Star.
London, England, 1816-02-08 00:00:00

::~`

w ~~

~., •1

Aeveziagriartakr PROCEEDINGS.

, • • , •
. •
HOUSE OF LORDS, FEBRUARY I. ,
The House met at an early hour In the forenoon, and, after

Prayers, the Loan Cunucattot took his seat in the judicial
chair at the table.
Counsel were heard in continuation (from the last Session),
and finally, on the Irish cause Daly v. Daly and others.. The con-
sideration of judgment was postponed till Wednesday next.
The House then adjourned during pleasure, and soon idler Its
• re4Uming—
An Appeal Petition was presented, In the Scdts Cause of
Baker v. Gibson, which was referred to their Lordships' Corn-
• suttee.
No other business was transacted, nor were any of the Mini-
sters present.—Adjourned till to-morrow.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.

1;ord LOWXHER presented a Petition from certaln 'Dhabi.
tams of Whitehaven respecting the improvement of the White-
haven Harbour.—Ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. LOCKHART presented a Petition fruits certain Persons
to be allowed to build an Iron Bridge over the Thames at Roder-
hithe.—Ordered to lie on Ihe tablp.
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY moved for Returns of the Number
of Peron*, Mule and feugle, committed for Trial in London
and the county of Al tdd:esex, from 1813 to 1814,
.distlnEuiablng
those convictU and dis6ar‘ed.—Ordered.
Mr. GOU 1 .D 1313 RN brought up a copy of the account of run-
away Slaves, killed, taken, and surrendered, In the Island of
Dominic;, from Nov. 10,1813. to the same date; 1814, made in
consequence of ;he Proclamation of Governor Ainslie.
Mr. BROUG.H,IM put off his motion on the subject of Spain.
to this day se'nnight.
Sir J. L. IIIPPI6LEY presented a Petition from certain Vlc•
tuallers and Dealers in Brandy of ibe Borough of Southwark, in
the county of Surrey, against the imposition of additional duties.
Ordered to lie on the :able.
S:r 3. COX. HI ITI3LEY presented a Petition from certain
Clergymen of the Church of England, residing in the County
of Nt.rnerst, diomplaioing of the imulliciesicy of the Act of
George 11. revecti:ig the prevrtion of clandestine marriages,
and praying tut an amendment of the Act.—Ordered to lie on
the table.

PROPERTY TAX.
- Mr. LAMBTON presented a Petition from cer-
ain Farmers of the division of Chester, in the county
of Durham, against the renewal of the Property Tax.
He trusted that this Petition would be followed by
thousands, from i people loaded with oppressive tax •
ation, for the sole purpose of forcing upon-nations
sct of unprincipled tyrants, whether the Bourbons of
France or the Bourbons-of Spain.
The Petition was received. and ordered to lie on
• the table. -

LIABILITY OF FREEHOLD ESTATES.
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY said, that in rising to
'renew a motion which for two Sessions had passed
through the Home without any opposition, it might
kit be expected that lie would expatiate at large upon
the subject. But it was on the very account of its
rinsing without the least opposition in this House
that he thOught it necessary to make sonic observa-
tions, 'as it would be the only opportunity he should
have of noticing the objections raised against it in
another place. The object of his motion was plain
and well known. It wac, in case of persons having
property, and leaving simple contract dtbts at their
death, to apply that property to discharge those debts,
and prevent their heir from revelling in splendour
whilst th'e creditors were starving in poverty. There
. were hot two opinions on the propriety of such an
enictment. "Teal evil was considered by till as one
that ought triebl removed, but the question' With the
opponeots of the measure was one of evils, and wile-
r the pr. posed remedy woad.' not create treater
piles tllan dam which a.a,re to be' suppreseal) '['he
fist objection was, that it the Bill ware pas.ed into a
law, Maar a person sacuild leave freehold propehy at
his death, it would be necessary for ibis heirs to eb
• tain a decree of the Court of Evity, to prove that
they had satisfied the debts, or that there were no
debts to satisfy, before they cauld enter into posses.
sion of that ;mope; ty. Th:s, hai been urged, would
be a great hardship. It this sycie really the case, he
wculd agree with the opponents cf the measure, and
em eider the objection insarmountable ; but no such
evoting,•rcy could occur. It was impossible that it
slaarid produce such an evil. Neither could any
person mho gave due attention to the Bill, suppose
such a leirdsi:ip to exist. Its object was only to put
simple contract debts in the same situation as bonded
debts. In the case of the latter, persons inheriting
property were at perfect l•berty to taking immediate
possession and disposing of the estates. It would
therefore be the same, were those estates rendered
liable to the payment of simple contract debts. This
bad already bee partly done by the Act of 1.807, as
far as traders and barkers were concerned. 'Since
that lime, many persons of that description had cer-
tainly died in the situation. which
,the measure con-
templated, 'and there was no instance-of a Decree of
a Court of Equity having been required to give their
heirs immediate possession. Another objection was,
that the Bill did not go tar enough, and that not only
fre. hold, but copyhold estates should be rendered
liable. He ',tad no hesitation in acknowledging that
this would be just ; but. copyhold estates were at
present entirely free from liability to debts of any
kind, and it would be >< very bold innovation to
render them liable after the death of the possessors.—
.--This would lead to a much greater number of
jections of more weight than those urged against the
measure in its present form. There Wl5 another ob-
j,ction which it v..is orly necessary to state, and it
‘e. mid be satitactorily answered to all those who. took
the least coosideration-of .the subject. it was said,'
that the Bill would have the effect of estatdishiac
against real property a demand to be supported only
on parole eviience. .Was -not tidt,the case against
personal property But 'it was ;there chimerical
evil, and' if the objection were 'just, it would only
prtee that a greater reform in cur laws was neces-
sary to remove the practice in both cases altogether.
'Xvery day demands on personal oreperty were esta.
blished on pat ole evidence. Any party had only to
bring an action, and prove nix claim by verbal 'vi-
de. nee, to recover. another objection a as, -that to
subject freehold estates to the payment of simple con-
tract debts, would be to give young men of landed
erkpectauons, a greater facility of credit than they
would otherwise have. But this was equally un-
founded, for oho could think that a trealeamen would
wait.to substantiate his claim against the heir, till
tile death of the holder of the property. 'Would ht
not, on the contrary, have secured himself, by pre-
' icusly"arresting his creditur, and procuring a pstg.
meat that would lierate as a lien on the estate?—
This was 'actually the course pursued, and the pro-
posed enactment orilti not mortar the security of
the creditor.. It was also objected, tbat the temedy
granted by the measure would be in a Cinirt of
Lcinity, and not by a coal by Jury. He l.atl a great