124] ANNUAL REGISTER, 1814. 



for which purpose it was thought 

 right tint the whole penalties 

 should go to them ; but no sooner 

 does one appear, than the House 

 is called upon, Hrst to suspend the 

 law; secondly, to continue the 

 suspension ; thirdly to quash the 

 prosecutions ; and lastly, they 

 would be asked to alter the law. 

 He, however, would rather enter- 

 tain the bill moved for, than suf- 

 fer the unfortunate persons under 

 prosecution to be entirely ruined. 



After some observatious by other 

 members, leave was granted, and 

 the bill was read tlie first time. 

 Mr. Balhurst also brought in a bill 

 to continue the suspension act of 

 the last year. 



The bill for discontinuing the 

 prosecutions, &c. having been 

 committed, its second rending was 

 moved on March 31st, when Lord 

 Folkestone rose, and declared 

 his objection to the principle of 

 the bill. This he chiefly founded 

 on the injury it would do to an in- 

 dividual. The prosecutor had a 

 vested interest in the penalties at- 

 tached to violations of the law in 

 question, which the bill went to 

 destroy. It would be an ex post 

 facto act to deprive an individual 

 of his right, and to indemnify 

 others who hud been guilty of a 

 breach of the law. His Lordship 

 then noticed the calumnies which 

 had been raised astanst Mr. Wrisht, 

 and the means that had been used 

 to interest feeling in favour of the 

 persons prosecuted ; and ended 

 with declaring that he must pro- 

 test against the second reading. 



Mr. Welherall said, that every 

 bill of indemnity was an ex post 

 facto law equally with the present ; 

 and he denied that the persons to 

 be indemnified by the bill hud 

 committed any real ofteace. 



Mr. Western acknowledged that 

 he felt the force of the objections 

 urged by his noble friend, which 

 he thought had been inadequately 

 answered. The house, in fact, had 

 only a choice of difficulties ; but 

 as it was clear that the clergy 

 ought not to be left without relief, 

 in a case to which no moral culpa- 

 bility attached, he should give his 

 assent to the second reading. 



Mr. liathirsty in defending the 

 bill, sai<l, that it was not intend- 

 ed to save the clergy at the ex- 

 pense of Mr. Wright. He would 

 be allowed his costs ; and where 

 the law had been broken so as to 

 involve a moral offence, he would 

 be enabled to proceed for his pe- 

 nalties. 



The bill was read a second time. 



The further consideration of the 

 report being postponed, a petition 

 was presented to the house, on 

 April 21st, from Mr. Wright, 

 against the bill. It recited the fact 

 of his having commenced actions 

 against divers clergymen for penal- 

 ties, to which their neglect Viad 

 rendered them liable, believing 

 him?elf entitled to the protection 

 of the laws of his country in so 

 doing; complained of the repre- 

 sentations made by the clergy de- 

 rogatory to his character, as hav- 

 ing entrapped them, or kept back 

 their licences or notifications, 

 which he solemnly declared to be 

 untrue ; and that, on the contrary, 

 he had drawn up an abstract of 

 all the statutes respecting non-re- 

 sidence, with the forms of notifi- 

 cation, and petitions for licences, 

 which he had distributed gratis at 

 his own expense, not only to the 

 clergy of the dioceses, wherein he 

 acted as secretary, but to those of 

 other dioceses, and had also in- 

 serted advertisements in the pro- 



