The Sun.
London, England, 1825-06-08 00:00:00

MAJORITY

Who voted for the Saconcile;dltli.of the St. Olave (Hart-
street) Tithes Bill. .
Buxton, T. F. Gaskell, Ben. Phillips, G.:R.
Brougham, Henry Gilbert, D. Pelham, J. C.
Baring, A. Grenfell, Pascoe Parnell, Sir H.
Baring, H. Gordon, -Plummer, John
Bridges, G. .Hume. J. .Robinson,. Sir Geo.
Curtets,E. J. James, W. Rice, T. S.
Crompton, S. "King, Hon. H. Robarts, A. W.
Coke, T. W. jun. Kemp, T. R. Scott, James
Campbell, A. Leader, W. Sefton, Earl of
Colborne, N. R. Lamb, Hon. G. Smith, Hon. R.
Chaloner, R. Moberly, J. Thompsim, Ald.
Calcraft, J. H. 'Moberly, W. L. Williams, J.
Calvert, C. 'Macdonald, J. Whitbread, S. C.
ICreevey, Thos. 'Maule, Hon. MV. Wall, B. .
Denison, W. J. • •Martin, .J. Wileson• .Thomas
,
Denman, T. Newport, Sir J. Wilson,
,Sir. R.,
Forbes, Sir C. Nugent, 'Lord- ' - TEtLERS.
Fergusson, Sir R. NOrmanby, Visc. Gaicraft, J.
1 Griffiths, J. W. Ord, W. Smith, W.

MINORITY'
On Mr. Hume's Motion for the Production:of Copies of the
Appointm= of the Rev. Mr. Bryce, a Presbyterian Cler
gyman,.,aiarChaplain to. the East India Company acCal.
cutta, to the Office of Clerk to the Committee of Stationary
• in.Rengal. .
Allen, J. A. Lushington, ])r.
illenett, , •, Mettle, Hon. W.
Bright, Hprylc, M.
Brotighant,- H. - "Miran; 'J. -
rn4rde4._ Sir , maglpnala,. Jas.
Thomas ramer, C. T.
;; • .Palmer,. P.
Grant, J. P. ..RiCkfortr,
Hurst, R. Sykes, D.
James, W. Smith, Abel

Tulk, C. A.
:frant, W. H.
Wrottesley, Sir J.
'Western, C.C.
Wood, M. .-

TELTARS.
Hume, 'JOieph
Monck, J. B.

lIOUSE OF LORDS, TUESDAY, JUNE 7.

COUNTY •COURTS' BILL,

The Duke of RUTLAND presented a petition from an in-
dividual of the county of Leicester, praying for compensation
in the event of the County Courts' Bill passing into a Law.
Laid on the table.

A similar petition was presented from the town and neigh-
bourhood of Falmouth, from Penzance and St. Austin's, in the
county of Cornwall, by the Earl of FALMOUTH.
A petition to the same effect was presented by Lord DACRE,
from the town of Bishops Stortford, in the county of Hereford.
Laid On the table. •

Mr. BROODEN•, Sir G. 1-11t.r.., and other Members of the
House of Commons, brought up the General Warehousing
Bill, the Colonial Postage Bill, the Scotch Prisoners' Ali-
ment Bill, and several Private Bills, which were read a first
time.

The Van Dieman's Land Judges' Bill was read a third time
and passed.

The Irish Joint-Stock Company Bill was also read a third
time and passed.

GENERAL WAREHOUSING BILL.

On the motion of the Earl of LIVERPOOL, the General
Warehousing Bill was read a first time, and ordered to be
printed and read a second time this day se'nnight.

LAW OF MERCHANTS AND FACTORS.

The Earl of LIVERPOOL in rising to move the second
reading of the Bill for amending the law of Merchant and
Factor, directed their Lordships' attention to the petition which
he had presented from the Merchants of London some time
since upon this subject. That petition was signed, he would
not say by all the most respectable merchants of this great
Metropolis, but certainly by more than half of them—by East
India and West India Merchants—by Spanish and Portu-
guese Merchants—by Russian, German, Dutch—and, in fact,
by Merchants trading with all nations. • Never had more
unanimity been shewn than on this occasion. The subject,
he confessed, was somewhat abstruse in its nature, he would
endeavour, however, to state the- general grounds on which
the proposed alteration in the law were grounded. In the
present state of the trade of this country, it was not wonderful
that circumstances should arise which had not taken place
or attracted attention at an earlier period. He should not
call upon their Lordships, however, to consent to a mea-
sure which was not founded upon those principles of , equity
which ought to govern all commercial transactions. If the
question related merely to Principal and Factor it would be
one of no difficulty as there was no doubt that the Factor,
ought to abide by the directions of his Principal. But the
system was grown far more complicated, in consequence of,
the extent of our trade, and of the distance at which it was
carried on. This rendered consignments necessary, and the
Principal was obliged to confide books to the Factor; to
leave him to judge of the time anti circumstances under
which the merchandize ought to be brought to market, and
if neither time nor circumstances permitted, a favourable
sale, to authorise him to raise money on the goods de-
posited in his hands, in order to carry the objects of his em-
ployer into effect. There was no doubt that in all these things
the factor was bound strictly to obey the directions which lie
received from his Principal ; but then there came in a third'
Party. The Factor sold to, or raised money from another in-
dividual on the goods in his hands, and the question was whe-
ther that individual knew what the Factor was—whether Prin-
cipal, _Factor, the Owner, or the Consignee of goods, with limit-
ed or with unlimited powers ? All he could possibly know was
the existence of the goods on the security of which the money
was to be raised. Supposing then that a fraud were com-
mitted, or that without fraud a bankruptcy took place,
on whom ought the loss to fall, on the Principal, or on the
Pledgee, who had bought or advanced money on socurity
which he had no possible reason to doubt? The rule laid
down of late years had been, that if the Factor had only au-
thority to sell, be could not pledge the goods, and that the
Pledgee must consequently suffer. But this doctrine was con-
trary to natural equity, to the highest authorities, and to the
practice of every other nation in the world t:xcept the United
States of America. It. was contrary to natural equity, be-
cause
assuming that there was no fraud, the Pledgee had no
means whatever of knowing more than that the goods -were in
the possession of the individual to whom he advanced the mo-
ney. There was therefore no act of confidence on his part.
But the principle appointed his own agent: he might qua-
lify his powers, direct and restrain him. He -could judge
of his character, and thought he might have defrauded, yet he
possessed more authority over his Agent than. the Pledgee.
Therefore on every principle of natural equity, if there was
no fraud, the loss ought to fall on the Principal. He knew
that this involved the complicated questioauLposseision and
title, but it would be impossible that trade;sheuldgo on if It
were not admitted that possession was title.—let not their
Lordships imagine that this was not a question of great
portance, they might judge of it that the fact that the peti-
tioners represented all the great commercial interests of this
country. For two thirds of the whole of our foreign trade
was carried on through consignments to Factors. The pre-
sent.. measure was not only founded on sound principles of
natural equity, but on analogy. For if any individual con-
signed .Exchequer Bills to a Banker, and the Banker dis-
posed of them to a third person, he, the Pledgee, according.,
to the existing law, hada right to the property. This was con-1
formable to what was now proposed, and he did not see why
the same security should not be given to 'commercial deal-
ings, which it had been found indispensable to give to Bills
of ixchange. It might be asked, why the law had not been
altered before ? All .he could say was that the system had
grown up gradually. The first decision on the subject had
taken place in 1742, and it was on that decision that the
present law was established. But it .was belieied that there
had been some inaccuracy in the Report. Lord Chief Justice
Gibbs had said on the •.subject, .that the rule had grown up
from circumstances which lie could not well explain, and
that in his opinion it was at variance with the best interests
of trade, and ought not to be maintained. The decisions
which had since occurred were not very numerous, and
had taken place in ignorance -of what the law really was.—
Lord Ellenborough and others had decided on precedents
and decided justly, and the practice had gone on as if the
law had been what it was proposed by the present measure to
make it. The Noble Earl then read various opinions expressed
by Lord Ellenhorough and Judge Le Blanc, to shew what they
conceived the law ought to be. As it stood, at present, he had
already observed, it was contrary to the law of every nation
except that of the United States. .For all nations held, that
where no fraud had been committed -the pledgee who had ad-
vanced money on the sight and faith .of the goods was to have
them to repay himself, and the loss was to fall on the principal.
Nay, this was the law of Scotland,and the:present practice was
confined to. England and the United States shone. But even in
those States, the subject had been taken up 'by Congress in its
last Session with the view of making the changes which he now
Proposed. Whether the Bill were made to rest on natural
equity, on analogy, on commercial feeling, or on what was the
state of the law in other countries, there were, therefore, ample
grounds to support it. Having explained the general nature
and principles of the measure, which -he was convinced would
prove highly beneficial to the commercial world, it would. be
for the Committee to examine whether the clauses were entitled
to their Approbation. The Noble Earl concluded by moving,
that the Ball be read a second time.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be com-
mitted next-Friday.
CANADIAN CORN BILL.

The Report of the Committee on the Canadian Corn-Bill,
was brought up,-and ordered to -be taken into further considera-
tion, with the amendments, on Tuesday next.
The House•wont.into a Committee on the Police Magistrates'
Bill, and the Report was.received.
CAT BMA:. CLAIMS. •
Lord GOSFORD presented a petition from-the Noblemen,
Gentry, and Freeholders, of various religious persuasions' of
The county ()Mayan, in favour of the claims of .the Roman Ca.
tholics.—Laid on the table.
_EQUITABLE LOAN BILL.
_ _

Tlie Earl of LAUDERDALE pre;entediaTetition from the'
merchants, tradesmen, and other inhabitants-of the Borough
and town of Liverpool, against the Eqt*able Loan Bill.—Laid
on the.table.
Lord DACR•E presented a petition in favour of the Equitable
Loan Bill, from the necessitous householders and inhabitants of
the Parishes Of St.'Mary, Whitechapel, and St. Mary, Botolph,
—Laid on the table.
On the -motion of Lord DAME, Counsel were called to
.the Bar to -befurther heard in argument on the Equitable Loan
Bill.
Mr. Harrison was heard in continuation, and contended that
the 'Bill was a 'measure Of great-public advantage.
Mr. Adam followed on the same side,•and urged upon their
Lordships the necessity Of hearing evidence to prove the utility
of the measure. •
On the conclusion•of •the argument, the. House decided that
the evidershe cottlillnot, be received.
After some cOnversation it was se.ttled_••that the •Council for
the Company should, to•rnorrow at five o'clock, prove their
deed.—Thu House the.L adjourned at limx-rAsT