The Sun.
London, England, 1825-06-02 00:00:00

PARLI A,\l ENT,

HOUSE.. OF LORDS, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 1.

Prayers were read by the Bishop of CHICHESTER at ten
o'clock, when the Lord Chancellor proceeded to give judgmeot,
with the assistance of Lord Redesdale.

In the appeal of "Maule ti. Maule," of Panmure, from the
Court of Session, the Lord Chancellor moved to • reverse the
decision of that Court, which was accordingly done.
" Finnan da Tastet v. Brown," from the Court of Chancery,.
was affirmed, with costs, by their Lordships.
In the appeal of "Godfrey v. Parkhurst," the decision was
affirmed, with 2001. costs.
_• .

•
Counsel -were then called in the appeal of " Wise v. Pen-
sonby and others," but the parties not being yet prepared, the
appeal was dismissed.

DIVORCE.

The LORD CHANCELLOR left the House at ;bout one,
o'clock, and resumed at twentysminutes-to four.-
Counsel were then called in, upon Sullivan's Divorce Bill,
when Mr. Harrison and Mr. Adam appeared at the bar on be-
half of the husband.
Mre Harrison dwelt chiefly on the precedent of the case of the
Hon: Rev. James Twisleton, who was separated from his
wife in-1798 by a deed. The present parties bad also separated
bY deodln 1821; and the Learned Counsel here submitted that
no'efidence of adultery could be brought. lt, had also been
held diat a deed of separation had the tendency to preclude a
Divorce Bill.
' The LORD CHANCELLOR here inquired of the Learned
Counsel, if he could recollect the day upon which Mr. Twisle-
ton had been examined at the bar.
Mr. Harrison; on referring to the Journals, said, that it was
on-the 10th of April, 1790, and that his Lordship would find
Mr. Twisleton's evidence at the bottom of page 541.
Mr. Merrick was called to testify as to the deed of separation
in the present rase. He believed that the cause of her separa.
Lion was her going on the stage against her husband's will.
Reports had reached the family of her misconduct some time
before that; but it was then difficult to establish the act of
adultery, as happened in the case of Twisleton. Proof was
produced that the marriage of Mr. and Mrs. Sullivan had taken
place in 1816, and the actual separation had taken place in less
than a month after; and the Learned Counsel now argued that
he was entitled, from the precedent of Twisleton, to bring evi-
dence as to the character of the lady, as the husband was not
then of age, and her character was not known to his family at
the time.. Evidence was given that John Augustus Sullivan
was Isoin on the 19th October, .179%
The LORD CHANCELLOR • objected to receiving the
deed of separation as signed by Mrs. Sullivan. He would take
the deed signed by Mr. Sullivan ; but as for that bearing the
signature of his wife, he remembered an observation of the late
Lord Mansfield—that they must get an old woman for a Judge
upon such a question to get the deed accepted by any Court.
111 r. Harrison then proceeded to prove the adultery, and de-
clined going further. -
IRISH' JOINT STOCK COMPANY BILL.
The Earl of -HARROWBY, in allusion to what passed on
a farmer day, wished their Lordships to afford all possiblefa-
citics to this Bill, as the means of furnishing employment to
the.isoor of Ireland. The promoters of this measure had no
object in view but that of beneficence ; and, therefore, it was.
not too much to ask suspension of the Standing Orders in favour
of it. . . .
The Earl of LAUDERDALE so far agreed to the Bill that
he admitted it did not fall with respect to the Standing Orders,
as the Subscribers were hound to pay up their shares. '
The Marquis of LA NSDOWN reported that the Com-
mittee to whom their Lordships had referred the above Bill,
establishing a Joint Stock Company for the encouragement of
manufactures in Ireland, had not thought it necessary to call
evidence in support of it.
Upon the motion of the Noble Marquis, the Bill was then
read a second-time, and ordered to be committed for to-morrow.
COMPENSATION COMMITTEE.
Lard.ELLENBOROUGH moved for the appointment of a
• Committee to examine the petitions which had lately been pre-
sented for compensation, in consequence of losses of emoluments
in different ways, under the County Courts' Bill.
The motion was agreed to, and the Committee were instructed
to report their ()Pinion to‘the House.
Mr. Longlancls, from the West India Dock Company, pre-
sented an accOnnt of the number of vessels which had entered
the Docks during the year 1824.
Mr. Spiller, from the Caledonian Canal Company, presented
the 22d. Report of the. Commissioners.. .
EQUITABLE LOAN BANK- COMPA NY.
Mr: HARRISON appeared in behalf of the proposed Company;'
and before he proposeded to the nature of the deed, he begged
to call attention to the arguments of his Learned Friends,- who
appeared-for the pawnbrokers. There was a far more numerous
body of his Majesty's subjects, -the poor and necessitous, who,
coming in competition with the pawnbrokers, had better claims,
like the Manchester Bread-Company and the Baker's. If, in
imitation of other countries, it were possible to establish good
Institutions resembling • the -Continental Charities, the Bill
must he •adoptedeif even the pawnbrokers were put an end to
altogether. ,Therefore, if the question stood upon the ground
of puhTic.advantage only, it would he difficult to find a SoCietY
more advantageous than one proposing to lend -at a less rate of
'interest than was required under. the Pawnbrokers' Act. "This
_Company had three divisions, the lending on goods, the lending
on pledges; and, lastly, the sale departinent,' which enabled all
11, to staeYr Ite t •
rtehcei
tart ehde
iproperty
lt to
hurried obtain
intofair ad_the
been afforded by Parliament. He thought, therefore, that the
market at eawitlhigoi e'lpoo(oisssin7g.wsreiatditieed.uetpßelief of a similar descritilion had
.Society was not fairly to be charged with criminality ; as, in-
deed, the list of Societies which were furnished by Mr. F. Pol.
lock at•tfie conclusion of his able speech pointed out. Happy
it was, perhaps, that be did not make his appearance at another
bar, criminally charged, where, accordine• to the arguments
which were used by the Learned Recorder, and his' clients
could have little hope of mercy. He-must also here advert to
the Marine Life Insurance Company, who came before the
House last year.
The LORD CHANCELLOR here remarked, that the Ma-
rine Insurance had not asked to sue and be sued.
. Sir. HAR arsoN, in resuming, took occasion to advert to other
Bills, such as Mining Companies, which had been entertained
by the House,:
.and reminded their • Lordships, -that such
Companies had not a 'capital at all answerable to
.their pro-
fessions. Here, however, the capital must 'always be forth-
coming, for money must necessarily be lent, rather ' than
obtained, to relieve the necessities of .applicants on incessant
calls .;.- so that- this Society was quite different in this respect
to any one body , which had lately come under the public
. eye. He must contend, that nothing which occurred after
the Deed could invalidate the Deed itself ; such inferences;
like others; being meant solely to cast obloquy- on his
clients. :There '.vere seventeen Millions of pledges in the course
of any one year .in this metropolis, and the _usual -course
With the pawnbrokers was to . resort to every . Sort of contriv_
mice to eseact the utmost on the smallest loans; while evie
derice might be adduced, if their Lordships were willing to hear
it, to prove that advances were wanting, not at present to be bad,
upon goods, and the failure of which had ruined a number of
men. .lle would also here venture to assert, that there was not
one of the -Insurance Companies which bad not also a Deed si.-
miler to that of the Equitable Loan Bank. - ,
" The LORD CHANCELLOR here- remarked, that those
Deeds had never come before Parliament. ‘lf even it were other-
wise,-and Parliament had passed an improper Deed, would this
be regarded es quite regular in a Law Court.
Mr. franiirsOse did not presume to coanstteontslufinogr iatn;db,bue.tiinile
submitted, that such Deeds never been presented to Parlia.:
ni er.Att,e excepting
LORD
CHANCELLOR—You schedules to the respective
do n , t
m eßills,ant
into a Court of EquitY, the first enquiry,
such societies were acting as corporate bodies.
sued, would relate to who the Company were.
Sir. DAunisox here remarked, that very great joint-stock
companies now existed in the situation in which he desired their
Lordships to place the Equitable Loan Bank. Such sva • th
situation of both the London and Weet India Dock Com antes.e
ce —Therently i
ewwere
o ft
itilivsosqoiciieesttyi o, nhsy :
amendingfirst, asto
their
p facilitatinglan
as to their respective condition, with regard to existing ti • •
oeic ties
in which this society stood. ,
The LORD CHANCELLOR here,sta"ted that the 6th Gee.
I. did not recognise the doctrine of transferable shares.
Sir. HAnaisoes was decidedly of opinion that he was pro-
tected by the adjudicated cases made under the Bubble A et.—
Was this, or was it not, a project likely to be attended with be-
Petit to seventeen millions of property now pledged by iseeee-
'lafndt,hsee3cocanid