretore; that no doubt,
however„coqld exist upon the fiubjeta. At all events,
he hoped the Honourable Member would not press
the Bill', but that time would be given for consulting
with the persons at the head of the law department
in Ireland, who of eotrae must be beat qualified to
judge of the qieerssity oK expedieocy of this mea-
sure.

Sir J. NMPORT dectdedly protested against the
doCtrine just suggested hy the Right Hon. Secretary,
that any Member of that House, before he ventured
..,to propose a Bill to Parliament, was bound, in the
• first instance, to submit his object to any Officer of
the Crown, however dignified in rank or high in
power. 11 such a doetrine were to be once admit-
tech-41*er° would be an end to the undoubted. privi-
leges of every Manlier of that House, and to the
deliberative funCilous of Parliament. •
Sir ARTHUR WELLESkEY, in explanation, said,
that the Hon. Barr. had misunderstood him
.he
never meant to contend that a INfember of Parlia-
ment ought to submit any measure to the conside-
ration
,ot the Officers of the Crown before be pro-
posed it to Parliament, he meant merely to state,
that as this was a Bill purporting to declare and ex-
plain the law yespecting the preperty, of a very con-
siderable number of persons in Ireland,, it certainly
would have been most prudent to have consulted
with. the high LaW'Authorities upon the .subjeft;
before a question was,discussed hi that House,which
was undoubtedly calCulated to give very great -unea-
siness. in Ireland..
Mr. CHOKER said, the Bill 'appeared to .him
wholly unnecessary. The qnestion arose, as had
been already stated, in an 14ettion Commiuee,wbere,
the ingenuity of an .English Lawyer started a doubt
upon a. point which bad never been considered as
doubtful, Or had created ,any difficulty in Ireland.
But the Committee unanimously over-ruled the ob-
jee-tibn as soon us it was made : upon what ground,
then, could it be said that any doubt existed upon
the,subjeel ? If indeed the Committee bad decided
the point the other-way, or had even said that. it was
one upon which they entertained any doubt, there
might have been some 'necessity for this Bill: But
it appeared to him quite unprecedented, to bring in
a Declaratory Bill, when- no do doubt existed; mere-
ly because an ingenious Lawyer had started an in-
genious objet;tion in An petition Committee, which
objection was over-ruled as soon as it was made.

Mr.' MONTGOMERY said, it was the opinion of
many eminent Lawyers in Ireland that the Bill was
necessary, and amongst Others, of his Majesty's
Attorney General.,
Mr. 91-1/arA e)tplained, that some doubts had
arisen about the legal tenures of Freeholds, by Ro-
man Catholic Freeholders, who have negletted to
qualify before they came to, the'possession of. such
Freeholds, as by law required; this Bill,, therefore,
was to remove all dotibtSiand quiet all apprehen-
sions upon the legality of such tenures, by allowing
the parties further time
ThU,QueJtion Wasthen put, and leave given to..
bring in the Bill.