The Sun.
London, England, 1824-05-18 00:00:00

LAW OF MERCHANTS BILL.

Mr. ROBERTSON wished to offer a • few observations. on
the House resolving -itself into a Committee on, the Law of
Merchants' Bill. As the interest of the. British public was
affected by this Bill, he felt it his duty briefly to oppose it.
Mr. HUSKISSON did not think this bill conflicted with the
warehousing bill, nor as at all tending to injure the public inte-
rests: On the contrary, he considered it tended mainly to im-
prove our commercial law. A-report presented in June last
year, recommended this Bill, but then it was too late to enter
into any comprehensive legislation, and a short bill was then
brought in. The.present was not a dry technical bill, but one
of great public importance. The relations between agent and,
employer should be distinctly regulated, and if the agent ex-.
vectied his instructions he should suffer for it. The question
here was, if an innocent third party or the agent was eo suffer ?
—lf goods are only sent to an agent' for safe custody,' and he
either sells or pawns them, he does wrong ; but if goods are so
committed to him that he may be considered the owner, in such
cases the factor should not suffer. It was. clear that a factor's
abusing his trust was a breach of confidence; but an honest
purchaser should not be the victim of such a breach. The prin-
cipal selected his agent he gave him the manifestation of agen-
cy,
and indeed of ownership, and a principal so 'acting should
bear the loss growing out of his agent's neglect or wrong-doing.
Potisession alone of goods was not evidence of personal proper-
ty in the possession ; but in this case a difference existed.—
Every thing now was done on credit. Suppose corn and but-
ter were shipped from Ireland, and against it a Bill was drawn,
and if the bill of lading was shewn by the consigner to a per-
son making advances on these goods, the purchaser should not
itutTer, hut the consigner, who had allowed his agent to stand in
the relation which be did towards a person making a loan fide
relyanee upon, or purchase of those articles, as the case might
.be. Many cases of hardship eNisted under the present law,.
as between principal and factor, and the object of the Bill was
to regulate them. Money was not lodged with a factor, but
,other property, of which sometimes it was difficult to find
out whether he was the owner or not.- Now surely somemea.
:Aire should bs taken to prevent this difficulty. It was stated,
that promissory' notes and Exchequer Bills, lodged with a
banker as deposits, were held to be exceptions to the general
rule of law ' • and why not extend the same rule to a bill of
lading with the possession of the goods, which bill became
the symbol of ownership of the property. It was fit that
a. third party dealing with such a factor and under such
circumstances, should be protected in a 'lona fide advance
oa such property. The principal could protect himself;
'he could restrain the negociability of a bill of lading or other
and in case of infidelity lie lied the power of punishing
hint ; and would it be then, ha asked, fair to allow him to
coerate injury to innocent third parties? Surely not. It was
sat l that this Bill would defeat the object of the Warehousing
Bill; but that he must deny altogether; it would materially
faeilitate is useful operation. As the law now stood, buyers
did not know whether factors were factors only, or factors and
principles, and the object of his Bill was to regulate so neces-
sary a suhjcct. Placed as we were at the western extremity of
the oil world—great as our trade now was, and greater as it
would be, with to e new, it was most important that we should
improve all those.advantages which our happy situation had
eaabled us to make. For- these reasons he thought that the
Lill should be supported.
Sir J. NEWPORT said that the commerce with Ireland•
could not he carried on Tor an hour, if ineosent purchasers were
to rifler from improper agents. Principals had the selection of
their agents, and if those agents exceeded -their authority, an
innocent third party shall not be made a sufferer. He thought
the House and the country were indebted to the Right Hou.
Geotleman far the introduction of so useful a measure. _

• Mr. SYK.ES regretted that this discussion was brought on in
the ahs=ce of the Hon- Members for Mitilturst and Peterton,
whotot opinioh3- be wished to hear on this very important sub-
ject. This Bill, .id not alter the relation of consignor or con-
,.sigm9e,.excent inasmuch as would realize the notion of foreign
consignors, that if. an agent exceeded his instructions they were
•not to he the sufferers. All the foreign jurists held that third
parties making batfajiile advances on property pledged to them
were entitled to retain such property till they,.were re-imbursed.
This Bill had his support.
The. SOLICITOR-G ENERAL felt it his duty to supporta
„Bill which had thr its object the
.protection of innocent third
panic& lie would have no objection to give tile ownef a power
to restrict his commission to his factor, and to place a third party
in the most secure situation. .

. _
Mr. .1. SMITH said, that few questions required more con-
sideration tlian the present; and he was obliged to the Right
,lion Gentletmta (Mr, Huskisson) for the zeal and ability with
which he had met this question. Difficulties were presented in
.the digesting of this measure, .but those difficulties would be
;net and answered by the provisions of this. Bill.. No factor,
except by express commission, should have the ownership of
property confided to bun for sale : and as he found there was
so-little objection to this measure now, he would not trouble the
House, at any greater length.
The SPEAK ,left the Chair, the House resolved
ER having
itself into a Committee of the whole House. The Bill was
read a first time, and the Report was ordered.to be-received to-
.morrow.

•
WAREHOUSED WHEAT F:LI_
Mr. HUSKISSON mOvecl. the Order of_
.Te. Afar for the.
second reading Of the Warehoused Wheat
Mr. lIANbLEY (as we 'understood) j t d to this- Bill,
as adverse to the agricultural interest, andbie
nctroducing a new
trade. In principle and detail he considered it
to
o be equally
injurious to- the English grower of corn. This BiII mioqeit be
man
.-•-v:ry good for the constituents .of 'the Right Ifon. Omit!
(111 r. liuslcisson), but itwould prove destructive to the Id;ni.,ll.
e read
• farmers.- He •shotild therefore move that this
second time this day six months.
• Air. D. BROWNE. opposed the Bill.
Mr. T. WILSON said, the only objection he could make to
. the Bill was, if in going into a Committee, he would allow a
discussion, and also place the last clause in this Bill first—ho
alluded to that with- respect to the old bonded wheat. If the
.itight Hon. lientlernan.(Mr,-linskisson) acceded this pro- •
,p 0,31, he would somxut the Hill. •
Ain HUSKISSON repelled the insinuation that he brought
in this at the suggestion of his constituents. /le should
4 'held lii:nself unworthy of a situation .under the Crown, if
Le acted on private and not on Public grounds. The fact was,
lia be had -
:re,
eived infortoe.tioa from
-89 ale West India mer-

chants, slating that flour to a large amongst had been
ith-
ported from Dantzic and Harnbourgh, which it was intended
to ship to the West Indies, and which would prevent the
necessity of relying on America for a supply. Here then their
wheat was locked up for. years; it was no*, in a perishing
state; and- was it or teas it rapt wise that we should allow 'fo,
reigners, having flour, to send it here, and allow'the capitalists, '
who had property in. the bondedcorn, the means of reducing it to
flour, and thereby render it an exportable - article? He asked if a
capital of two millions, locket alp for &or .7 years, shOuld not
now be allowed at last to fructify ? As the law now stood, the.
rigour of the prohibitory system was such, that the cern, even if
putrid, was not allowed to be sold for manure or any other
object, and was it proper that some measure should not be taken
to remedy such -.a law? • A large quantity of corn had been
damaged at Liverpool ; some of it was rendered useless,but for
the mere sustenance of pigs; sonic of it was reduced to manure.
Yet, as the law now stood, even that remnant from a dreadful
conflagration could not be applied to any useful purpose. Now,
if Gentlemen would only look at this measure, which seemed to
excite so large a portion of their sensibility, they would see that
it really contemplated nothing more than placing the, corn in
an exportable state. He had consulted many persens capable of
giving him informatiOn on this subject, and he had found an
universal opinion amongst them, that the corn should be pre,.
served in that condition.. In this measure, too, he asserted from
a tolerably close acquaintance with the previsions of the
that there was no intention, not only not to •infringe the corn
lawi,..but that they were perfectly compatible with the corn
• laws. His opinions on these laws were well known, but still
it would be uncandid in him, by a side wind, to defeat their
• objeCt; But while on this subject, he could not avoid advert-
ing to the various feelings of Gentlemen on these corn laws,
and the present measure. Not one month ago, they were all
anxiety and apprehension lest the high price of corn should
averagejustify, as the law of the opening of our ports to •
foreign corn, and many of Gentlernen who now so steenue •
ously opposed this Bill, were endeavouring. to devise means
by which the price of corn could be kept within the legal
restraint to importation. - The price, however,_ had fallen a
shilling, and now they dreaded a measure, in •its effects, which
would in a slight degree accomplish their original object.
No man could anticipate, the -description of harvest which
they were to 'navel and should •it proVe unfavourable,-
the consequences would . be, that instead of this petty .14-800.
quarters, the whole stored produce of the Continental.sca-ports
would he let in upon-them. The-Right Honourable Member
concluded by assuring the Ilouse, that, as the Representative
for Liverpool, the failure of this measure was desired by his
constituents ; but since he could •not yield to theirarguments,
however deserving of- attention, he had felt it his ditty to sub-
mit the subject to their consideration, and he hoped.it would be
adopted by the House. •
Mr. L. FOSTERsaid that the people of Ireland had no ob:-
jection that England 'should become the millers of- the world ;
but their only .fear was, that like most millers, she might take
to herself too large a share. •(A laugh.) He • trusted that the
Bill would.proceed upon sound principles, thOugh he 'could not
concur with many of its details. • • •
Mr. HUSKISSON explained.
Sir E. KNATOII BULL admitted that many of the eiplana.
tions of the Right lion. Gentleman were perfectly satisfactory.
Ile, however, was not one of those alarmists who had waited
on the Righti Hon. Gentleman to induce hint to adept some
measure avourable to the agriculturist, and calculated to ex-
clude foreign corn from our markets. He trusted that his lion.
Friend would withdraw his amendment, that the Bill might gb
into a Committee. •

Sir-J. SEBRIGHT having-heard the statement of his Right
Hon. Friend, he was convinced that the measure was not In-
jurious to the-agriculturist ; and as he did not pride himself
upon that consistuicy which never retracted, he should co.-
tainly offer no oppoSktion to the measure.
• 31r LOCKHAR, r would oppose the very first steps taken
to oppose the present law. He thought this question had been
argued unfairly by t'it.! Right Hon. gentleman. He complained
of the suffering sy,Aained by ii.ritish capital as the law now
stood, but hc-lrad. no ~.uarantee that this corn belonged to any
British merchant.—(hear !)—Whatever inconvenience might
arise to the holders, it was infinitely more important that the
agriculturist should, understand that there was still 4 security
for the landed interest.

Mr. WODEHOUSE did not rise to offer any opposition to
this Bill. It was likely to do some good; but, situated as he
was, he could net help allading to the extensively erroneous
conclusions that had gone abroad respecting the Corn Laws;
and he expected that before Gentlemen condemned the prin-
ciple of these laws they would look a little for theraselves.into
the subject.
Mr. CRIPPS professed his willingneSs to support this mea-
sure. The alteration from six to, five bushels removed all pos-
sible objeCtion to the measure. •I'Vith respect to the argument
of the Hop. Member for Oxfind (Mr. Lockhart) that this corn
was not wholly British, it was at least tolerably certain that
British merchants had considerable mortgages ot3 it.
Colonel WOOD opposed the Its principle was, in his
opinion, mischievous, though he thought, in point of fact, as
far as ref;arded the agricultural interest, it would be inoperative.
Air. HUSKISSON explained.
Lord A LTHORP conceived that this Bill_ would either not
affect the landed interest at all, or so slightly affect it that the
shock would not peculiarly alarm them. With respect to the
corn laws, they were, in his mind, founded in erroneous and
bad legisation, and some change in them was most deeply to
be desired.

Mr. BRIGHT observed, that in this measure there was no
violation of the principle of the corn laws. The principle of
this measure was to exclude, and not to admit.
Sir J. NEWPORT said, that with the qualifications pro-
posed he would have no disinclination to support this measure.
Mr. PELHAM made a few obserrations which were inau-
dible in the gallery.
Mr. SYKES said, if the capital of two millions which was
locked up, was again entoloyed, it would naturally advance the
mercantile interests. The Bill did not go as far as he wished,
because it limited the quantity to be ground to 440;009 qrs. ;
he was anxious to extend it to the whole of the bonded corn.
He apwoved of the motion of the Right Hon. Gentleman,
and intreated him to go forward with it, and not be prevent-
ed by the opposition of persons who did not know their own
interests. .

Sir F. BURDETT regretted that the Right Hon. Gentleman,
the President of the Board of Controul, did not further in
his motion. The House had heard a great deal of free prin-
ciples of trade in this country, but he (Sir F. Burdett) was
sorry they heard so much, and that so little was done. The
thing of all others to which this principle of free trade should
be extended, is corn. The more of the article that was brought
into the country the more would the manufactures be served ;
and, so far from producing ill effects, it would give a spur to
those manufactures. He felt assured that the agricultural in-
terests could nut be injured by it. The quantity would be of
no importance while quality remained. He wished merely to
state his creed on the subject, but he implored the House to
take a more extended view of it. A system of tampering was
common in the country ; it never persevered in any thing, but
it would be better to do so than to be wavering, and keeping
all in a state of uncerWiltV. His objection to the Bill way,
that it was too trifling, and he wished that more decisive mea-
sures were adopted. In this country, when so much was
talked of free trade, lie should like to know what trade was free ;
Surely there were none so. The Government appears to stand
much in awe of what they called the vulgar prejudice on this
subject. He believed that it did not exist. 11e was of opinion
that there was more in the House than out of it. His objection
to it was not that it did not interfere
with the Corn Laws, but
that it did not interfere enough. • The Government could not
bring forward a question of greater importance. What the
manufacturers did was only to work up, in some shape or other,
what the agriculturist produces, and as one flourishes the other
.mush.flourish with it. •Ite,trusted and hoped thiat..hi..-114 ajtst_y's
Ministers would think it their duty to bring the subject before
the House in such a way as not to he tampered with.
- The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed on Friday next.
COUNTY COURTS' BILL. _ _

-Mr. WARRE brought up the Report on the County Courts'
Bill.
After. a fewbbservations from Lord A LTHORP,
The SPEAKER left the Chair, and the Bill was re-consi-
dered in the Committee.
• Mr. SCARLEI.7 gave notice, that at the next stage of the
Bill he would oppose it: in tote, because the Noble Lord had
departed from his original plan, which was, to leave the ap-
pointment of the Judicial. Assessors in the hands of the Lards
Lieutenants of the County, by which appointments it was now
proposed to vest in the Lord Chancellor.
The House resumed, the Report was received, and the Bill
ordered to he read a third time on Wednesday next.
On the motion that the House resolve itself into a Committee
on the Welsh Judicature Bill,- Mr, ALLEN stated his senti-
ments on the Bill.
The House then resolved itself into a Committee.
The Houle resumed, and the Report was ordered to be re-
ceived on Friday.
MA
Mr. BUXTONha
RvlinNgEbeleNnScUallll.eAd
e.
xpress
ed his an-
..
wilungness to enter on the subject of which he had given no-
tice, at so late a period of the evening, if the House felt inclined
that he should postpone it..--(Cries of " go on.")--The Hon.
hen PaieetAlbre.ditstoo ;lye' the repeal ooftisoonmauwchhiocfhthhee
Act of Gentleman
oif:?ePn ai; lt en t which gave. to the Royal Exchange and
London Insurance Companies the exclusive privilege of marine
insurance. If a person cashed to insure Ins vessel, he was
compelled to. Apply to either of these .Companies, which
he thought a great• hardshil), and for which no substantial
reason ,could be.assiOed. Evert other species of insurance

was Conducted by cnrelpanieti ana he could not see why
this should be excluded from it. A ship-owner might in-
sure his ship while building, or he might insure it when
in port, wherever he pleased ; it was only while it was at sea '
that he was compelled to have recourse to these two chartered
companies, and when the risk was greatest he was obliged to
go fOr security to parties whom, perhaps, he did not like.—
' This system besides operated as an extrinsic hardship on mer-
chants in the country, at Hull, for instance. If he was desi-
rous if insuring his vessel he must apply to some one in Lon-
don to procure the insurance-broker, and to de many other
matters which it might be said eeteiled an expence of 25/. per
cent., and in the event of. aav- accident, against whom he haa
insured, occurring, he most seek redress of parties of whom he
knows nothing, souse
of whom may bedead, or bankrupts,
thereby compelling him to employ attornies for the recovery.of
his rights, and all this forsooth because he is driven to give cre-
dit to people of whom he,eoerhaps, knows nothing. Ile thought
that the merchant ought thbe relieved from such a restriction,
and to be allowed to go where he pleased for. the insurance of
his ship and cargo. It might be urged that companies were
equally liable to failure with individuals; this was true, but
there certainly was a greater security in a company,' If it were
necessary, he could clearly establish all the positions with which
he had set out. He trusted therefore that the merchant would
be relieved from those difficulties and restraints which had
been imposed without any shadow of reason ; and it would
.be a means of opening a new field of com.sherce, and of em-
ploying the present redundancy of capital, and would also
bring into the country many foreign insurers who were now kept
out from being compelled to resort to parties of whom they knew
nothing. The origin of the two Chartered Marine Insurance Com-
panies was as follows :—ln the year 1720, the Civil List being
then greatly in arrear, it was desirable to obtain a supply some-
where, and as the country could not be taxed further, these two
Companies carte forward with 600,010/. on condition of obtain-
ing this exclusive grant; with certain limitations they were to
pay each 300,0001., and if in the course of 31 years such a mo-
nopoly was found to be prejudicial to the commercial interests
of the country, die charter was to be revoked on the repayment
of the money advanced. Now, if it should turn out that these
Companies had not fulfilled their part of the contract, there
could be no objection to annul it. In fact titey had only paid
111,000/., and had. enjoyed. the benefit of the monopoly for
More than treble the ler.goli of the...period stipulated, as it had
now 'seen in eeisterce 0•1 years ; and it any Gentleman
would dispassionately consider the matter, he. would admit,
that, instead of its b:ing a benefit to commerce, it was preju-
dicial. The object of the Bill which he proposed to introduce
was for the purpose of doing away with these restrictions on
niariec insurance; and he therefore moved for leave to bring in •
a Bill, repealing so much of the Act of 1720 as gave to the
London and Royal Exchange Insurance Companies the exclu.
sive privilege of marine insurance.

I • Mr. PLUMMER remarked, that his Hon. Friend bad not
been very accurate in the description that be had given of- the
-charter by which these powers were vested in the Insurance
Companies to which he had alluded. It was a charter not given
for thirty-one years, but for perpetual successiori. The Hon.
Member had not Lean correct either in his statement of the
money paid by these Companies, as they had advanced each of
them 150,000/., which was an that was demanded of them, and
therefore on that score no ground had been made out against
them. The attempt that his Hon. Friend was then making
was no more than an endeavtrar to confiscate the private rights
of those Companies. If the motion of the lion. Gentleman
were seceesefid it would likewiee he the means of destroying
Lloyd's Co:fix-house, without effecting insurances at a lower
rate than they axe done at present, or conferring on the public
any additional security or advantages. He contended that there
was ample accommodation for every species of insurance already,
and that the two companies hed•got their charters on conditions
which could not be withdrawn, nor could they be abrogated
- without the grossest injustice.
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON observed, that he did not see
how that branch of our commerce which related to insurance
could be rendered more efficient. The Hon. Gent. was incor-
rect in stating it as a monopoly; there were more than 1,500
men of the highest respectability and property concerned in it,
and the rates at which it was affected were fair and moderate.
On the latest inquiry the amount insured at Loyd's only was
200,000,0001. , lie thought that the interest of the Members
composing that Society ought to be considered : they received
information from every part of the world, which they distribut-
ed gratuitously, and their rights would be materially affected by
any new competition. At present there certainly was no groand.
far disturbing these Companies; there was no petition from
any body of merchants, who were chiefly interested, in it, and he
therefore did not think that any case was made out, and as he
thought the measure injudicious, he should oppose it.
Mr. HUSK ISSON regretted that the subject had been.
brought under discussion in" the absence of his Right Hon.
Friend the Chancellor of the liKehequer, who, as he was favour-
able to the Hilt which the lion. ISievabar proposed to bring in,
of which his opinions were on record, yet be was sure that he
was desirous .of ...heartng• all the -objections that could be urged
, -against it. He"WAS of opinion that companies offered greater
1 security than individuals. He found by the Report made in
the year 1810, that the two chartered companies only held four
one-hundredth parts of the marine insurances that had been
effected,•and that the other 96 parts were held by individuals,
the members of Lloyd's; he, therefore, did not think that these
two incorporated
companies could be' Much injured by the •
repeal of the Ace, as they might alWays manage to maintain a
portion equal to what they had at present. He thought that,
notwithstanding what...had been said, Parliament had a right
to inquire, whether POW-us which had been granted to coin-
' panics were beneficial to the public or no ;'and it certainly did
appear. very anomalous, that if-a merchant applied to a firm to
insure his vessel, one of them might say, I cap do it as an in-
dividual, but not as a partner. lie did think that the power
of insuring should he extended to joint stock companies and
partnerships, as well as to coporations and individuals; no in-
terests could suffer thereby, and the public, security and con-
venience would be considerably enhanced. Mention had been
made of the injury that Lloyd s would sustain ; if he thought
this he would not advance such sentiments, as he was ready to
rahnit that their ingenuity, their industry,'their honourable con-
duct, their ability, and power, reflected honour on themselves
and on the country ; but be certainly was much swayed by
what his Hen. Friend lied stated with regard to the appoint-
ment of brokers and attornies. He moreover was desirous that
parties should be left to their -own convenience. He was of
opinion that Le took a right course in-bringing the subject be-
fore the House.

Mr. P. GRENFE LI. said, that this was the fourth attempt
made within a tew years to destroy this Charter. On the last
he remembered that it was thrown out; it was in 1311, and he
voted in the majority with Mr. Percival, the then Minister, Sir
V. Gibbs and Sir T. Plainer, the Attorney and Solicitor Ge-
nerals. He therefore was convinced that he stood on high legal
ground in the opposition that he _should give to the carrying
through this Bill.
Doctor LUSHINGTON said, the Act passed in the year
1719, upon this subject, did not tie up the hands of the House.
It left them at eerrect liberty to take any practical measures
they might deem expedient for the public good. For this they
had especially provided in 'the 16th section of the Act. The
Act had existed for 104 years, and it was prove 4 to the convic-
tion of all that its object was erroneous. If its object was to
have insurances of beted by extensive companies, he would
maintain it failed; if it was the desire of Parliament to prohi-
bit insurances by private individuals, it failed—it could not at-
tain this object ; it would be at once affecting the value of
money, and changing the current of trade. He would appeal
to his friend, the Honourable Member for Peterborough, and
ask if there were ,not a thousand actions in one solicitor's
office, in consequence of the inserances'effected by individuals
imlepesaleat of 'these Corporations- These individuals might
insure to any extent, but the Companies were limited to a cer-'
tain amount. The meaning of the clause in the Act of Parlia-
ment was not to give this power to the Corporate Bodies for ever.
They were allowed to enjoy it until Parliament, or the King,
interfered to withdraw it; insides, if the trade was thrown open
the Corporations would not be injured, they would still exist
as Corporate Bodies. He would vote for the motion.
Mr. T. WILSON thought the House should be just before
it was generous. The words in the Act were directly in favour
of the Corporations until they were expressly proved to be
hurtful. Insurances could be effected without these Companies.
There was no necessity for their existence. There were brokers
who acted as separate individuals. With respect to insurances
made with private individuals there was this advantage—if an
error was committed in the rate of insurance, there was no re-
medy to be had from a corporate body; whereas private indi-
viduals would, as honest men, atford a remedy. He did not
approve of the course adopted by the Hon. Member:. If the
' companies were guilty of a dereliction of duty, let it be referred
to a Committee of the House, or to a tribunal competent to
make the inquiry. He would vote against the measure.
,Arlbre. AldermansoLiciv BRIDGES)R.fiEN E supportedß Au
,without pledging himself the motion.
to any opinion, did not think Parliament tied up its hands sons
to prevent an interference with the q9estion.
Mr. BUXTON said a few words in reply.
A Hon.divisionm
emwbaserloguottillyeacvalelteo bringdfor,buin
The but t take place, as
the
Bill was then brought in, read a first time, and ordered
to be read a second time on Tuesday next.
PETITION FROM INDIA.
Dr. LUSHINGTON gave notice that he would, on Wed-
nesday next, present a petition from two British subjects re-
moved from India by the Government of that country.
The other orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the
Ilpuee adjourned at a Qu4 ne:FoR4 ONE- O'CLOCK.