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

Tll E. LONDON. JOUItNALS.

'DAILY
g,xtruct9from the Morning Papers, June 8, 1825.

NEW TIM es.]
We rejoice to announce that the second read.
ing ,the' Fartoes A.ents',-Bill was last
nighrcarried in the Ho-use-of Lords nem. con,-
The-strOtion to that effect was prefaced by a lu-
TrtisiO:us speech from Lord Liverpool, which anti-
Cipited and answered every objection that might
have-been made -to the measure. His Lordship
-plaCts4d the subject on the plain ground of natural
equity, aS• applicable to the existing state of com-
merce. A large part of this trade, as well as of
othir countries, is necessarily transacted through
the medium of factors or agents,whom it is often
impossible to distinguish from real owners; or if
they are known not to be such, still the extent
of their agency power is unknown : they may
have-authority to sell, or they may'hot..,,lf an
individual deals with them bona fide in the com-
mon course of trade; advancing his money to
them, on the security of property, or the symbols
of property, it seems hard that he should not be
protected. It may be, that a loss must fall some
where; It is to fall on the original owner, who
might have chosen an honest factor, and then
would have been safe? Or is it to fall on the
third party, who had nothing to do with the
choice and appointment of the factor, and per-
haps.did not even know him to be such ? 'ln
is the loss, under such circumstances, to
fall on the principal, or on the Pledgee? We
cannot conceive that there can be a moment's
doubt on this point. It is indisputably clear, that
on the grounds of natural equity, the former
mdst be the sufferer.—We alluded yesterdy to
the- fact; -Which was mentioned yesterday by
Lord Liverpool, that the opinions of some of the
Judges were adverse to the Pledgee ; but, even
among legal opinions, there are many of the high-
est rank which coincide with the proposed Bill.
Lord'Chief Justice Gibbs, one of the greatest
Lawyers that ever existed, declared that the
• rule of making the Pledgee liable, was an ano-
maly- in our law. Lord Kenyon, in 1794, en-
deavoured to qualify the principle,and nonsuited
a Plaintiff, who demanded his goods from a
Pledgee, without tendering at least what he him-
self was indebted to the Factor. Lord Eldon,
when Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, de-
.cided in the case of Pulteney v. Kymer, that
the Plaintiff could not take the goods out of the
hands of the Defendants without tendering to
them the whole amount of the advances and ac-
ceptances given. Lord Ellenborough, in Martini
v. Coles, regretted the rule established . by a se.
ries of decisions since 1742, (but unknown till
that time) adverse to the Pledgee ; and said,
" perhaps it would have been as well, if it had
been originally decided, that, where it was equi-
vocal, whether a person was authorised to act as
principal or factor, a pledge made by such a
person, free from any circumstances of fraud,
was 'valid ;" and, in the same case, the late Mr.
Justice Le Blanc intimated a doubt," whether it
Might not originally have better answered the
purposes_.of commerce to have considered a per-
son, having the apparent symbol of property, as
the true owner, in respect of that person who
deals with him under an ignorance of his real
character." Such being the weight of legal au-
thority, -in favour of the principle of Lord Liver-
pool's Bill, arid that Bill beingsne which is loud-
ITcalled for by the mercantile interest,and which
will tend to assimilate our commercial legisla-
tion with that of all .the other civilized nations
a Europe, we cannot be surprised that the se-
cond reading passed the House of Lords with-
.oat a singe dissentient voice.