The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-03-24 00:00:00

SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE.

CUSTOM-HOUSE, M --ARCH 22.
SHIPS ZINTZIED IXWARDS—The Betsey Miller. Sangster,
from Licata and Messina ; Ludolf Theodorus, Zyl, from Ant-
werp ; Ann Kranenborg, Smit, from ditto • Edward, Voickman,
from Dantzic ; Jonge Pieter Addison, from Antwerp ; and On-
derneerning, Klie, from Rotterdam.
ENTERED OUTWARDS. The Earl Bathurst, Pound, for
Rotterdam • Rosanna, Johnston, for Batavia and Singapore ;
Eliza, Athnian, for Rotterdam ; Fox, Fox. jun., for Ostend ;
Caledonia, 'Wrightson, for Bilbao; Carron, Strachan, for Prince
Edward's Island and Rictiebucto ; Maidstone, Estill, for Bilbao
and Corunna ; Rover, Cook, for Antwerp ; Acteon, Briggs, for
Valparaiso, Coquimbo, and Lima; and Emma, Crightun, tor El-
sincur and Riga.
CLEARED OUTWARDS FINALLY AT ORAVESEND.—The
Thomas and Alfred, Smith, for Grenada ; Rising Sun, Eding-
ton, for St. Michael's ; Dart. Stranack, fur Ostend ; Concordia,
Donicke, for Elsineur and Deltaic ; Earl of Clancarty, Heath,
from Rotterdam; and Success, Hodge, fur Bahia, Rio Janeiro,
and Pernambuco. _ _ _ _

--------
LLE•111110 Otrwsaris.— The Lord Eamouth, Mills, for
Ovum and Leghorn ; Lady Hamilton, Harvey, fur Newfound-
land ; Pearl, Achmuty, for Teneriffe and Maracaibo ; Rover,
Cook, for Antwerp ; Lord Melville, Coppinger, for Trinidad ;
Norfolk, Greig, for New South Wales, Van Diemen's Land, and
Teneriffe ; Elisabeth, Parymen, for Miramicla ; and Aid, Pal.
nice, for Quebec.

FALMOUTH, hiAICII 4l.—Arrived the Cyrus Manchester,
from London for Buenos Ayres.—Sailed the Cambria, Cuok, for
Vera Cruz; the Frolic packet, for Buenos Ayres ; the Ezlipse,
Clark, fur Valparaiso; the Hussy, —, and the Trial, Jenkins,
for I.ondon.

PORTSMOUTH /React( 22—Arrived the Hope, Flint, from
the Downs for Madre; his Majesty's ship Diamond, from Ply.
mouth— Sailed the Sir William Bensley, for Quebec.
DIAL, Mancit 22.—Passed through from the River the Barba.
does, Lee, for St. John's, New Brunswick ; Puget, Wing, for
Malta ; Perseverance, Ashton, for Oporto.-5-36 p.m. the Mellish,
Cole, from India, lots just arrived oft' the South Foreland. The
Soho steam-vessel:l preparing to proceed towards her, and take her
in tow. _ . .

RANSOATE, MARCH 22.—The Jorge Martin, Jens, vent into
the dry-dock last night.
GRAVESEND, Alaitcrt 22.—Arrived the Sir Godfrey Webster,
—, from Calcutta • Union. Galloway, from Harlingen ; Hope,
Page, from ditto ; Akadne, Colley, from Jersey ; and Hoffnung,
Fraintead, from Hanover.—Sailed the Europa, Anthony, for New
York; Archibald, Sawel, for Madeira; Lusitania, Bailee, for
Alexandria; Graham Moore, Dixon, for Paraibu ; Brothers, Fer-
guson, for Rio; Phoese, Richardson, for Madeira ; Clifton, Wal-
ker, from Hamburg') ; and Endeavour, Collinson, for Quebec.H ARWICH, 22.—The ship olas, Stemming, was this
day got off the strand, where she went ashore on the 6th ult.-I'he
Johanna Louisa, Guntersohn, is ready l'or sea.
Livsnroox, MaRCH 21. Arrived the Prince Kutusoff,
Woodhouse. Irma Jamaica—sailed Jan. 29; the ()nimbi, Bliss,
from Charleston—sailed Feb. 18, in company with the Henry Took.
Navy, Marion, and Triton. The Mersey, from Demerara, was off
Holy:tead on the 20,h inst. Off the port—the Eliza Ann, Baird,
fern Savannah. _ _ . . _

BELFAST, MARCH 19.—The John Little, Murland, from Li.
verpool fur Nova Scotia, was totally lost yesterday morning in
Dundrum Bay, during a heavy gale from S. and S.S.W., and only
two out of fifteen of the arar saved.—The Catherine, Tewling,
from Workington to Dundalk, was driven on shore at the same
time sod lost her merit post ; should the weather moderate she may
be got off.—Crew saved.
DIMDAR. bIAUCTI 19.—The Charles XIV., Janson, from Got-
tenburgli for Crangmicith, which was driven on shore at
Thorntonloch 7th inst., has been got off and brought Into this
Whim?.

ADSRDIEW, MAUCH 19.—0 n the eth last. the Aid of Dundee,
in asternring to make Wick, struck on some rocks, end the Mas-
ter and Mate were washed away—The cargo has been cared.—The
vessel it is feared will be wrecked. _ _

Pats. 'HAUCK 16.—A letter from Aux Cayes, dated Jan. 12.
slates tits Mary, Manels, from St. Domingo to Havre, sunk the
day she saileti.-7'be Abeona, Harper, from Bordeaux to Mexico,
wos spoken with in !at 24. long 61. with damage anti lose of sails,
&c. and making for the Bahamas.
Milieu Ill.—The Alicia, Brand, from Bristol to Charente,
which was driven on sbore at Chanllon 26th ult. has been got off,
sod mi,ed at Rogbrort Ilitb last.—The Mari• Tire••, fro"
Marseilles to Rouen, is wr,vked at lluercsey.

' ''''''''''''''''''''' my Lord: it is intended
to be a Company in which these restrictions are to exist in per.
prime.
The Loan CII•NCELLOR—Then a Company is intended to be
formed which is to last for ever, and exclude everybody except
those approved of by the Company?
The SOLICITOR-01EXERAL said, he should now call his Lord-
ship's attention to the Act of the 6th Geo. I. Instead of the Com-
pany consisting of a herd of persons, gregariously assembled for
the mere purpose of buying and selling shares, which it was the ob.
ject of the Statute of the 6th Geo. I. to prevent; here, on the con.
teary there was not the least resemblance to the Mississippi scheme
of dr. Law, and similar schemes of other persons who were de-
servedly attainted in Parliament. There was here a studied endea-
vour to make it in every respect dissimilar. Then was a covenant
of a very singular description in this deed, to which he would call
his Lordship's attention. This covenant obliged all persons who
came in by assignment or transfer to save the Company from all
his separate or private debts, and such persons should not be •
party to any business by which the funds of the Company should
be diminished we injured. The effect of this covenant was to oblige
any person being a proprietor to suffer any execution or seizure of
his shares by • Sheriff; and if he should that his breach of cove-
nant rendered him liable for whatever consequences may have been
provided. Suppose the case of an attachment by the Sheriff of the
city of London; it would be on the part of the proprietor a breach
of covenant, and the Company would have a right :n law to call
upon the proprietor to answer for that breach of covenant. He
merely mentioned these circumstances to show the transferability of
these shares. The deed in this point was so peculiar, that 5 man
could call iu the aid of the law to pay his debts by means of these
shares. Ile would put it to his Lordship whether the circumstance
of a female proprietor not being able to transfer her property to her
husband without being approved of by the Company, did not of
itself take away the appearance of transferability, as the terns was
in general used ?
The Loses Cri•DICELLOR said (as we understood), that if the
Learned Counsel would recollect. he would remember that that co-
venant was in almost all similar deeds.

.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL understood by this covenant, that
all the proprietan were individually liable to be called upon in case
of its breach to indemnify Alr. Taylor, the manager of this con.
tern. He should now take the liberty of calling his Lordship's •t-
-tendon to the Act of Bth Geo. I. There were only two clauses of
that Act, the 18th and 10th, that he thought it would be necessary
to examine. They were to be found pnated in the case of the
King v. Webb, in 14th East, where the proposition was laid down,
" that it was not every Institution having transferable shares which
acted like a Corporation that came within the meaning of the Sta-
tute of Geo. 1." It was necesaary, continued the Learned Counsel,
that the Society should constitute a nuisance to be within the' mean-
ing of the Act of Geo. I. This, his Lordship would be pleased to
remember, was the law laid down by Lord Ellenboroughin the case
he had alluded to, which was decided in the year 1811. If this
was not to be taken as law, they would be obliged to aim:,
to the Statute of (ith George I. a different interpretation to what
that Learned Lord had done. It seemed to him (the Solicitor-
General) that if the law was as he had stated the case which be
had mentioned, it furnished no difficulty whatever. Lord Mans.
field had laid down the law on this subject to be, that the question
was a question of feet. It must therefore be • Company which,
under the pretence of public good, instituted dangerous and ntis.
chievous projects. It was not the opening of books that could make
it illegal, for there were many Companies whohadopened books, yet
which nobody at this time of day would deny having done great
benefit. It was the pernicious tendency of a society which made it
illegal. He had thought proper to make out a regular list of this
cases which had occurred since the passing of the Act in 1719. and
which lie would now notice in their chronological order. Thine
were ncne of them which had raised the question of construction,
except ort2 : he alluded to the case of the King v. Coles, in Lord
Raymond, 1361, and also he believed in Strange. In this case it
was decided to be a question of fact. It was here a mere questien
of legal or illegal as a fact. The existence of a fact one way or the
other was the point which made him say that this Society was not
illegal. He did not mean to omit any fact io the case which would
affect either side. He would therefore just mention the ease of the
King v. Dodd, in 1808, in II Vesey. But it appeared to him that
the facts of that case did not approach near enough to those of the
present to furnish any ground for argument. In 1808 there was a
case tried before Lord Mansfield, reported in Campbell, called
Buck v. Buck. In this case, a proprietor of the British Ale
Brewery Company had to speak plain English, been cheated by his
broker, against whom he brought cur action. There it was held, ,
that Companies of this description were illegal in the trans-
ler of shares, and the Lotd Chief Justice ordered the plaintiff
to be tionsuited. In this Case there was mailing to *hew what the
constitution of the British Ale Brewery was. Admitting that their
shares were transferable, the Court ought to see whether all the
clogs or Ippedements to the transfer v. hich existed here existed in
that case also; for if they did not, of course the reasoning was not
applicable in the present case. He would say, that here the
shares were not transferable. Ile would not moot the question of
whether it was useful or not ; but whether the shares weratransfer-
able. He would now allude to the ease decided in 1809 by Lord
lillonborough, which Was an indictment of a secretary of a society
similar to these, which was decidedly for him. The next case was
that of the Bing. w. Webb, tried in 1311, in 14th Vesey, 418,
which he had already alluded to. This was an indictment against
an Institution established wear Warwick, in which the subscribers
were not to receive money, bet bread and meal, which were
the articles In which the Company dealt. In that case Lard Ellen.
borough gave a very full and elaborate view of the law upon this
subject. Ile divided the question into four parts, but it would
he unnecessary for him to deal with more than two, viz.—That
the shares were transferable, and also that the subscribers had per-
mission to act as a body corporate. To those two points he would
now cell his Lordship's attention. Upon these points Lord Ellen•
borough observed, that the shares is the stock were not generally
transferable ; but were restricted to persons living in the neigh-
bourhood; benese the subscribers were bound to take bread
from the Compton, which of course gave it a character of
o locality ;
and for any thing that appeared in the deedbe consent of dm
other proptietors was necessary before the *bares cold be trans.

The LORD CHANCELLOR wished to know at what period the I
dissolution of the partnership was to take place? it it was a part.
nership, anybody could dissolve it ; if it was more than a partner-
ship, the question was; what was it more, and how ass it to be dis-
solved ? They seemed to him to have foreseen the diflizulty of go.
lug on unless they had • charter.
The Socrerrox-GENrawit. would not occupy the time of the
Court by mooting the question's to whether it were proper to per-
chase territory abroad for the purpose of carrying on trade there:
but he should like to see any man stand up and say this was one of
the bubble grievances within the meaning of the Statute of 6th
(leo. I. He bad already alluded to the case of the King v. IVebb ;
if the decision in that case were law then, ofortiori it was law now;
but he should show thct it had been followed up by subsequent deci-
sions. In 1812 there was the case of Pratt r. P.utchinson, reported
in Vesey, page 515. The case was that of the Greenwich Union
Building Society, a society which cheapened the prices of building
materish, to the injury of architects and builders. There three.
fourths of the subscribers were to consent before any transfer could
be effected, and that restriction was held to take it out of the statute
The Learned Counsel then referred to a case decided in the Com-
mon Pleas, and reported in the 4;11 of Taunton, page 567 ; and
also the case of Davis v. llawkin, in the 3d of .Mantle and Selwyn.
which confirmed the former decisions. In the 2d volume of Jacob
and Walker, the case of Allister v. Bignold was reported. This
was the eof the Norwich Insurance Society, which caire before
his LotAip by a bill filled. against an Individual member of the
society, who had acted against the interests of the Company. His
Lordship there decided he would not interfere because the by-laws
provided for such a ease. However incidentally this point came
under his Lordship's notice, and his Lordship then said that if the
shares were not transferable to persons not members, the Society
was not illegal ; but if the shares were transferable to any persons
it would be illegal. There was • case not yet reported, and of
which he had not a full note, which had recently occurred in the
Court of King's Bench. The case (Joseph v. Pedder) was de-
cided on the 4th February, 1325. Here the Judges decided that •
transfer with a qualification annexed, was not that species of trans-
fer to which the Act alluded. By all the eases he had quoted, the
law as laid down by Lord Ellenborough, in 1811, had been mis-
timed, and was acted upon at the present time. There was no
question of law, if theshares were not transferable, and he con-
tended that those shares were not transferable, because they were
surrumided with such restriitions as takes away the jar dispouendi.
On the authority of the King v. Webb, and that of the Birming-
ham Company, which cases exactly resemble the present, he con-
tended that that which was held to be law in the Courts of common
law was to be considered as law in • Court of Equity. He had
not at all looked to the merits of the case, as that belonged wan
entirely differerent part of the argument.
Mr. HEALD was about to address the Court. when

Hu Lo'ollBll' intimated that he was obliged to attend in an-
other place, and must therefore defer the further nearing of the er-
rs nent till another opportunity.
the Earl of Lauderdale sat at the side of the Lord Chancellor
du lag the whole of the argument, to which he appeared to pay
pa licular attention.