Star.
London, England, 1814-09-06 00:00:00

cAiIIZEAL

PUBLIa METING LiVEiti3OOL:
Monday ae'nnight, in ion:et:pence-of a public ad-
ilnisement. a respectable meeting took place in the
TTen-Hall.

Sr. GLADSTONE spoke at some length,
stating the
object of the meeting. From the number of captures
which had lately been tuade by the Americans in the
vicinity of our own harbours, and the serious incon-
venience to which our commerce was subjected, by
the actual blockade of some of the neighbouring ports,
particularly Milford, he inferred the necessity of me-
morializing the Lords of the Admiralty upon this
subject—a subject which so materially affected the
interests of this port. He then submitted a number
of resolutions for the consideration of the meeting,'
which, alter some discussion, were carried, with the
etceptioii of the last. ' Mr. Gladstone then proposed
th it a Memorial, comprizing the spirit of those Re-
soltitions, should be submitted to the consideration of
the Meeting, and if approved of, be presented to the
Lords of the Admiralty. This, he thought, was the
most efficient means for obtaining redress of the evil
of which he complained.
The Memorial was then read.

Mr. CLEAR then addressed the meeting, by stating
that, although he was but a young man, and did not
possess so much interest in the question as some other
individuals, he cvnitinly had an interest in it, and in
evety thing which affected the-welfare of the country.
He recommended a direct address to the Prince Re.

gent, in preference to a memorial to the Admiralty,
on the ground that,the ropectable associated bodies
of London and Bristol had received such unsatisfac-
tory answers from the latter quarter. Mr. Croker's
reply was incorrect, as it was therein stated that the
trade was adequately protected, whereas the contrary
was known to every person in the room ; nor did the
general tone of the Secretary's letter promise any re-
dress of the grievance. Mr. Clear concluded by
moving, that an Address to the Prince Regent should
be-adopted, incorporating the spirit of the memorial,
read by Mr. Gladstone ; this was carried by a de-
cided majority.
After some conversation upon the subject of ap-
pointing a Committee to write out the Address, Mr.
Clear was on the point of preparing it upon the spot,
when an adjournment until the following day was
moved by Mr. Gladstone, who could not think there

were sufficient grounds to go upon, and to warrant an
affront to the Board fit Admiralty, from the town of
Liverpool. It must be remembered that the Board
was a part of the Administration, and not a subordi.,

nate part of Government. Were it, indeed, a subor.

dinate body, he would concede, that it might be pro-
per to address their superior, and to take upon our-
selves to criminate them, as far as we might be able
to prove (heir neglect. But by the amendment pro-
poied, the town of Liverpool took too much upon
nsell in becoming an accuser, without sufficient evi-
deuce.

Mr. Bunco, .Chairman to the Insurance Company,
stated it to he his opinion that nn more decisive an-
swer than what had been addressed by the Secretary
of the Admiralty to other application;, could he ex-
pected by the town of Liverpool. We ought to go
to atu.ther source of redress, and he, therefore, agreed
with the amendment. He mentioned an instance of
a letter from a most respectable body to the Admi-
ratty, which remained unanswered.
Mr. P. Eu.ts observed, that our object was to ob-
tain protection for our vessels and property; that we
had not that protection was a fact which could not
be denied. This want of protection proceeded either
from the Admiralty or the N.tvy. But who could
mistrust the courage, the skill, and the intrepidity of
our navy? No one, he was sure. The error mus:
necessarily consist in one•of these points—there was
either not sufficient force employed, or the force em-
ployed was of an improper description. lo either of
these cases the fault lay plainly with the Admiralty.
But we had seen how the Admiralty treated any re-
monstrance on this head. They scoffed at remon-
strance. It was idle to say that the former applicants
had not been of sufficient consequence. The meanest
among us paid for protection, and it was not to be
endured, that while even an individual heard daily
of vessels being captured, in which he might have
property, that he should be told by the Secretary of
the Admiralty, that there was already protection
sufficient afforded to him. The town of Liverpool
ought nut to place itself in a situation in which it
might be liable to receive a similar answer. They
ought to apply, not to the Admiralty, but to the
Regent, who could remove the First Lord of the
Admiralty it his duty was neglected.
Mr. Chao.; ONa, in reply to Mr. Nuns, observed,
that to a letter containing a mere list of captures, no
other answer than that given could have been neces-
sai y. Besides. the town of Liverpool ought not to
take the answer which might have been made to other
applicants to itself. Even if other towns or cities
(wait!, however, had not been the case) had been
answered in the manner stated in the newspapers, we
had nothing to do with that. We had only to state
our own grievances, and to seek the redress dne to
them. He certainly did not approve of the reply at-
ciibuoid to Mr. Cioker, but lie did not look to
1p mew reply, but the effect which such remonstrance
*iiist necessarily produce. With respect to a Petition
to the Prince Regent, lie could not perceive what was
to be expected from such a stop.
It WAS then moved, That an Address to the Prince
Regent should be adopted; but an adjournment to
the next day was called for by Mr. Gladstone, which,
on a division and counting hands, was carried by a
small majority.
ADJOURNED MEETING ON TUESDAY.

On the opening of the Meeting on Tuesday, Mr.
CLEAR submitted a form of Address or Petition to toe
Prince Regent, in conformity with the declared sense
of the Meeting on the preceding day.
Mr. GLADSTONE again pressed the proceeding by
Memorial to the Admiralty, rather than by Address
or Petition to the Prince Regent, and among other
reasons urged the exigency for immediate attention
and redress.
Mr. CASEY maintained, that the mode of proceed-
ing was already decided in favour of a direct repre-
sentation to the Prince Regent.
Mr. P. Ews insisted that the Meeting of yester-
day had decided for an Address or Petition to the
Regent. Any private association may send in a Me-
i mori4l ; but why should a General Meeting of the
`Merchants of Liverpool be called, except to express

their seine of the federal inefficteney of the measures
adopted by the Admiralty for the protection of their
trade. from the depredations of the Americans. It
was A rtil:ction on the Lords of the Admiralty, that
they had authorized the unfeeling letter written by
Mr. Cro

Mr. Bitsisow, (M. P. for Staff4(l4 spoke in vindi-
cation of the Adrnirtity on the charge respecting the
letter, and declared himself atzainst the Petition.
A good deal of furclicr discussion enitred, in the
cotit;i; of which Mr. CASEY and Mr. Gt.ansrot.z.fre-,
quently contended for:heir several points. Mr. CA-
SEY at length appealed to the MAvort, who pro-
nounced from the chair r/ta: ?..leeting had decided
for an Address or rettion to the Plust.x. Riouttr.—
Tbe Tows Cutiitc alsheing appealed to, pronounced
the irregularity of reversing the form of poceeding
once resolved upon ; and Mr. CLEAR'S form of Ad-
dress or Petition to the Reoßwr: was finalli adopted.

L 401 I MELL IGENCE.

INSOLVEN r DEBTORS' COURT, SEPTEMBER 3.
IN THE MATTER OF THE REV. H. B. HERNE.
Mr. PRINCE SMITH, on behalf of several creditors,
opposed the. -risoner's discharge. First, on behalf of
Mr. J. War!, es creditor, by way of annuity, for
£33 per annum.. Mr. Herne had granted this an-
nuity some years ago, and had secured the payment
of it by assigning a living in Essex, of which he was
,then Rector, to the annuitant, to receive the pro-
fits in case of failure of payment. Some time after-
wards he resigned this living, which, as a clergyman,
he might do, and took a more valuable living in ex-
change. By this rheans Mr. Ward was defrauded of
his security ; Mr. Herne having made no assignment
to him of the second living.
The Counsel now contended, at some length, that
this was a fraud upon his client, for which his debt
should be excepted out of the order of discharge. He
said he should read the 35th and .55th sections of the
Act together, as forming one clause, being made in
pari makri‘r, and then all frauds of-every description
in the conduct of a debtor, as affecting any debt,
would be sufficient to except that debt from the dis-
charge, it being the object of these clauses to apply
to any debt remaining due by any manner of fraud.
At least, if this did not apply to the whole of the
'debt, it would apply to the arrears, or such part
as remained due in consequence of the Plaintiff not
being able to proceed to obtain payment from the
living. If this Act were not so construed, secuedum
equine et bowls, to prevent persons from being
discharged who have committed frauds up-in cre di.
tors, the public would raise a cry against it, by which
the unfortunate debtors woulil in the end be deprived
of its benefit.
Mr. Pineeoce, on the other side, was stopped by the
Court.
Mr. Sergeant PALMER, theCommiisioner, said, that
agreeing that it was not a toning iCt tI;) obtaip a new
living and vacate the old one, About assigning the'
new living as a security, for the debt, yet 11. e money
must have been lent with a kaowledge of that contin-
gency, and there ought to be a covenant in the deed
to assign and charge ally new Or other living which
the Defendant might possess; and then, or upon the
implied contract, the creditor might apply to the Bi.
shop foe es-sequesteatiOn, and contest the priority wids.
theittiereff•the creditors, or .the Assignee to be rip-
pointed under the Act. But ns the law stood, ho
could only look to debts contracted fraudulently, and
it was not noer cnittenlled that this Clergyman as-1
signed the first living with a fraudulent intention, to
give it up again, and defeat the creditor of his secu-
rity. As there was no fraud in the first concoction
of the debt, he should hold that it was not within the
exceptions in the Statute. He, therefore, allowed the
Prisoner to be discharged as to this debt.
Mr. PRINCE SMITH then examined the prisoner as
to his schedule, in order to shew that he had granted
a fraudulent hill of sale to two creditors, one his own
attorney, and the other a friendly auctioneer, in order
to give them an undue preference, and take the be-
nefit of the act as to other creditors.
In examining to this point there etas a great con-1
fusion in the prisoner's statement, and a valiance be-
tween his evidence and his schedule ; it appearing by
the latter that he had given one bill of sale for £8.51,,
for joint debts, and by the evidence that he had given
two bills of sale, one to his attorney, and the other
to the auctioneer, partly for money bt.rrowed and
partly for debts due. The goods thus transferred
were part in Berskshire and part at the Defendant's
house at Court, in Oxfordshire. The bills of
sale were given in June, 1813, possession taken in
October, 1813, and the sale made in May, 1814,1
when the Defendant was in prison. About the same
time it appeared also that he had two hunters, one of
which was lost, and the other he ordered to be shot,
it being old and vicious. Upon being questioned as
to thill fact, he said it was an old horse, and so vicious
that he had ordered him to be shot two years ago.
Mr. Patsies SMITH—HOW was it you suspended the
execution of this vicious horse, to the danger of your-
self and family, for two years, and put him to death
just in the nick of time, when he was to be surrendered
to the creditors ?
Mr. Hastar—l had kept him without work, as I
did all my old horses, and I did not like to let him
go into strange hands. He had been one of the best
limners in the kingdom. If I could have got any
friend to have taken hirn I should not have seta him.
It; I had kept him I must have got some friend to
purchase him of the creditors, and turned him out.
IVIE• PRINCE SMITH--ThAt is 4*Y. actiy what you
ought to have done, and if he was vicious and old he
would have cost little, and Mrs. Herne, whose pro-
perty cannot be touched by this discharge, might have
bought the old horse.
Mr. Serjeant PALMER, to the Counsel—Will you be
able to make any thing to this point about the horse ?
Mr. Pius= SMITH— I shall contend that it is a
waste of his property in prison, and the Defendant
must get Mrs. Herne, who had the horse shot in his
absence, ors some friend, to pay the value, before the
Defendant cap be discharged.
Mr. Serjeant PALMER—The Defendant says it was
of no value, and I shall not easily suppose a wife
would shoot Fier husband's horse in his absence, if it
was worth any thing.
Mr. PRINCE SMITH to the Defendant—Did not a
person offer MO for the horse on the day it was shot ;
and was not your own servant so hurt at it, that he
refused to do it ?
Mt. Ramie—Not that is a Mistake. It was the
. .

horse that was stolen pleat T was. offered money for,
and the same man shut this hOrse that has shot others
for me.
The Defendant was remanded to amend his sche-
dule, and explain the transaction as to the bilk of sale ;
and a person in C .urt s rid be would bring evidt•rce
that the horse was worth kit).—Adjuurusd till the
13th instant.

HERTFORD ASSIZES.
At the above.Assizcs came on to be tried a cause
of very great importance to the community, particu-
larly to the Clergy, wherein the executors .'t the late
Rev. Dr. Ford, Principlof Magd den atli, Oeord,
were plaintiffs; and Miss Racster, of Crippiegate,
near Worcester, defendant. It apreared fotlows:
The defendant, being Proprietor of a wood, con-
taining about 170 acres, situate in the palish of Crad.
ley, in the county of Hereford, of which the late Dr.
Ford was Rector, Rave the latter notice, in December
1812, of setting out the tithes al underwood, which
she had been felling in a part of the wood in ques-
tion, and which were collected in pursuance of such
notice. Previous to the month of May following (the
time for bark Stripping), defendant apprised the Rec-
tor, by letter, that she was about to cut down a
qu Lathy of black poles, that grew in a part of the
wood, from which the tithes of the underwood had
been.taken ; but that they were not titheable, being
'upwards of 45 bears growth. These poles the de.
fondant *attain* cut down • and c inled away,
without setting out the tithes thrrec.f. The Rector
dying soon afterwards, the plaintiffs, as his executors,
brought their action in the Cum t of King's B.nth, on
the Statute of Edward VI. for subtraction tf these
tithes. The produced a great number of
witnesses, chiefly timber and coppice-dealers, resi-
de:it in the couuties of Hc:efnrd, Worcester, and
Glancester, to prove the wodd in question was a cop-
pice; that it had been regtilarly and progressively
fallen, ever y 11 or 15 years, front time immemorial;
that the black poles were not timber, being only from
6 to 20 inches in circumference ; and that they ger-
minated from old stools or stubs. The plaintiffs fur-
ther proved, that tithes of the same sort of wood,
growing in the same parish, had been paid to the
Rector and his predecessors far a series of years; and
also, that a composition for the fallages in the woad
in quetion, had been actually paid to him by the de.
feniant and her father, from the year 1795, to .1812.
And to spew that such wood was titheable by law,
the plaintiffs' Clunsel quoted several cases on the
subject ; the chief of which were, Tot ner v. Smith,
2d Gwyl. CASs 529; and Walton v. Lady Mary
Tryon, Ambler, 133; in the latter of which Lord
'Hardvricke said, .1 that germins, arising from old
stools (which wait the ease of most coppices in Eng-
land), no tree remained..from whence tl.e ltrivilrge
of umbel; was d eri ve d there'ore all IttJt kind of
wood war titheable; and if it were olierwise, the
Clergy woutd be deprived of great part of the r
tithes."
The defendant's Counsel, after Balling witnesses to
prove the age of the poles, quated the''t/d Inst. 648,
and several cases, in opposition to the pl
claim ; and also contended, upon the anwority of
those cases, and on the Statute of the 4.'ih of I; {ward
111.. that " all tress above the growth of 29 years,
were exempt from the payment of tithes."

which

b sr
he most ably and succeslu!ly con, ate all the cases
and arguments urged by the defendant ; observed,
Oaf the case of Walton v. Tryon, ever since its de-
termination, had been acted upon and recognised as
law; and particularly in a recent case in the Omit
of Exchequer (the name cf which he did not recol-
lect, though he had taken a note of it in town),
wherein it was decreed, that an i.ccnont should be
taken- of the tithes t f coppice wood above rue growth
of 20 years.
The Learned Jadge. after stating the evidence,
and observing.thereon, left it to the July to deter-
mine, whether the trees in question were timber tries,
according to the custom ot the country. They Jury
immediately found, they were na timber trees ac.
cording to :nth custom. On which finding, a verdict •
was ordered to be entered fnr the pl.tin:iris, with
berty for the defendant (if she thought fi ), to apply .
next Term, for the opinion of the Court un the q as..
tion of law, viz.—Whether trees of this nature, and
of the growth of 20 years and upwards, are discharg-
ed of tithes by the statute of Sylva Wand