The Sun.
London, England, 1814-04-01 00:00:00

EAST INDIA SHIPPING

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that
as Gentlemen would probably wish to have fur-
ther information before they debated this subject,
he would at present merely give an outline of his
intention. It was the opinion of those who d;-
rected his Majesty's Councils, .that. it would be
improper to extend to the East India shipping'all
the benefits and privileges with which British
ships were invested : it was, therefore, his inten-
tion to permit ships built in the East 'lndies to be
registered for China • and for Great Britain, but
not for general foreign trade. In other respects,
it was thought proper that these ships should be
subject to the same restriction as other ships not
British.

Leave was then given to bring in the,Bill.
Mr. Alderman ArrxiNs observed, that the ship-
ping interest was of great magnitude, and deserv-
ed the most serious consideration of the House.
For this reason, be thought that all the informa-
tion which could be procured should be laid be-
fore the House. He should move, therefore, for
the number of ships built by the merchants dur-
ing the last three years : there was also another
paper which. had formerly been laid before the
House after the battle of Camperdown, by which
it appeared, that in that engagement-several mer-
chant ships had been taken into the line, and had
mounted from 64 to 70 guns. •
Mr. PRoTHiRoz agreed with the Hon. Alder•
man, that on a subject of such importance us. the
shipping interest of the country, no measure
should be taken till the fullest information was
obtained.

The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER thought
the request of the two precediuir speakers highly
reasonable • and he conceived that the best Inc-
thod of effcting the object in view would be to
appoint a Select Committee as soon as possible,
where any information which any Gentleman could
give would be readily received.
General GASCOIGNE suggested, that the Com-
mittee could have nothing to do till some papers
were produced.

• The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER said, that
there was already a large mass of papers', and the
Committee might with great propciety discuss
what further papers would be necessary for their
decision.

The motion for the papers was then agreed to.

CLERGY RESIDENCE. BILL.
Mr.i3ATnoRIT moved the second rea3ing of the
Clergy Residence Bill.
Mr. W. WYNNE said that he bad been desired
by Mr. Wright to present a petition, to the House,

sonta'Alini-,7 a variety of allegati6ns evitlence

ann
The SPEAKER said; it was -Alirettly contrary- to
the usage of the House, as far as he recollected,
to accept a petition with the proofs and evidence
of its allegatiOns annexed to, it.• • The Al'ay vas
to present a petition, containing .a particular al-
legation, and begging that the Muse would bear
evidence upon it. The House had then the, op-
tion either of gOing into the case, or oldisnlissing
it at once.
Mr. W. WYvtNE agreed with the doctrine of the
Chair ; bia as the Petition bad been, put into his.
bands just as be was coming into the 14,mise, he
thought it better to state the circumstances, anti
leave it to their-discretion. tie then moved, that
the petition might be presented
The SPEAKEK„said, that the petition referred
perpetually to. the documents annexed, and was in
itself incomplete and unintelligible. It would be
better forllr. Wright to take it back, and put it
into et more concise form.
Mr. W. WYNNE then presented a petition from
Mr. Wright, relative to a case of .a Norwich Cler-
gyman, and begging to be•heard in proof.
petition si•as accepted, and ordered to lie 6nAhe

FREEHOLD PROVERTY.

.Sir SAl.oturr.v said, that as he not antici-
pate any objection to his ,present motion, which
was merely for leave to bring in a Bill, be should
have abstained from any remarks, except that the
present -Parliament contained many Members' who
were not perhaps acquainted with the object
which be had in .view. He wished to make
freehold property subject to simple uontra:t debts.
By the law 'of this 'country, any man who-bad a
debtor might throw that debtor into prison, andlteep
hint there at pleasure, It was to prevent and remedy
this ,trange anomaly in ourlaw, thathe proposed to
rnalie freehold estates subject to the payment of
simple contract debts. Even specialty debts._ -had
not been paid_out of such estates till the statute
of fraudulent devises. instances bad occurred of
men having purchased estates by defrauding their
creditors, and ‘eho then, to prevent a commission
of bankruptcy, had put an end their lives. The
object of the bill was so evidently founded in jus-
tice, that he should have been surprised„if any
objections were made,, had he: not. been-taught
by experience that -such might possibly be the
case. Seven years had elapsed, since he proposed
a similar measure, when he held the situation of
Solicitor-General; and the measure when in-
troduced had the support of Government, though
before die Hons.e cane to a decision upon
its merits, that support was, of little avail.—
Many objections had then been urged against the
Bill, the principal of which was, that it would
multiply the causes of litigation. The objections
then made had been amply refuted by the expe-
rience of seven years, and be trusted would be re-
vived no more. No doubt had ever arisen as to
the construction of the Act, nor the smallest dif-
ficulty in carrying its provisions into execution ;
and in, one ease a debt of 200,0001. had been paid,
which. could not have been recovered without
such an Act. -In the case of Sir Roger Kerrison,
the Act hart also an- indirect operation, -who died
indebted to the amount of six hundred thousand
pounds. Sir Roger Kerrison bad no perso-
nal property, 'but real estates to the value of
half ti million, which but for thiS Act_ would not
have been paid. The son, to. whom the estates
Went, was in partnership with his fathers and.
thus the real estates were npplied•for the benefit
of the crealitors, which Would not have been the
case, -as the law previinisly -stood: Many other
cases had also occurred of a ,similar nature. When
the "Bill had formerly been before the House, it
was argued that it had a tendency.ro weaken the
aristocracy of the country. 'r he Hon. Gentleman
concluded. by moving forieave tQbring in .a Bill
to subject the freehold. estkatevolitirsOnawhoalie
indebted to the payment of,:theit;, debts.—Leave
given.

FEES IN COURTS.
Sir J. NEWPoar- moved, that there be laid be-
fore the: Louse
~a. return of. the rate of fees de-
manded.audsaceived in the superior Coarts; civil
and ecclesiastical, of t;ngland and Ireland, for the
last 20 years, with a statement of the authority
under which such alterations had been matte.
The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER opposed
the motion, as no specific grounds for it had.beeu'
laid before the House; and moved the reading of
the other orders 9f the day.
Sir J. NEWPORT said, that as this was one of
the days on which notices bad precedence of or-
ders, and there was another motion to be made,
the Right Honourable 9entleman was debarred
from moving the other orders of the day.
• Mr. BATHURST contended that no specific fact
had ban stated, and that theft existed, in point
of form, no objection to proceeding to the orders
of the day.
After some /marks from Messrs: WYNNE,
PLUNKETT,TONSONST, STiv-msN, Rose, BANK4S,
SIMEON,'and Sir J.NEWPURT, the original motion
and the amendment were withdrawn, and" Sir J.
NEWPORT moved for a Return of the Rate of Fees
in those Courts, Civil and lekelesiastical, of Eng-
land and Ireland, in which any increase had
taken place for the last 20 years, together with a
statement of the authority under which sach an
alteration had been made.—Agreed to.
Sir J. NEWPORT then moved for a return of the
amount of all sums paid out of the Consolidated
Fund of Ireland to any Officer or officers of the
Court of Exchequer, by way of -compensation, to-
gether with the names of all such -officers, and the
gross and net amount of thdse who have accepted
such sums as a compensation, as well as those who
have declined the sane. Agreed to. , .•
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER brought
up the Bill for the Registry of •Shipshuilt iu India,
which was read a first, and ordered-to. be read A
second time on Tiitiday the 19th of April.
Mr. Alderman ATKINS Moved that-the petitions
of the several -ship-builders, and owners of ships
trading to India, be referred to a Seleet-i Com-
suittee.—Ordered. _
• . Canal' PENALTY BILL. .

.. . . .. .
. .
Ty BATEIVRST moved the Order of, the Day fDr
the ?Id-reading o,lthe Clergy Penalty Bill.' •
Lord FoLKsroNE 'said; the , Right Honourable
Gcntleman had asunted; that tLis Bill would be
aanerea ro alitain a second - readiug, without any

oli.je6tio,ta being innile to it;_but he Was mistaken ;
for as the House then was, he .(Lord F.) was 'de-
teraulnedto. subnilt to their consideration _several
objections which he ha& to it. El'the first place,
he did urrp like it, becaUse it was an, ,e 2 pest
~fueto
law ; but he ojected to it More particalarly fru:n
the manifest injustice the Bill; if passed, would
do to on meant Mr. Wright, who
had brought all those actions which it was the
intention of ;he mu to put an end fo. An Act
bad passed, both Houses twelve.years ago;
courage Aeople to do that Mr..,Wright was.
now doing ; and as he acted under the'sanc-'
Lion and authority of tlikAct, he thought it'would
be the height of injustice to pass another Act to,
prevent him-from doing ‘thfit a fcirmer ACt of the
Legislature bad encouraged him, to do., The very
high amount of the penalties had been objected to,
and given as a reason why this Bill should interpose
to save so many of the Clergy from what it was .
said would ruin ,then ; but lie could not
this objection, for the greater•tlie•amonnt of the
penalties, the stronger was the.proof of the Clergy
having neglected their duty. The law would not
the poorest person who committed an of-
fence against 'it; because he nias ignorant of the
.law : and yet there was—a. -Vent body of men of
learning, who, knowing perfectly well what they
were doing, yet transgressed the laW with their
eves open, and then came to Parliament to get an
Act to itidetnnify-.them for having directly broken
the Act of a forther Parliament.
_

Mr. VETHERELL said, that as to the objection
of the Noble Lord.of this being an ex post facto
law, it: eosuld not be otherwise, as every Bill of in-
demnity must be so. ile apologised to the [louse
for being obliged to repeat the arguments.lie bad
used on a former night ; but as the Noble Lord
bad objected to the procedtfre of the Bill, he was
under the necessity of reverting to what be had
said before, ‘rbicb he did very shortly.
Mr. PRESTON said, though he would not pose
the second reading of the Bill, he nevertheless
coincided in the sentiments wish had fallen from
his NOble Friend behind him.

.Mr. CREEVEY said, he thought all the proceed-
itigs against the Clergy had been bottomed in 'fa-
naticism, and that the Clergy had. been very. ill
used; but as Mr. Wright acted under an act of,
Parliament, if the House now called on him to-stop
Mr. Wright, he could .noi-consent to do so ; and
if it came to a division, he must vote :with. his
Noble Friend.
Mr. BATHURST answered the objections of the
Noble Lord at considerable length., in doing which
he travelled over thesaMe ground which he. had
so fully occupied on a former night; He said he
was sorry to be obliged again-to trespass so long
on the patience of the House by a repetition of
what he had urged before'; but he was particut
larly anxious to impress upon the House. the ,pe-
culiar hardships to which the Clergy were ex-
posed, and- the
.propriety of adoptint.s.the mea--
sure he had introduced. The Bill was, read a se-
cond time ; to be committed to-morrow.—Ad-
journed.