Star.
London, England, 1825-06-25 00:00:00

-- .

• • PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS.
••‘.
HOUSE OF LORDS, JUNE ay.
Lord SUFFIELD, referring to what had been said yesteray
respeeth_rg the proposed removal of the Norfolk Assizes from Thet-
ford to Norwiih, stated that the Noble and Learned Earl on the
Woolsack had promised to apply to the Judges for an account of
their realms for objecting to that removal, and to communicate
them to Ulm. in order that they might be tlansmitted to the Ma-
&rates of Norfolk, to whom the matter was of great importance.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE prriented a Petition from the
°weer, and Occupiers of Land, and Tradesmen of Woodbridge,
in the County of Suffalk, against the admission of Bonded Corn
under the Distillery Au.—Laid on the table.
SCANDAL.
Lord I)ACRE said, he had a Petition to present from
a Gentleman of very great respectability, and having
made inquiries into the circumstances stated in the Pe-
tition, had found them to bz-cerrect. The Petition
accused a Clergyman of the Church of England of the
greatest indecency and immorality, and strayed their
Lordships to institute such proceedings as might put an
end to scandal, such as was deta led in that Petition.
About the year 1814 or 1815, a Dr. Free came to reside
as Rector of the. Parish of Sutton. in the County of
Bedford, and shortly after that pe, it'd was guilty of
conduct almost too gross and too immoral iss conceive,
proof of which was immediately adduc?d, irl various
ways, by witnesses, and by the number of his natural.
children. The predete:sor of the Right Rev. Prelate
opposite (the Bishop of Lincoln) had interfered, and had
obliged the parfshioners to point out to the Diocesan
the conduct of this Clergyman. The Right Reverend
Prelate who was n•lw before him, had instituted pro-
ceedings against him, and in the Court of Arches the
Learned Judge who presided had admitted the conduct
of this person to be infamous, but had decided that by
the tith George 111. proceedings against a person for inconti-
nence could not be held unless within eight months after the com-
mission of the act. The question now remained to be decided
by the Court of King's Bench. The parishioners earnestly prayed
their Lordships to enact such measures as should enable them to
take proceedings against this individual; if not by enlarging the
period of limitation,by some other means that might give them relief.
The Petition of Montagu Burgoyne, Esq. of Sutton, in the
County of Bedford, on behalf of himself and several other pa-
rishioners, praying that the moral conduct of the Rev. Edward
Da: Free, Tteetnr of Sutton, in the said County, might be inquired
into was then read.
The Bishop of LINCOLN said, that as this P.tition
nrigirated in his diocese, and as the Noble Lord (Dacre)
had alluded to him, he felt it necessary to address a
few words to the House. No words could be too strong
to describe the gross immorality of the individual whose
case was then before their. Lordships, and it was his
(the Bishop. of Lincoln's) most anxious wish that some
remedy might be suggested, which not only in this in-
stance, but in all similar instances, would empower
the B shop to bring such offenders to a justly merited
pueiihment. Soon after he had been appointed to the
See, the case arced in the Petition. with all its aggra-
vated circumstances, was laid before him by the pa-
rishioners, and he had done all in his power to punish
the offender in his Court, but had found that he could
do nothing. lle had then directed his Archdeacon to
do all he could' to remove the evil, but he also had
failed. He had then nothing left but to bring the mat-
ter into the Court of Arches, where it now was. It would
ill become I im to say anything as to his having in-
solved himself in considerable expense. The situation
he now held called upon him, and made it his bounden
duty to meet all such cases in the way he had met this;
but he lel, it necessary to observe, that it was rather a
hardship that Bishops shisitld be driven to art expense
little short of four or 5(X)1. because their power over
their dioceses was found to be inadtquate to meet the
evil;. Hal sincerely wished that si me measure might be
proposed which should enitble the (louse to put a stop,
as fier'is possible, to such acts as those alluded to; for
it must be evident •to every one that the difficulties
which lay. in the yray e f prosecu ion was a sort of en•
couragement .to such conduct. This was not a time
when persons, who held the high and responsible situa-
tion lie now held, ought in any way to 'clot their ex-
ertions—when their conduct was so freely commented
upon, although they wished to do more than they really Coulded-
He felt it his, duty to express his thanks to the Noble Lord (Mere)
for having abstained from entering into the disgraceful and scan-
dalous circumstances detailed iu the Petition, which could only do
harm to the cause their Lordships would advocate. He trusted
that their Lordilips were fully impressed with the importance of
the subject, and the necessity of doing'something to prevent the re-
petition of the evil.
EQUITABLE LOAN BILL.
Lord DACRE moved the third reading of the Equitable
Loan
The LORD CHANCELLOR should state what in
his opinion was really the object of the .Bill. In doing
this he should lay aside the conduct of the individoals
coccerned in the matter before the execution of the
Deed, and look at the question as it stood at present.
The pubic were.told that the object of the measure was
a Charitable Institution to reline the poorer classes
from the fiat sh claims made upon them by Pawn-
brokers. This was not a representation which belonged
to 'that Bill ; quite the contrary ; for it was stated in
the deed which had been executed, what its true objects
were. The preamble said that certain individuals had
formed a Society, and had subscribed, or might sub- '
scribe, a sum of money to make Loans on various
objects of property b low ten pounds, and to take a
lower interest than pawnbrokers. Now, in fact, it was
proposed to embody a number of persons who might
amount to 7coo, to compete with individuals in the
market;•but ri.'t ultimately for the benefit of the public ;
for, after having driven. these individuals out of the
,market,, they might make and impose what terms they
pleased. Ille.Nob'e and Learned Earl then read
various portions of the preamble and of the deed, to
stew that the Company intended to sell deposits like
pawnbrokers. any proposition was ever made to
sanction usury under the pretence of something equi-
table, it was this: for if a man took more than .5 per
cent. interest in any way,.it was usury under the sta-
tute. Then were the 7000 shareholeers to be consi-
dered 'guilty of usury? No ;by the Bill, their clerk
alone was to be guilty of it. Then how was the judg,
nient to be enforced in civil actions (for Ake Bill did
rut admit. of criminal ones) against the clerk ? After
he had been ten or twelve months in prison, what was
to bo,done with the company? Theh,olso, this Corn-1
pany was not to be confined to a focal existence in Lona
don. • •It woe to become a general shop of Consignees
itom Consiknots, not only. ilftEngland; but is allthe
orld, aiiiikliciiewas not one won! in the Bill to com-
pel it to cOnthiae the business of pawnbrokim which
formed the pretence fir its institution, One *gliontkafter
the Act *field ilave pitsir. 'lt was tbetefare for their
‘.tt' 'Tearable which

,t•I, -
\

- 711/

5 •
- .

::~;

T.M'w

. •
f
bers,ilf they brottabt themselves under the Usury Act.'
except that of punishing the poor clerk, who woad
be. as innocent as he (the Lord Chancellor) himself?,
If this Bill were. passed, there would be a revival of
those suits in equity springing' from the practice of
young men buying pre.peity at an imfnense price on
credit at one end of this city, and pawning or selling it
at the other for less than its value. if this were to be
the case, their Lordships must-take care to place in the
Bill that principle of equity, that if young men bought
on credit, en purpose to pawn or to sell, whatever price
was given at one end r f the town they should be com-
pelled to pay no more than swhat was given at the
other. The attempt was an evasion of the Act of
Usury ; it was calling en Parliament to establish the
Company in matters not mentioned in the preamble,
whilst the day after they might drop the business of
pawnbroking. The House had on its table a Bill to
repeal the 6th of George 1. (the Bubble Act), and he
did not mean to object to itt repeal, because it• pro-
hibited nothing which was not already prohibited by
the common law of the land. lit whether it were re-
pealed or qot, he defied the ablest men in this country.
and those who had drawn the present deed, were evi-
dently able ones, to get rid of this, that without a
charter from the Ctostn, or an incorporation by Par-
liament, the law of England, as it was administered in
the Courts of Law or Equity, was not equal to enforce
the ob'igations of any Deed. And it was his decided
opinion that all partnerships, the obligations of
which could not be enforced by the laws, were ilk-
gal. He would be glad to know what was to rn..ke
this Company legal? and indeed he could not find by
any of the clawes of the Bill, whether there was any in-
tention at all of making it legal. He also begged those
Noble Lords who were at home to- night,and who meant to
patronize the Bill, to point out how the Company could proceed
against strangers, or against its own members? The Bill did not
contain one word to make those who were members this day liable
to any judgment which might be obtained in actions against them,
if by that time they had sold their shares and given place to others.
If the. Clerk were sued, and the Clerk could not pay, then the suing
party would only be so much the worse for having sued. It was said
that executioa might be taken against any Member, but the means
of doing so were not given. Let their Lordships determine whether
what was, and what had been the law, that partnerships were nut
to consist of more than a limited number of individuals, were or
were not to be adhered to? Under all the circumstances of the case,
he should act on his own opinion of the measure, and move that the
Bill be read a third time that day three months.
Lord DACRE would only make a very few obser-
vations, as the subject had been already amp:y discussed
in all its details. He contended that the Preamble had
been understood by the Noble and Learned Earl in a
very different manner from what lie expected, and what
it ought to have been. It did not limit the Company
to transact merely pawnbroking business, but enacted it
to make advances in money on goods and profits. Th-
Noble and Learned Lord doubted its being productive
of benefit, but would it not be a positive advantage to
-the public that small sums below 101. should be ad-
vanced at 20 per cent. less intetest than by the Paten-
hrokers? The Noble Lord then compared the course
pursued by Pawnbrokers with that which the Company
meant to follow. If any act of usury were cemmiited,
a Jury would decide on the subject, .and iheie were
clauses in the Bill to make the individual members of
the Company liable in their persons as well as in their goods. The
clauses most objected to had been copied from an old Act for the
better regulation of co-partnerships of bankers in Ireland, which
had been adopted without opposition by their Lordships this Session.
The Noble and Learned Earl bad said, that the Detd had been
drawn by able men. he (Lord. D.) could add, that he held it from
an authority second to none, that it was thought impossible that ob-
jections should have been stated to the clauses of that Deed. Being
fully convinced of the utility of the measure, he should feel seriously
disappointed if it were surrounded with so many legal difficulties as
to prevent its obtaining a third reading.
•
The House then divided on the Amendment—
Contents . • . •
Not Contents . 27
'Majority against the Bill • —II • ,
The Bill for abolishing the Sale of Offices in the tontt of Site
Bench, and the Judges Salaries Bill, were reed a second time.
The Scotch Copartnership Societies Regulation Bill was also read
a second time.
The Bill for abolishing the Sale of Offices in the Court of Com-
mon Pleas, the Excise Duties and Drawback Bill, the Irish Cur*
remelt Assimilation Rill, the Master of the Rolls and Vice.Chan7
cellor's Salaries Dill, the High Office Holders Compensation Bill,
and the University Police Bill, went respectively through Commit-
tees and were reported.--Adjourned at Saves o'Caoce.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Mr. F. BUXTON complained of an error in one of
the newspapers with respect to what tell from him last
night. Ile was made to say rh the had received a let-;
ter from the Missionaries in the West Indies. He had
received no such letter. There was another mistake, in making him
say that the Barbadians had subsctibed so large a sum towards.
the building of the Chapel which they afterwards destroyed. The'
Hon. Member then presented a Petition in favour of Parliamentary
Reform, from Warrington, Lancashire.—Ordered to be printed.
Mr. BROUGHAM presented a Petition from a respectable in-
dividual, named George Milner, a Magistrate of Cambridgeshire.
The object of the Petitioner was to complain of some misrepresen-
tation of the language used by him (Mr. Brougham) on some
former occasion, when a Petition was presented from a person
named Hayes. No doubt the mistake was accidental, because the
imputation made to rest on the character of Mr. Milner was one
of ignorance in his Magisterial capacity, an ignorance which Mr.
Milner never could have 'hewn, inasmuch as he was a lawyer by'
profession, and had presided as Chairman of the Quarter Sessions
of his County. He hoped the error might be corrected through
the same channels by which it went forth to the world.—The Pe-
tition was ordered to be printed.
The Apothecaries' Bill was read a third time, and after some ob-
servations from Mr. C. DUNDAS and Nlr. ilibcows, passed.
• PETITION OF AIR. MONTAGU BURGOYNE.
Mr. J. SMITH presented a Petition from Mr. Mon-
tagu Burgoyne, a Gentleman of the highe t honour
and most undoubted benevolence—(Flear). He Pe-
titioned the House in his character of Churchwarden of
Sutton (Bedfordshire), asking for some means of ob-
taining redress against Clergymen who misconducted
themselves in their sacred station. The facts on which
the Petition were grounded. were these: In 1808, Dr.
Free was presented to the living of Sutton. Th.s indi.
vidual, for a course of years, had been committi.lg a
series of scandalous and immoral acts. Several illegi-
timate children had been sworn to him by different.
women. Mr. Burgoyne had offered to prove, in the
Eccltsiastical Cou s, hit habits of drunkenne,s, in-
decent exposure, swearirg, and gross irreligion. Trese
facts could be proved, and the whole conduct of that
unhappy Clergyman was one series of immorality.—
He had alto refused to perform his clerical functions.
The details were disgusting, and he (Mr. J. Smith)
ssiould not go farther. into them. Some proceedings
here instituted in the Bishop's Court, but nothing was
effeted, and-the cause 'was afterwards removed to
another Court (the Arches), where proof was gone into.
lie appealed, to the Court of Kin;'s Bench, under an
Act Of '2'7,h Geo:III. which provided that no prose-
.
canon:should be instituted against a Clergyman by
his parishioners after six months. from the commission
of the• offence.. It was expected that a prObibition
would .iisue. from the King's Bench, and thus the
parish would be left without redress, and they would
continue to be afflicted' with such a flagitious charac-
ter. Ile earnestly hoped the Right Honourable Secretary (Mr.

iir i liioldnsothi ps: 'PS.
'one
widotrrd‘.4ofilflitdilete Oalli
i:itresaell.bfloer wwriiicchh
're.
theto ets
tuspattilewparisnfcoirpteeli.the ee nig‘itolio:dcoinnssitgitfeeionfbodrl
sons of property not only in this country; but in all the
world, and with no other means of punishing ill MM.
' i