Star. — London, England, 1824-05-18 00:00:00

of the country. He should, therefore, move as an amend-, went to inquire into the general state of Ireland. The Earl of LIVERPOOL denied that Government had ever refused inquiry into the state of Ireland ; but it was always to be wished that they should have a de finite point of investigation. To have this limited in► quiry N ould be advantageous. Lord KING thought that even this confined inquiry would do good : he should like an inquiry into the general state of Ireland much better; but the Noble Lord on the Woolsack would have called oat—" Don't touch my Orangemen!" They had made a utrinn with Ireland, which had, in fact, disunited her more from England than ever. Ministers were the greatest em pirics and (packs that ever pretended to cure the trou bles of an unhappy country. The motion of the Sari of Lergaroot. was then carried on *divi sion of 50 to 20.—Adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS. - - Mr. Quayle, the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod, summoned the House to attend in the House of Peers, to hear the Royal Assent given, by Commission, to sundry Public and Private Bills. (See Lords). Mr. Kimura:a= presented the Annual Accounts of Ramsgate Harbour. Colonel DAVIS presented Petitions From Prisoners of White cross-street and Hdtseinonger-lane Prisons, is favour of the Equi table Loan BilL The St. John's Vestry (Southwark) Bill was read a third time and passed. Mr. CALVERT presented Petitions against the St. Catherine. and South London Docks Bills, from the Grand Surrey Canal Company, &c. Alderman HRYGATR repeated his disapprobation of these measures. They bad heal brought forward in the face of the Standing Orders, and had not been supported before the House. Sir W. DE CRESPIGNY spoke in favour of the South Lou- don Docks Bill. Sir I. COFFIN observed, that the proceedings in the Committee had been most Orderly, and he hoped the Docks would be made. Alderman HEY GATE said, the Honourable Member had not once attended the Committee—(A laugh). Aldermah THOMPSON spoke in favour of the Bill; opposi tion to Whirl not arisen till now; he hoped the Bill would pass. Petitions referred to the Committees on the Bills. Alderman WOOD presented Petitions from persons at Dock head, St. Ann, Limehouse, &c. against the South London Docks Bill.u-Referred to the Committee. Mr. Sheriff Wiser:atm presented the City of London Petition against the South London Docks Bill.—Referred to the Committee. Alderman HEYGATE again spoke against these Docks. Due notice of them bad not been given. He bad an interest in existing Docks—(Hear) —he did not shrink from them ; and he thought Shareholders ought not to be allowed to sit in the Committee. Mr. T. WILSON observed, that opposition from such a quarter' came with a very bad grace. Mr. Alderman WOOD made a similar remark, and observed that, as the Honourable Alderman (Ileygate) was so anxious to support the Common Council's Petitions, it was to be hoped that he would support the Common Council's Reform Petition, about to be presented—(Hear, heat, and laughter).—.l'etition referred to the Committee on the Bill. Sir J. NEWPORT presented a Petition from Kilkenny, against the Tithe Act of last Session. The Petitioners particularly com plained of such provisions of the Bill as required disputes to be re ferred to Ecclesiastical Authorities. After a few words from Mr. A. &us, the Petition was ordered to be printed. Mr. GRATTAN presented a Petition from the Printers, Book sellers, and large consumers of Paper in Dublin, praying for a Re vision of the Laws and Duties, and the Excise system, as far as they were concerned. Mr. F. LE WIS said, that in the course of a few days he should have to present a recommendation (from the Irish Revenue Inquiry Committee) for some alterations ou this sebject.—Petition ordered to be printed. Mr. C. HUTCHINSON presented a Petition from the Sepa ratists of Cork, praying to be released from the necessity of taking an oath, as were the Quakers. Mr. CURTELS presented a Petition from the Licensed Vic taallers of Ramsgate, against tile Beer Duties Bill.—Ordtred to be printed. Mr. C. LA MB presented a Petition from Downshire against the Bonded neat Bill. The Report of the Customs, Coals, and Linens Bill was pre sented.—Bill ordered to be read a third time to-morrow. The Four per Cents. Repayment Bill Report was agreed to. — Bill ordered to be read a third time to-morrow. The Report of the Consolidated Fund Bill was agreed to.—Bill ordered to be read a third time to-morrow. The Report on the Customs and Excise Acts was presented, the resolutions agreed to, and the Bills ordered accordingly. The Chelsea and Greenwich Hospital Bill went through a Cons- Mittee.—lteport to-morrow. The Report of the Tithe Composition Bill was taken into farther consideration, the Amendments were arced to, and the Bill or dered to be read a third time on Friday. The Report of the Pauper Lunatics' Bill was brought up, the amendments agreed to, and the Bill ordered to be read a third time ICMUUITUW • The Report of the Assize of Bread Bill was brought up, the amend- Meats agreed to, and the But ordered to be read a third time on Th esday. On the :Wotion of the Cmaxcezcos of the Facruttaueu, the House ' ~ Yew Ned itself into a Committee on the Beer Duties Bill.—The several tbuses *et* agreed to projaresa.—The House resumed.— The Report was brolight Up, and ordered to be taken into conside ration on Friday neat. Lord A LTHORP moved for the Report of the County Courts Bill being brought up.—The Report was then read,and the amend .ntent arced to.—The Bill was ordered to be read a third time on Wednesday. CITY REFORM PETITION. Sheriff Witirraxen presented a Petition from the Common Council of the City of London, for Reform, especially as far as the Metropolis was concerned. The Petition was read at length, on the motion of Mr. Alderman Woon. Mr. Alderman WOOD, in moving that it be printed, said that the Petition had been supported by a consi derable majority. Even those who opposed it deemed some Reform requisite; but, like others, they de.ired a scheme of Reform to be placed before them. They had petitioned for Reform for forty years, and though not attended to, they were not to be tiled out. They would continue to petition till they accomplished their object. There was some difference in the nature of the Petition ; the Petitioners required the representation of the Metropolis, which consisted of one-tenth of the po pulation of the country, might be enlarged. He deemed that to be a proper prayer ) and well meriting the con sideration of the Houses Mr. W. SMITH again repeated that he was friendly to Reform. As far as numbers, intelligence, hr pro-, perty were concerned, the City was unrepresented ; her would not say misrepresented; it was, in fact - , unrepre sented. There was not a part of the Kingdom that was so unfairly treated in this respect as the Metropolis. Mr. T. WILSON thought that he knew as well as say Member of a populous place, who his constituents were; but he was not friendly to Reform, and should not attend to the question unless it was brought forward in a tangible shape. He certainly was not favourable to the prayer of the Petition. Lord 1 RUSSELL was as decidedly friendly to the cause of Reform as ever. He did not deem it advise. able to bring forward the question of Reform this year; but he should urge it whenever he deemed it advisable; it was his intention to bring forward the question next Session—( Hear, hear). —He thought this Petition me rited consideration. Sir R. WILSON supported the Petition, and urged the necessity of Reform.—Ordered to be printed. THZ SZER BILL. Mr. M. A. TAYLOR presented a Petition from Dur ham, against the Beet Bill. Mr. MABERLY h op ed, as this measure was so ge nerally opposed, that the Chancellor of tine Exchequer, would withdraw ft altogether. Sir E. KNATCHBULL agreed in opinion with the Honourable Member whb had just addressid the House. He believed that all parties were dissatisfied with this Bill. He hoped his Right Honourable Friend would consent to withdraw the Bill. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said be would now state the course which he iiitended.to pur sue. He had stated to several individuals his intention of making some alterations in the scale of duties in this Bill, which alterations, he thought, would render it ac ceptable to all parties. He should propose to recommit the Bill, and make those alterations to-night; and on Friday he should be ready either to discuss the Bill fully, or state to the House what parts of the Bill he should consider it proper to withdraw. Mr. HUME did not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could amend this Bill, which was a measure calculated to impose.i - tax of 40s. on th-ee-fourths of the community, and 20s. only on the other fourth. Till this was remedied, he was convinced no alterations which the Right Honourable Gentleman could make would render the Bill palatable to the Public. He must recommend the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the whole subject. Mr. C. CALVERT said, as the Bill now stood, it held impending ruin over the heads of the Licensed Victuallers. He would recommend to the Right Ho nourable Gentleman to make his proposed alterations, and have the Bill reprinted, and let it lie over till the next Session.—The Petition was then read. Mr. MABERLY said, the Chancellor of the Ex chequer had stated his intention of proposing some al terations in this Bill. He thought it but lair to state, that unless these alterations should go to an equaliza tion of the duties on all classes of persons, he would on Friday oppose the Bill altogether, and move that the further consideration of the Report be postponed to that day six months.—The Petition was then read, and or dered to be printed. MALT TRADE. Sir J. NEWPORT presented a Petition from Malt stets of Wexford, in Ireland, complaining of the inequa lity of the lags, and the duties regarding Malt. The subject called for the consideration of the Government. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCIIEQUER ad mitted that it would be very desirable to assimilate the laws and duties on Malt in Ireland to those of England. Many of the regulations indeed were absurd. He had turned his attention to the subject, and he trusted some thing might be done. Mr. WALLACE said, that in the course of a few days he should have to present a Report from the Com mittee of the Irish Revenue Inquiry, and that it included this subject with others. Mr. L. ISSTER observed, that the Petitioners me rited every attention. They only prayed to be placed on a footing similar to the maltsters of England ; and that was a prayer so simple and just, that he could not apprehend there would be much difficulty in complying with such prayer—( Hear).—Ordered to be printed. MERCHANTS AND FACTORS. On the motion that the House resolve itself into a Committee on the Law of Merchants' Bill, Mr. ROBERTSON objected to the Bill, which would enable the consignee to detratid his principal, and tended to strike at the root of the commercial. importance of London. Tire Bill arose from the monied interest alone. Mr. HUSKISSON said, that the Bill materially af fected the principles of commercial law. The measure had been referred to a Committee last Session ; but from the late period could not come fully before the House. It was a question of great commercial policy. If an agent abused the trust of his principal, he should be severely punished. If the principal gave such power to the factor that a third party might naturally believe the goods to be the propierty of the agent, the third party was not to suffer when he had reason tai believe that the property was really vested in the factor, the factor should be punished for his treachery, and the principal must bear the loss which had taken place; in a great degree, front his conduct. A number of cases had occurred of late years that rendered an alteration in the law indispensable. The flight Hon. Gentleman stated some inktancer in which a third party had been defrauded of his property under the existing law. The Courts of Law had decided, that Bills of Exchange and Exchequer Bills were exceptions to the rule. lie only i wished to extend the principle recognised by the Courts of Law. A bill of lading came unclier the exception...! The principal had it in his power to prevent a fraud on himself, as the agent must be selected by himself. But the case was very different with the third party, who had no means of knowing that the factor was riot the real owner of tit& goods. At present, the same party' was frequently bib merchant and factor, and a measure of this kind was eminently fitted to extend our commerce, and to promote the principles of justice. He thought the alteration in the law would give additional confi dence to foreigners in all commercial transactions. Sir J. NEWPORT said, that the greatest alarm had prevailed in Ireland when the real state of the law be came known. The Committee had been unanimous the law should be altered. Mr. SYKES also supported the Bill. There could be no doubt that the innocent purchaser should be pro tected rather than the incautious principal, who had intrusted his property to a dishonest agent. He believed the Bill would invite commerce, as it would give con fidence to our dealings at home. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL supported the Bill. Ile had no objection that the Bill should be further ex tended, by the consignee giving only a conditional , and circumscribed power to his factor, so that it might be clear that the property still remained vested in himself. Mr. J. SMITH strongly approved of the Bill, and was 'happy that many of the objections formerly urged had now vanished.—The Bill then went through the Cotn mittee.—Report to-morrow. WAREHOUSED WHEAT Eti.L. On the motion that the Warehoused Wheat Bill be read a second time, Mr. HANDLY thought the measure extremely in jurious to the Agricultural Interest generally, however useful it might be to the constituents of the Right Hon. Gentleman. He should move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. Mr. D. BROWN was adverse to the Bill, and should oppose it in all its stages. Mr. T. WILSON hoped the last clause would be dis cussed first, because if that wat negatived, the Bill would be prejudicial. Mr. HUSKISSON stated, that the local interests of his constituents would never induce him to support any measure that he did not believe to be advantageous to the country at large. He had received many represen tations on the subject, but none From his constituents at Liverpool. He had turned his attention to the subject' from the circumstance of a large capital in corn lying not only übprochttctive, bet in a perishing condition. As the law then stood, this corn could be employed in no way whatever, not even for the purpose of manure or the food of cattle. He only wished this corn to be put into an exportable state, without touching the Corn Laws, which he should not do by a side wind. He should confine the relief proposed to be given to the corn that was in the country before the passing of the last Corn Bill. The present average price of wheat was 655. per quarter, and at ss. more the ports would open. Could any man say that on the 15th of August the price might not reach 70s. in which ease, all the corn now in warehouses would be poured into the market. He would ask the Landed Interest, could they be in jured by the limited quantity of corn that, under the pre sent Bill, would be exported and consumed abroad? Mr. L. FOSTER said that his constituents did not object to England being the miller of the world, pro vided she did not follow the example of too many mil lers, in keeping a certain part for her own use. He was anxious for the Report of a Committee on the subject. He should be sorry to see a million of British capital lost to the owners, and the part of the measure that went to prevent that should have his warm support. Sir E. KNATCHBULL hoped the amendment would be withdrawn, and the Bill aflowed to go to a Committee. Sir J. SEBRIGHT was .of opinion that the Bill pro ceeded on sound principles, and he should not oppose it. Mr. LOCKHART should oppose any alteration of l the law. The corn in the warehouses might be foreign,' and not British. Me wished only that the bargain should not be violated - On one side or the other, and that equal justice should be done between the landed and the commercial interests. . Colonel WODEHOUSE I saisi he was aware that there might arise a necessity for altering all our Corn Laws; but on this subject the calculations of Government bad been mo,t erroneous : he therefore warned Gentlemen against coming to too hasty a conclusion on this ques tion, and from raking anything on trust. Mr. Clil PPS was favourable to the measure from the beginning; and therefore he wished the House would allow the Bill to go into a Committee, as he was satis fied it would be advantageous to the Agriculturist! Colonel WODEHOUSE was against the passing of this Bit; because if that was gained the Right Hon. Gentledun, he feared, would apply for an alteration in the Corn Laws. He was like the boy who would not say A. and when pressed for his reason, at last said, " If I say A. you'll make ire say B. afterwards." He should therefore divide the House ag4inst the Bill. Mr. HUSKISSON explained. He had not said that he would propose a change in the Coin Laws, but that an alteration had taken place in the country tepecting them, which would end in their being abolished. Lord ALTHORP was of opinion that this measure would not affect the markets at all, he also thought that foreign corn should be allowed to be imported into the country under a duty. Mr. BRIG Err said, this Bill would not facilitate the importation of Foreign Corn. An alteration in the present Corn Laws would make this country the great granary of the world. Sir .1. NEWPORT was favourable to this Bill, with the alterations which had been made in it. Mr. SYKES could see no danger to the Landed In terest from the adoption of this measure. Sir F. BUItDETT thought the Landholders had taken a very, erroneous view of this matter. They had heard much of free trade lately ; but if there was any trade in the country that should be left totally free, it was this trade in Corn. He implored the people of England to take a proper view of this question. His opinion was, that this measure was too mild and too tame; and he also thought, .that nothing could be better for the country than th:owing open the trade in Corn. He hoped the Right Hon. Gentleman would bring for ward that great question as a Government measure, and be would be sure to succeed. The amendment was withdrawn, the Bill read a se cond time, and ordered to be committed to-morrow. INSURANCE COMPANIES. Mr. F. BUXTON rose, in pursuance of notice, to move for leave to bring in a Bill " to repeal so much of the Act of the 6th of George I. cap. 18, as restricts partnerships and societies from insuring ships and goods, and from lending money upon bottomry. • Alderman THONIPSON requested his Honourable Friend not to introduce the measure at se late an hour (eleven o'clock), and in so thin a House. Mr. F. BUXTON said, be could not consent to post pone his motion; but if he were allowed to bring in the Bill to-night, he would fix any day that was convenient in this or the next week, for the purpose of debating it. Mt. GRENFELL expressed himself hostile to the measure. It was levelled against corpotations, who hid paid a valuable consideration for those rights which it was the object of this Bill to take from them, without any necessity being sliewn for such a proceeding. Mr. Bux . roN was ready to go into a lengthened statement then, or he would defer doing so till the se cond reading, whichever the House might prefer— (Cries of "GO ou, go on").—Since such was the pleasure of the House, he IA ould proceed.—The Honourable Member then stated that die object of the Bill he wished to introduce was, to give Joint Stock Companies the right of making Marine Insurances, in common with the two great Chartered Companies, namely, Lloyd's and the Sun Fire Company. By the law, as it then stood with respect to Marine Insurances, great dif ficulty was thrown on individuals. If a merchant at Hull wished to insure a considerable cargo, he was obliged to empower an agent in London,who was obliged to go to an insurance broker at an expense of twenty five per cent. If the broker should succeed, the merchants obtained a policy signed by twenty or thirty persons. The vessel perhaps was lost, and the owner generally found some of the insuters dead. He had then to employ an attorney to go to law with executors. Some became bankrupts, and some were litigious. In most cases he only recovered a dividend diminished by law expenses. If Parliament would re move these difficulties, a great benefit must be derived by the mercantile interest. They would. enable the mer chants of Hull to become insurers. The owners of ships and cargoes might then go and get their vessels insured, and be relieved from all the great legal difficulties which a man has to undergo. An insurer at Hull might know something of the finances of a Company at Hull, ,but it was almost impossible to know what security he could depend on among twenty or thirty individuals in London. The origin of the two Chartered Companies was this : it was desirable to take a new tax in 1721, and these Companies came forward. On consenting to pay 600,0001. they obtained these Charters. They agreed to pay Government 300,0001. each, and on that condi tion Were to enjoy the privileges of Charter ed Com- panies, with tie right of making all the Marine insn ratites for thirty-one years. At the erpitation of that term they were liable to be deprived of the privilege, in case it was found injurious to the public interest. They had enjoyed it 104. years, and the Hon. Member left the House to say whether they could have a right to com plain should the right of making insurances be thrown into the hands of other Joint Stock Companies ? He had omitted to state that they had not complied with the terms of the original agreement, inasmuch as they were enabled by a subsequent regulation only to pay £150,000 each. Such was the history of the Char tered Companies, and the Bill he wished to bring i n would give facility to the whole trade of England tw doing away the monopoly. The Honourable Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill in repeal so much of the Act of George 1. as restricts Partnerships and Societies from Insuring Slips An d Goods, and from lending money upon Bottomry. . 4 . Mr. PLUMER defended the conduct and the in terests of these exclusive Companies. They had pail 4 price very consider able indeed for the privileges they possessed, namely £150,000, and the House would do wisely in refraining from touching chartered rights, which had been sanctioned by the opinion of some very able lawyers. Mr. Alderman THOMPSON opposed the motion. His Honourable Friend had stated that great difficulty occurred in making insurance. The proceedings of a Committee of that House had proved the contrary. The insurances annually made at Lloyd's amounted in value to two hundred millions. That body had agents all over the world, from whom they obtained the best infor mation. The business was well conducted, and therefore it would be unwise to interrupt them. He considered the Bill proposed by the Hon. Member uncalled for. Mr. HUSKISSON regretted that the Hon. Gentle man had brought forward his motion in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His Right Hon. Friend had formerly, it was true, recorded his opinion; that this monopoly ought not to be continued ; but still it was proper that he should hear every objection which Gentlemen urged against the measure. The two Com panies in question were founded on this principle, as stated in the preamble of the Acts of Parliament under which they were formed, %%trete it was set forth, that it was desirable to give to the public greater security, by incorporating Companies for the purpose of marine insu rance, than could be afforded by individuals. The ob ject, therefore, was to extend to the public higher and firmer security than they before had; and the ques tion was, whether those Companies, whose privilege; were purchased by the sacrifice of nut allowing bodies to carry on that species of business, had answered the purpose which the Legislature had in view ? Now, to solve that question, it was necessary to enquire, what part of the business had been effected by those Corporations ? It appeared, by the Report of the Committee of 1811, on this subject, that those persons who carried on the business as corporate bodies, ef fected about four parts in one hundred of the insurances. The ninety-six other parts of the insurances were not only deprived of this better security, as the Act of Par liament denominated it, but of the ordinary security which would have existed if those chartered bodies had not been allowed; but if they had not been formed, the business would have been carried on by large and, wealthy bodies:4 partners. It appe.ii e _I, therefore, that only four parts out of every one lituidred parts of id insurances effected had the advantage of this superior security, and that ninety•six parts were in a much worse relative situation than the Legislature had in view when they established this provision. The second question was, whether, if these Companies had answered the pur;. pose for which they were intended, it would or would not be beneficial to the Public to continue them? Even if they had answered all the purposes that were con templated, a question would arise whether it was de sirable that this monopoly should be kept up? When, however, he found that they did so small a portion of the business, the question was very much limited ; and he certainly thought it competent for the Legislature to consider whether they ought not to relieve the Pub lic from a restraint which had been imposed for a purpose which had evidently not been answered. Then, of course, they came to the Mode of doing it.— Now it seemed that if within thirty-one years of their incorporation, and two years before that period was completed, notice was given to them, and the sum of 130,000/. advanced by them was refunded, the mono poly was to cease and determine, and the like privileges were not to be granted to any other Corporation. The law further provided, that if at any time, they were found to operate prejudicially, then also their monopoly should cease. The question was reduced to this—was there any claim :of justice on the part of those Cor porations for their original advances, if the Parliament should think fit to sanction the motion of the Honour able Gentleman? In his (Mr. Huskisson's) opinion there was no such claim. If there were no such claim, then was it proper to continue this system for the benefit of the insurers, without reference to the interests of the insured ? There were four modes of transacting insurance business—by corporate bodies, with exclu sive privileges; by partnerships; by joint stock com panies, or by individuals. Now, as the law stood at present, only the two extremes of corporate bodies or individuals could transact the business, and all the middle modes must be essentially wrong. He would admit that the Gentlemen at Lloyd's Coffee-house, by their ingenuity, correctness, and honourable conduct, had raked the mercantile character of the country, and were deserving of the highest praise. The Honour able Gentleman contended, that this Bill would destroy Lloyd's Coffee-house: he (Mr: Huskisson) did not see that it could produce any such effect; but if it did, he would still say that the interest of the public as insurers should be the first consideration. Looking to the law on the subject, how did it stand? At the end of 31 years, the Charters of the two Companies might be re pealed by the King ; but was it from thence to be in ferred that the law could not be repealed by Parlia ment if Parliament should see fit ? He certainly thought that such was not the true construction of the Act of Parliament. If the Bill should pass into a law, the two chartered Companies would still continue in pOssessico of their charters, carrying on their business of marlro insurance, fire insurance, and lending money on bot tomry, having to contend with the competition of Joint Stock Companies and partnerships ; but the public would have the benefit of that more extended mode, and which, in his opinion, would be more beneficial for the public ; but at least the option would be given, :ma each insurer would be able to go where his interest in his own opinion would be best consulted. He thought the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Buxton) had taken the right course in bringing the subjet e t before Parliament, a ni that it was not necessary to apply to the Crown. Mr. GRENFELL said, the Honourable Gentleman buine it was to eft Grenie these unless proved having carein same t Mr. must I had be insura ~_ Mr. Bd3 which t these,ch, corporal i - 1 . 1 a subs an 15( d the earl ' n 4 anal the AC ound il • yea rs re i the Lbw statemei He (Nlr. from at with rel • c ontend to the breach 4 This m( fourth a be had w as in Mob attempt ber for se cond him (ry Percevi and Sir disting this He go in t the san CQUnci h a ppen tion. th . motion not cot Dr.] (erred 1 101 ye sent m they w the est. to the only k House Cot lloae above but tc Thi this n Cui Russi 18, I 18 to par t 4