The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-02-22 00:00:00

SHIPPING.

?Jr. fIEATIICOTE moved for a return of the number and
tole of ships that entered British ports during the year 1112.1,
awei ing the different ports, and number of men, distinguishing
B from foreign, and 'lunacies of the country to winch they
beluaged.—Ordered.
DUTIES ON TOBACCO.

Lord BELGRAVEplesented apen .4oitfrom the merchants,
traders. and others, of the city of Chester, praying fur a :eduction
of the duties on tobacco.—Ordered uo been the taSle.
NEW WRIT. .

Alf. PRA RSE moved ii.;;3lllitiritlne Devises, in the room of
Air. T. G. Estcourt.
JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES

Mr. HORDOUSE said that he had s petition to present from
an indinrinal, praying that the House would Institute an inquiry
Ja;nt.stock companies. The Honourable Member said that
lie thought it it to offer a few observations, for in his opi.
,i
pint those companies been the cause of the late distress and
misfortune. :Sufficient weight had not been paid to that particular
subject, which must be apparent. when it was recollected that the
shares of those companies were so much base currency in cheats.
non. In the Mining Companies alone the capital consisted of
imirtcen millions, the payments on which were lost ; he said lost,
be-ause he considered they were not worth soy thing. The Dm
PnureWe Gentleman regretted to think how much the character of
the British merchant had suffered, and how much it would he
loon ,thy the connexion witli those annipanies; indeed, he feared
It rook: he much sunk in the scale of respect with other nations.
e did sr! consider it necessary to go so fully into sthe subject as
h. otherwise rhoold, inasmuch As a petition would soon be pre.
sented from the city of London on the same subject, when, no
triebt,:t would be fully gone into. It was therefore sufficient to
my that the petition came from a merchant of the city of London,
and complained in particular of the conduct of the Mesicsn Mih.
ing Company. The Honourable Gentleman said he had consulted
the opinion of many persons on the subject of the petition, and they
said every allegation contained in it was true ; at the same time, in
paint of fitirness, he must say that he had cotninuniested the sub.
stance of the petition to the Gentlemen against whom the cow.
plernt was made, and that they said a very fair excuse could be
made for their conduct. The petitioner alleged that he had in.
-vested a considerable sum of money in the Mexican Mining Com-
pany in the year 1825; that some time since the Directors pre.
seated to the petitioner a deed of settlement for hint to sign ; he re.
usedto do so, because he considered the deed war en improper one ;
they then said he was no longer a shareholder, he having, accord.
jog to their opinion, forfeited his shares by that tertian!. The fact
was, that the deed contained an indemnity clause for all acts com.
twitted by the Directors up to the period of the date of the deed, and
was well known that was an illegal clause, and upon thug ground
the petitioner considered they had no right to call upon him to
laps The original shareholders having parted with their shares,
and other persons having takes; their places, they had no appeal to
• CIP•il of law, not brine original shareholders. Anether ground
yea, each edam had Sie shares, sad therefore there were PAW

13t1.

,bissisfini

'""'"7
.—...
.....
---
....."...
him that co
, aqacit„,t woo l@ De tow gone into. st was inererore sunittent ta /Ir. ball Vtl would not be deterred by ridicule from expressing different aspect. (Heart hear, hear.) The fact was, that after th'e therefore, in that year, Mr. Kenrick had to consider the propriety With respect to the first objection, it appeared to._ .
say that the petition came from a merchant of the city of London, hls approbation of the Bill. lie thought that the Hon. Mover bull had been baited, a ferocious dog which had been constantly of making an application to the Court of king's Bench for a ail. one but a lawyer, who had the habit of collecting and woluPart.'7l
r'• ' . end complained in particular of the conduct or the lexicon allh. was entitled to great eisdit for kit conduct. There were thn—i kept tied up. in order to prevent him doing mischief, suddenly bunt minal information against this paper. Most undoubtedly it was the details of evidence, could have brought it forward; iFidustit,,,,,i
. .
jog (,amnany. The Honourable Gentleman said he had consulted grounds on which gentlemen dissented front the measure. They from his confine:neut, and attacking the bull seized it by the tongue, the duty of any man who bad tile slightest regard for his character respect to the second, he found that the administration or j tbe opinion of many persons on the subject of the petition, and they did hot belies, the statements of cruelties, but he saw no reason part of which it bit off. Ile could not find a single individual who to bring such an application forward. It would be a little singular had the effect of equally extending his sympathies to allsstations
o said every allegation contained in it was true ;at the same time, in to doubt their truth. fur the public papers which gave them were could assert that they taw it cut off, nor could he even rind one who to be told of any Judge having made an application to the Court of of society, and rendering him impatient of judicial ty.'sa.rMy at
..,t
: point of f Amen, he must my that lie had conuntiniested the sub. not contradicted. The next cause of objection was that the law at could state_ that he had seen It exhibited on a plate, as described by King's Bench for a criminal information against a person who had oppression. He would therefore . i
1.64. signee of the petition to the Gentlemen against whom the coin- present Was sufficient to put ell down down ; but it' this were the case, the II 3lember forGalray. (Ileac, hear.) ►With respect to his grossly libelled him, in imputing improper conduct it; his character appears to the House that the chargesagainst
have b en
usa,nt was made, and that they sind a very fair excuse could be why did the instances occur ? The last reason assigned was that opinion as to the legality of bull.baiting, he must declare that he am Judge, and that that criminal information waa refused by the one of the Judgcs of the Great Session in Wales. ---e.,.
;time for their conduct. The petitioner alleged that he had in- these spores were fur the public good. On this point he thought knew of no law which made it criminal, in which opinion lie was Court, such Intelligence would certainly sound rather strangely fully established by evidence, except so far as they impute, '
conclude fiy moving, •
KTentiaTicilLt.
nwtaisaaniontgptrhoe. bheadal
-seated a considerable sum of money in the Mexican Mining Com- great misunderstanding prevailed, for gentlemen who thought borne out by the fact that property was held in right of bull-baiting to Our ears. But that was the fact in the case of Mr, Kennck, him an attenipt to withdraw his prosecution of Franks on 2".
patty in the year 1825; that some time since the Directors pre. they were performing the parts of philosophers by not interfering St Windsor. at Oakhampton, and in various other parts of the and upon this sonic observations might be made, perhaps he might tence of his good character ; and that Mr. Kenrick has oho" °I,":".,
red
avepr,tadtoiaanhaot,hireirafgacmt,
aunailiaierlsyt,eatliiiantgt this twhiet: the d
apcut blsitcr
ictalmrutsheatm et
hnetrt s, nfairi gh
ehat
raddetisfodviedr,
nab(
rolcannoning cteocutnedtr yh.y
theW i‘khrotuitadgisapeau ttianalg,.wahnedth
iliorowsedecutoie
I I
address be therefore presented to his Majesty, peayingr
~
liensedtedtotodtOrbesOp.‘helitclaounseer haedceemdisiotlfesreetddetir dneter wahsinalitiomspigronp;erhoenree:aeridtihaeatbualtl was
all
(lour
I slabiswsorthelespserson self an improper person to fill his sitttation ; and that aathhuatow.,Ai
they then said he was no longer a shareholder, he having. accord- Philosophy or philanthropy, but was rather produced by the opinion of the Attorney -General, he would say that there had been of amid not worth a shilling, and that he was acquitted of the remore the said Wm. Kenriek from kis judicial situation.
, 1
O i 1 '
i
tog to their ()Pinions forfeited his shares by that refusal. The fact contempt with which they regarded the lower classes. Thai no cue in which the nuttier had been decided, and he believed that charge, anti the cost of the prosecution refused to the Judge who The ATTORNEr-GENERAL said he did not stand there htf,
that the deed contained an indemnity clause for all sets corn- bind of talk resembled very much the language which used there were as many persona or his opinion as there were those en- had prosecuted him. (Ilea; hear.) These were the two singular advocate 31r. Kenrick, but merely to state the inipreaston on ,"%,
was.
witted by the Directors up to the period of the date of the deed, and tO be applied to the Colonic'', of the people be singing to
them take
keening the opimotis of the lion. Gentleman, and at all events positions in which a Judge 'had been placed hi a Court of Justice. ;Mud with reference to the ehargeta. • lie did not know "hr '_";
it int. wail ;mown that was an illegal clause, and upon dug ground Ivas sulk if they wool( that is all that is requisite. II et mem take no person could say that he gave any sort of encouragement to such (;tear, hear,) In order to obtain II criminal information for a libel, Ilan. and Learned Friend watt Justified In prefertiOg onliF 3_`..;,. AA ' the petitioner considered they had no right to call upon him to their own way. The same kind of feeling prevailed with respect to practices.
it was necessary that the party applying should distinctly deny upon and establishing another. Its did not char e Mr. Kennet ;Inn!
age. The original shareholders having parted with thew shares. the public aniusementi; of the lower classes of this country. There The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that It seemed to be the oath every fact that was charged 84 libellous. The more atrocious malice in his conduct towards Franks, or his °bureau
••
and other persons having taken their plums, they had no appeal to were two °pink:ins entertained on the subject of conferring educe. opinion of the Hon. Member for Galway that the Act which had the libel the greater was the ease of contradiction ; t evident% lea ro
t 1 a coon of law, not bo„ oeiginal abaralmillme. Anether ground den on the lower classes; sense approved of I's diffusion ; but how already been passed to prevent cruelty to animals required amend. cious the libel the more desirous wart the Court to grant the appli.action, touch
proof of malice; it could not beitwrounsk , a civil . .
with
the more atro. were inapplicable. To prosecute with '
watt itaA roam bed so. ihmeop tad therefore time were .0,003 could they reconcile it to tonciaelyeit to instruct children for one hour went, but he Mu not appear to be aware of the extent to which cation ; the loots atrocioas the libel the weaker sang be Os leo of acriminal procettliag. Y which weighail
. .
, ~ . . _ mts,l
..g •V•
.
0 . :, '•, -,, s•••'''. '• i t.'76,..t• 'le •- '0 -tit /SW wale •
t , •
' * rr,il vortp.r, ',toes I, .c
. • .1; .. -,: .. .:: i.airsisysit aw .t '
0 e . . . . ~...: 4 . ~.. ,as rr IC ,' • *VW
• .
. .
• .
,
1 : I
tlt
.iii