Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Report Of The Proceedings Of The British Parliament.
THE SHIP OWNER ' S BILL . Thursday , 7 . The Ship Owner's bill was read a second time , after which counsel were heard at the bar , at considerable length , on a petition against it , After counsel had finished , Lord Liverpool moved for the House to resolve itself into a Committee , and argued very strongly in defence of the bill , on , theground of its utility . He was supported by the Duke of Leeds , who undertook to remedy the
objectionable clauses , provided their Lordships would suffer the bill to come into a Committee . Lord Thurlow contended powerfully against the principleof the bill , which he thought unjust in the hi g hest degree . And in this opinion he . was supported by the Lord Chancellor , who spoke in yet stronger terms against its oppressive tendency . Lord Auckland agreed with the two latter noble Lords . The House then divided on Lord Liverpool ' s motion for commitment : Contents , 10 , Non-contents , 11 . —Majority , j . The bill was therefore rejected ; and the House adjourned .
LAND-TAX REDEMPTION BILL . Friday , 8 . The order of the day for the second reading of the Land-tax Redemption-bill was read . Lord Caernarvon said , that he hoped their Lordships would-not suffer ft . bill of such vast importance to proceed without a proper discussion ; arid he therefore called upon- those noble Lords who supported it , to explain the nature and principle of it .
Lord Grenville observed , that he was not a little surprised to be called upon to enter into an explanation of the nature of a measure which w as unquestionably in the power of every noble Lord to ascertain , by the simple perusal of the bill in question . To gratify the noble Lord , he should , however , state , that the objeft of it was to make a considerable saving for the public , and to reduce the funded debt of the country . The Earl of Suffolk said , that a bill of such magnitude ought not to be
allowed to pass without undergoing the most minute investigation . The landed interest would be severely affeSed by its operation , and to add fresh burdens to those which already existed on that very valuable part of the community , would be highly imprudent . It had been recently hurt by the additional duties on salt , which amounted to no less than 4 . I . per cent , on landed property , particularly in Wiltshire , where he resided . Were measures of this kind adopted , the country could not go on , for the progress of improvement would be completely checked .
Lord Thurlow opposed the measure from his judgment and conscience ; ancl viewing it in evety possible point of li ght ,, he did not hesitate to pronounce it unjust and dangerous . Kis Lordship then entered at some length into the legal consideration of different clauses in the bill , which he pointedly condemned , and concluded with declaring his disapprobation of the plan . Lord Auckland proved , from plain and concise arithmetical calculations , that the most material benefits would result from the financial operation of
the bill , which would evidently extinguish from 60 to 80 millions of the three per cents . Lord Holland argued against the principle and the probable effects of the measure ; which , in his opinion , went to transfer to other hands the landedproperty of the country . Lord Caernarvon argued against , arid the Earl of Liverpool for , the bill ; after which the House divided : —Contents , zj , Non-contents , 7 . —Majorityin favour of the bill , 20 .
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Report Of The Proceedings Of The British Parliament.
THE SHIP OWNER ' S BILL . Thursday , 7 . The Ship Owner's bill was read a second time , after which counsel were heard at the bar , at considerable length , on a petition against it , After counsel had finished , Lord Liverpool moved for the House to resolve itself into a Committee , and argued very strongly in defence of the bill , on , theground of its utility . He was supported by the Duke of Leeds , who undertook to remedy the
objectionable clauses , provided their Lordships would suffer the bill to come into a Committee . Lord Thurlow contended powerfully against the principleof the bill , which he thought unjust in the hi g hest degree . And in this opinion he . was supported by the Lord Chancellor , who spoke in yet stronger terms against its oppressive tendency . Lord Auckland agreed with the two latter noble Lords . The House then divided on Lord Liverpool ' s motion for commitment : Contents , 10 , Non-contents , 11 . —Majority , j . The bill was therefore rejected ; and the House adjourned .
LAND-TAX REDEMPTION BILL . Friday , 8 . The order of the day for the second reading of the Land-tax Redemption-bill was read . Lord Caernarvon said , that he hoped their Lordships would-not suffer ft . bill of such vast importance to proceed without a proper discussion ; arid he therefore called upon- those noble Lords who supported it , to explain the nature and principle of it .
Lord Grenville observed , that he was not a little surprised to be called upon to enter into an explanation of the nature of a measure which w as unquestionably in the power of every noble Lord to ascertain , by the simple perusal of the bill in question . To gratify the noble Lord , he should , however , state , that the objeft of it was to make a considerable saving for the public , and to reduce the funded debt of the country . The Earl of Suffolk said , that a bill of such magnitude ought not to be
allowed to pass without undergoing the most minute investigation . The landed interest would be severely affeSed by its operation , and to add fresh burdens to those which already existed on that very valuable part of the community , would be highly imprudent . It had been recently hurt by the additional duties on salt , which amounted to no less than 4 . I . per cent , on landed property , particularly in Wiltshire , where he resided . Were measures of this kind adopted , the country could not go on , for the progress of improvement would be completely checked .
Lord Thurlow opposed the measure from his judgment and conscience ; ancl viewing it in evety possible point of li ght ,, he did not hesitate to pronounce it unjust and dangerous . Kis Lordship then entered at some length into the legal consideration of different clauses in the bill , which he pointedly condemned , and concluded with declaring his disapprobation of the plan . Lord Auckland proved , from plain and concise arithmetical calculations , that the most material benefits would result from the financial operation of
the bill , which would evidently extinguish from 60 to 80 millions of the three per cents . Lord Holland argued against the principle and the probable effects of the measure ; which , in his opinion , went to transfer to other hands the landedproperty of the country . Lord Caernarvon argued against , arid the Earl of Liverpool for , the bill ; after which the House divided : —Contents , zj , Non-contents , 7 . —Majorityin favour of the bill , 20 .