The Sun.
London, England, 1824-05-29 00:00:00

PRICE gtVS"P.INTti.

surer living ,in- the country, looked at once, as a matter of
course, ,to; the settlement of his policy ; but he ,fotind - one
underwriter probably dead, and his executors'(troublesome pee-
pig generally) were to be dealt with ; a second was insolvent ;
a third• litigious, and-ready to defeat' an action. The' difficul-
ties encountered in this 'way --were frequent tend serious.- He
(Mr. Buxton) held a list of .• policies in .his hand, dont,' to the
amount of 1500001., between the years -1810 and 1814 and
there was-not one of them in which there had not been a death,
or an insolvency, or a suit, prier to settlement. In ono case._
• upon . a policy of 141,000/..thirty-flve. -different actions had
been brought, Now; with a ptiblie Company, (a JeintSteek
Company), three-fourths of the eril was avoided. A Com-
p Any could not die ; its inSblVency was in the Very highest
degree improbable ; and in case 'or litigation, one action
was brought initead of twenty. Under such circumstances,
there could be no doubt that insurances with Companies
would be preferred.; and it was hard that the mei cliants'oflng-
land should not, like the merchants or other countries, be al-
lowed to take that security which they thought most advan-
tageous to them. The Hon. Member concluded by contend.,
ing,,that the-two chartered Companies (the Royal Exchange and
London Assurance) had
,no tide to be heard against the progress
of his bill. The Chartering of those bodies had commenced in
a jell), and their povfers had. Continued longer than they had a
• right to hope for. Personally, he desired to speak with great
respect of these companies, and the partiei. connected with
them ; but the terms of their charter were distinctly no more
than tllese—they *ere to pay down the sum of 300,000/. to Go-
vernment, for a monopoly of the insurance business for 31 years ;
compensation to be made, if Parliament• thought fit, within
those 31 years, to withdraw their powers. Instead of 300,0001.,
they had, in fact, never paid more than 120,001)1. ; their term
of 31 years had been exceeded three times over; and they cer-
tainly had no right to complain if their exclusive privilegea
were no longer continued.
Mr. GRENFELL contended against the institution of joint
stock companies for the business of marine insurance, and
thought that they offered none of that extraordinary security:
attributed to them by' he Hon. Member for Weymouth.- Of
the Alliance Company, for instance, as a Joint-stock companyi
he wished to speak with great' respect; but the prospectus
issued by that body claimed to have a capital of 5,000,0001.,
while in fact its capital was only 500,000/. Taking the re-
mote liability of parties into consideration, he 'could not doubt
of the Company's solvency, while he saw such names con-
nected with it as those of Baring, Rothschild, and Alexan-
der; but the shares, it was to be recollected, were transfer-
able ; the alliance of those Gentlemen could not be counted
upon for an hour ; a single atroke of the pen put an end to
their liability altogether, and left the public exposed_ to that
risk which had been incurred in a reliance upon their. suffi-
ciency. The Hon. Gentleman, after denying ti at he -Was in-
fluenced by any personal feeling upon the question, proceeded to
combat the right of Parliament to interfere (at this time Ofdayy
with the chartered insurance companies. Their charter upon
payment of a valuable consideration, had been granted 31
years, with power ofrevocation by Parliament, within.. tlic%3l
years, on repayment of such consideration; but, after tbe
expi-
ration of those 31. years, .as the Act of Parliament expressly
stated; the charters could only be revoked by an application to
the King in- Council. This was not
,a new statement to the
House, nor was the attempt to invade the right of these
Companies new. In the year 1806 the Globe Insurance Com-
pany had brought in a Bill. to do what the Alliance Com-
pany was trying to do now; that Bill, he (Mr. Grenfell) had
opposed, and it lad been thrown out. Again, in the year
1810, a similar Bill brought in by a body of merchants had
failed. In his opposition to those invasions of the old
charters, he had been supported by the joint opinions of Mr.
Perceval, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Vicary Gibbs,
and Sir Thomas Plomer. They had been resisted upon the
ground that the Act of Parliament distinctly showed-the course,
and the only course, by which the rights of the chartered.com-
panies could be affected ; an application had afterward!' been
made to the King in Council on the subject, and uponiome
observation dropped by the late Lord kllenboroi,gh,• it had
been allowed to die away. Mr. Grenfell sat'down by declar-
ing that it would be a breach of public faith committed by
Parliament, if the privileges of the chartered companYs were
abridged, except by immediate interferance from-the Throne.
Mr. H. GURNEY thought is well worth the consideration.
of the House, whether it would be proper or not to permit-the
same Company to effect Marine Insurances and Insurances on'
Lives.
-.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not at
preSent see upon what principle of equity.or justice the Bill of
the Hon. Member for Weymouth could be objected.to.: His
own opinion had been long since expressed for in the year
1813 he had been favourable to repealing the exclusive privi-
leges of the two chartered companies, who had not cuite so'
good a case to retain those- powers as the lion. Member for
Penryn seemed to suppose. l'he companies had agreed to. pay
300,0001., and they had paid something under 120,11001. Their
rights were to have lasted 31 years ; and they had beenTcoh-
tinued more than three times 31 years: With respect to. the
revocation of the powers in question by the Crown, the compa-
nies stood in this situation of difficulty—if the Crown revoked,
it must revoke the whole; it could not take back the exclusive
rights of the companies, without depriving them of their rights
altogether. If it revoked at all, it must revoke absolutely their
power to insure,' as well as their monopoly of that power. " It
had been thought right, under such circumstances, to come:to
obtained, and
nfo a re
dr
in
jmusetaiscuet,o by which
;,hthiee es
nd desired
avoided. Thinking
wcohmieph
that much good would be effected by. the repeal of a privilege,
of which the parties holding it had made very little nse, be
certainly should be disposed to vote for the Bill before the
House.

Mr. T. WILSON considered the question of greitt import-
ance. He thought the Hon. Member for Weymouth (Mr. P.
Buxton) was incorrect in supposing, that if this. Bill should
`pass England would be the mart of the world for marine. in-
surances. The profits of the underwriters were indeed very
low—to use a vulgar phrase, they Were under the necessity of
skinning flints. The lion. Member alluded to the marine in-
surance companies established in France, and then adverted to
the topics introduced by the Hon. _Member (Mr. F, Buitou)
as
the t ointshe uralni tciegsateifroen an
effected at inconveniency
atiloyd,s which
.liedefendchad en
defended
the
eseused sabfmlirsoh.
• ment at Lloyd's; and contended that there was no necessity fOr
thepresent Bill, which he could not but consider as unjust to-
wards the old established companies.
Mr. HUME was disposed to think that much snore - had
been made of the business than it deserved. He was inclined
to consider the situation of the two companies in the same light
as individuals. They had not complied with the stipulations,
and had enjoyed the benefit of 31 years in the possession of their
rights. When these years had expired, they were mere tenants
at will. He would beg leave to ask if any Hon. Member could
defend that or a similar privilege in principle? The Bight
Hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had trewed
the companies very fairly. He had in substance said, "We
will not say what we Might 'advise the Crown to.de, but we will
give a privilege to other comPieseanies to do what seems not- of
in this proceeding, and he
was persuaded that the' measure was calculated to benefit the
muchverhtn ienantporta were importance to
tinyg ouZi
wllflAi.,HumeYbelieved that Go-
il
Public, and was not likely to injure any individuals. •

no. f
3;e:bine:ant: et
e.
the part of these
niencc or injury • - .
acriNoVsniinOpagOrifDiroesin.hadroynuclvde.r.hyeakol
He himself had never sustained
J. Alderman
the slightest inconveniency
real or imputed neglect on
liberal on many occasions" In
that the underwriters of Lloyd's had been guilty of injustice?
without remutieratien,
menb of their engagements. lt was too.
. fornomthethmenfio,rathitheofruigihfilhe had had occasion several times to eau
Much to come to Parliament, and ask to have all the advan-
tages`of these people to be given up
These Companies had been very
charitable institutions, and. had given away ninny thousand
pounds. He certainly should oppose the Bill. - .
•
Alderman THOMPSON contended that the acceptance b
the Government of the sum of 120,000/. in part ~ Y.
raYment or'
the sum originally proposed to •be paid by the two Companies,
te confirmation of their prgivile e
was a comple _ . s. Ile could have
but little reliance on the professions of those advocates
of free trade, when he saw how • for the
principles differ
d acted when their own interests differently ditty
spoke an 'were concerned.;
and he could not forget the part taken by the
for Weymouth in the last Session,. on the Eon, Member
Bill which was introduced respecting oceasron, of the
the silk trade. He
much doubted whether, if this Bill
not be widely different from that passed, the result, would
ease porters. What had been the e anticipated by its sup
-
several insurance companies were at liairkb"rgh ? in r
'soon
incorporated, and they soon
reduced the number of individual underwriters to five or six,
and then they came ~ to
premiums. He Contended resojution to take all the' same
that the bill wits =necessary, as the
competition at present existing was as extensive and as oper-
ative as in the corn-Market at Mark-lane, or in any other branch