House Of Commons, Monday,...
The Times, 1824-05-18T00:00:00

.J,. q-,-S.tVr I presented a petition fronm the proprietors of the Surrey Canal, praying to be heard by their counsel against the St. Catherine's tdock bill. Mr. Alderman HEYGATE suppsrted the petition, and declared that the bill had commenced (in point of time) writh an infraction of the ruleg of the house. Sir W. DE CRESPIGNY denied any violation of the orders of the house, and thought the measure would be favourable to the comn. meres of the country. Sir I. COFFIN was of the same opinion. Mr. Aldernman TOMPSON said that the persona in the neigh- bourhood of St. Catherine's were favourable to the bill. HIDES AND SKINS. Sir J. GRA1AM1 presented a petition against this bill from the tanners of Carlisle. SOUTH LONDON DOCKS. The Sheriffs Of London appeared with a petition from the city, prayig to be heard by counxel again2t this bill. M7 r. C. SWI1TH said a few tords wicsh did not reach the zallery. Mlr. Alderman HEYGATE crusted that bills of this decrciption, at this Late period of the sesionz, from the magnitude of interests involved,ewould receive the attention of member in general. It woTld he for the honour of Parliar ent that the late precedent of the Tees and Weardale Railway, excludinig memnbers dkrectly intere8t.. edm in private bills from the coinmittees thereon, should be adhered to with relerence to the bills for new docks, &c., now in the house. Iemnsarin th,e bgeofLndo attheseme time to state, that he was lumself;nrerested agaiast tham,,holding property which heposs~esed before they were propesed and which mirht be injured by their adoption;- and he shoul feel it perfectly fair lo he excluded himself from such committees by a rule which wruld do so much credit to Parliament in the eye.s o't he country. AIr. T. WVILSON1 said, that the custom had never been such as the Ilonourable member pointed at. If gentlemen interested ought not to vote for, those whose interests lay the other way ought not to vote aZain3st. Mr.-Alderman WOOD, in his vote, Ilooked to the interests of his constituents. The petition eras referred to the committee on the bill. The Shacriffs of the city of London brought up a petition fromi the Common Counchl praying for Parliamentary reform. Mlr. Alderman VOOD said, that thie petitono had been carried by a great mas3oity of a very full court. By tie arguments of the peutbtoners, the cities of London and Westmiinster, and the borougtt of. Southwark were, he could not Bay misrepresented, buit actua'lv not representea at alL It was impossible, in boroughs of such exteri- sive population, that two members should be able to attend pro- perly even to ll the private business of their constituents. r. Alderman C. SM ITfl asoke altogether inaudlblv. Mr. W. SMIIT H said that he had Aways been on'the side of Parli'amentary reform. ie very well recoUected having given his feeble support to the celebrated petition for Iparliamentary reform brought up in 1792, and in all he had ever heard upon the subject from that up to the present time, he bad never heard the argumeilts of that petidon answerea. It was very truly taid by the present pe. titioncrs, thit the metropolitan boroughs were actually not re- presented in any tolerable proportionl, if the house would but consider for a moment the wealth, population, and intellect com- prised within the walls. The members of those boroughs could not possibly know whom they represented. About 11,000 persons, scat- tered over all parts of the couintny, elected the members for the city ol London, which contained some hundreds of thousAnds. The pos- session of a freehold in any of the country cities gave the owner a vote fbr the city-so it was at Norwicht however. Now, he had held a pretty considerable freehold in the cit of London for neatly half a century, and lie had never been allowed to vote for the city. He hoped that tii& house would listen to the prayer of the petition. l ir. T. WILSON could never promise his support to any mea- sure of Parliamentary retbrm, until brought forward in a tangi- ble shape, by way of complaint against some stated grievance or labuse. lAtler a few words from DIr. Alderman BRIDGES, whicii were in. audible, Sir I. COFFIN said lie thought that the reforn of the petitioners began at the wronig end, thley should first reform themselves. Lord J. RUSSELL rose to state why he liad not brought for- ward the question of reform this session as he hadr dlne last, and as id hadb eteeom him, it was niot because Lie felt less as to yof refrm, bug because the subject had been amply tdiscussed for 'the preaent and tl;e votesof the house being rather ic in this than in any recent sessions, there was less of lie isedia urgency. lie pledged himself to bring it forward early lIn the next session. Sir R. W ILSON supported the petition, because reform was the only security left against bad governmen. 'Til petiton w as orderrd to be printed. AIr. M.a A.TAY .O R presented a petition from the victuallers of Durham against the beer retail bill. AMr. MAkBERl,Y hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in deference to the deep t'eeling of anxiety felt throughout the coun. try upon this subject, would consent to postpone the bill till next session. It would be impossible for members to cone to a right understanding of its iiierits in this sessionr Sir E. KrVArIcHUas'r ilr. DAVENPORT, Mlr. C. CAr.VERT, M rSr. PORT.MAN, Sir iMD\r. Ri.LY, Mr. H. DRumrMogo, Alr. 'EGERTOX., Aidennan WooD, andA Mr. PELHANt, joined in the entreaty tor postponement. The CHAN;CLLOR of the EXCHEQUER proposed toniove the bill into a coniujittee this evening, and to till up the blanks, ih order to its. recommittal on Friday next. Mr. flUMAE blamed the right lion. gent. for havitig placed him- *self in his present perplexing situationi with respect to the bill, by deviating, contrary to his judlment, fiom sound principles. AIr. 1 A BERLY said, that if the right lion. gent. in filling up the blanks, had not relieved the brewers by laying the light duty on malt, he (Mr. Aiaberly) would on Friday move that the report be taken into coasideraistu that day six months. Mlr. Al. A. TAYLOR presented a petition from an attorney oi Cirencester, against the county courts bill. He should not now troublet the house with the statemenits contained in the petition, but - blould follow what he considered the more convenient course, of re. serning them f'or he future discussions of the bill.-Ttie petition waE ordered to be brought up, when ; Alr.l1U.lIfS rose, for thle iurpvose of expressinlg his disapprobation ot the practice adopted by his lion, friend of presenting petitions without staring thieir contents, lie wasi sure that it was not con. sistent with the h utu of members of Parlianient, and wished to see the custom refoun:ad. AMr. *M . A. TA YLOR said he liad been misunderstood if it had beets thought lie wished to prescribe a rule for others. He only ex. press,d his own opiion, which opinion he begged to be allowed still jto retain. He tisought thiat tfie l lore effectual mode of enforcing lpetitions would be to state their contents when the motions or bills to w hich they related should come under discussion. The petition was then read, and ordered to be printed. Mir. DAVENPORT presented a petition front Santdbach against lnegro slavery. hr. EC'RTON presented a petition from Nether Kiiutsford against the hides' regulation bill.-Referred to the comiittee. .Mr. CURIVEN presented a petition froim the brewers of Carlisle against the beer bilL Sin ilar petitions were presented by I,ord EASTNOn., from fHere. fIotd; bv Lord FOLKErSTrX F, from Salisbury; bv Air. R. DRium. m StOND, front Stirling; by Allr. LEYCESTER, from Shaftesbury and by . k.C. DUNDAS, from Neewbury. Sir NICHOLAS COLTHURST presented a petition from the tanners of Cork, praying for the repeal of the leather-tax.-Ordered to lie on the table. Air. LFTTLETTON presented a petition from 360 of the farmers of Staffordshire,against the warehoused wheat bill. Sir JOHN NE WPORT presented a petition from the maltsters of WVextbrd against the malt-tax as it is at present enforced in Ire. land. They prayed to be put on the same footing with the maltstcrs of Eingland, as well with regard to the amount of the tax as to the manner of itr collection. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER agreed that the practices in England anti in Ireland ought to be assimilated. His attention had been directed to the subject of the duty paid on the li. cences of the Irish maltsters, which he thoughtalso should be put on the same footing as those of England. .1ir. C. HUTCHINSON said a few words in support of the pet tition. M;r. WALLACE begged to inform the right honourablebaronet and the house, that the report of a comnittee in which the subject of the petition was embraced, would ir, a few days be laid on the ta. ble, when an opportunity would be offered for legislating on certain grotinds. Sir J. NEW'PORT hoped that otlier subjects which had been mentioned would give place to this, which surpassed them all in imPortance. Air. CAREiv and illr. I,ESLtE FoRSTEsR each said a few words in support of the petition, after which it was ordered to be printed. Sir J. NE WPORT presented a petition front the nobility,gentry, and inhabitants of the county of Kilkenny, praying for the repeal of the tithe composition act, passed in the last session. ilr. AGAK E LLLIS supported the petition, which was ordered to be printed. MIr. GRATTAN presented a petition from certain stationers of Dublin, complaining of the manner in which seizures had been made of their stock by excise officers. Alr. r. LEWVIS said, tha occurrence of which the petitioneis complained had arisen out of their own neglect. Two methods of returning the duty were prescribed by the act of Parliament, and these persons had only complied with one of them. -Mr. L. FORSTER saidithat very extensive frauds had been com- oiltted on the excise in Dablin, with respect to the duty on paper. After the seizures alluded to were made, the commissioners return. l ed the paper so seized to all those persons who could satisfy them |tht they had not been parties to the frauds and where that was not qulite clear the parties had their remedy by action.-The petition was ordered to be printed. I Atr. GRATTAN presented a pedtion from tbie inhabitants of I Dublin, against the actual regulations of the coal trade. Alr. S. WORT'rLEY preted petitioni from the butchers of Hudder sfield, WVakefield, a.1 York, in favour of the hides' regula. tion bill.-Referretl to the ctssmittee. On the lion. Member's motion, certain returns were ordered of the quantity of tobacco manufactured in England in trie year 1823. *Ilr. C. HUTCHINSON presented a petution frou3 certain per. | sons calling themselves Separatists, residing in Cork, praying to be relieved from the necessity of taking oaths. Mr. CURTE1ISpresentedapetition fromtheinnkeepersofBramss- )den, against excise licences. Lord h ILTO N pr&senlted a petition fromrthe taviners of Sheffield, against the hides and skins bill. A AtE:StsEnR presented apetition tromcertain inhabitantsof W1'ex. ford, against the warehoused wheat bill. The report on the customs (coals and linen) bill was brought up, and the bill .vas ordered to be read at third time to-morrow. The report on the 4 per cenits, repayment bill was broughit up, and the biB was ordered to be readsa third time on Thursday. Tite report On the conisolidated lfund bill was brought up, and the bill was ordered to be readsa third time to.n,,orr. TIlE MAURITIUS. iOn the order of the day tbr teceiving the report on tite customs aind excise acts being read, Mr. H USKISSON rose to state to the hlouie the alteration which had been piroposed in the committee whose report they were. now abou*o receiye,of the isis- whichi at present existed respecting theim- irrPOrtation of'sugar from M auritius. Under the law as it atipresent stood, all sugar imported from the Aiauritius paid the same duty as sugar imported from the East Inrdies. The resolution whichl would be reportedL to the house provided, that in futuire sugar tin orted from the A1lauriitius should pay no higher duty than that whicls was imPOrted from the WVest Indi'a islands. The circumstances whichl regulated the amnount of duity paid on the importation of suga fro I the BitishWest ndia olonis aplied with equal force to tealso ritius. Th e sugar in that isla Alauritius) was cultivated by slaves, and at an exrense aoite sq e-At 2o 4... ...L:. attenaeLi its cultivation in thc WYestIndies. But in addition to these gooi rcasons for making the proposed change, there was another wvhich would render it necessary, supposing the formcr did not exist at all. At the time the Mauritius was ceded to his lI{ajesty, it was stipulated that it shonld bc treated in the same manner as his illjesty's most favoured colonies. The enly argument which could wI'h any showof fairness be adduced against the change proposed, was that the restrictions wbich existed agMnst the importation of fresh sLaves into the West India islands did not extend to the Mauritius. That was true; but it was well known that the measures which bad been taken by his Majaestt's Government ren- dered the introduction of new slaves into the atauritius impossible. He had thought it right to state these circumstances, lest ic might be said that the alteration which was intended was proposed upon sub. stantial grounds. (Hear.) The report of thecommittee, containing the resolution to the effect stated by Mr. IltsKxtssox vas then read, and agreed to. The house resolved itself into a committee on the Chelsea and Greenvich bospital bill. Some verbal amendments were agreed to the house resumed, and the report was ordered to be received to-morrow. The beer duties bill passed through a committee, and the report was ordered to be taken into consideration on Friday. On the order of theday being read for the house to resolve itself into a committee on some bill relative to lreland (wre believe the *towin:r crons bill). Lord ALTHORP moved that the house should resolve itself into the committee on this day six months. He made that motion for this reason-a committee was now sitting, which, he thought, vas likely, from ther manner in which they bad commenced their la. bours, to inquire full into aU the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland. We therefore thought it expedient to wait un-il that committee made their report, be fore he _proceeded further with the bill before the house.-.The motion was then agreed to. LAW OF PRINCIPAtL AND FACTOR. The order of the day being read for the house.-to resolvo itself into a committee on the merchant law amendment bill, blr. ROBERTSON expressed his disapprobation of the measure, on the ground that it was calculated to prove injurious to the ware- housing system of the country, by driving foreign commerce from our shores. iMlr. HUSKISSON said, that possibly the house might be of opinion that somse apology was due from him for not having taken an earlier oortunity of explaining the princples of the bill which bad -alled forth the animadversions of the hon. member who had pre. eded him. Ife would, however, at once proceed to state the nature oftthe Ifeasu] and the circumstapce under which it had been InltrOduced. 'Le honourable member htd describedI the bill as being: caleCtied to riiure the warehousing system ofthis.cousntry. If the .natureef theb)1 jul;iffed such adescription, it would not have had his (DlIr. Jiusl4ss's) counteRance and s6upport. Ile considered the bill as a m..Sure which materially afFected the principles of our commercial las-and consequently as one of considerable hbupoctance. Thlt- house wokd recollect, that at a late period of the last session of Parliament. a intnuittee was appointee to inquire into the state of that -part of thdpommercial law to which the present billaple. That committe did not niake their report until the 13th of June las. Te epo ntained much legal technicality, and a great deal of valuable pritical information on the subject of trade. It could not be exlccted that at that period of the session the house eould legislate eqnpletely on a subject of suchi an extensive nature. Hie thierefore infodiured a short bill to remedy the most pressing Dirt of the evil wrhic'h was pointed out by the report, reserving to himself the privlege of considering the whole question during the recess. rf thie q!estion had been one of merely a practical nature, lf~ would not ha%- undertaken to bring it before the house; but it .appeared to hiinato be not a question of dry law, or of practical commercial expeience,butoneof general commercial policy. As the law at present staid, whatevermightbe thierelationas thichexisted be- tween aprincipal Ehidhis agenit,betwecn aimerchant andhilsf'actor, the latter was boundstjictly to observe thesii; and if he failed to do so by exceeding the poy,ers whiceh were intruisted to himn, he was liable to be punished. 12tit that was not at present the question;' The quesition was, nio: what should be done with the unfaithfuil agent. but whether a tl-ird party, who, ignorant of the character of the agent, mnight purclsse from him property which hadl beeni consigned to himi as factor,sliould suffr instead of the agent or principal. Whien n princi~al accompanied the transmission of property to his agent with such symbols of possession as would nas. turally induce a third party to suppose that the agent was the bonal Idc! owner of thie property, it was extremely hard that he (tie third party) in thie event of a4vanicing mo- ney uponi tile pr-operty, sho0a2 be the loser. The breach of trust onl thie partof the agent was a matter between him and his principal, and outht not to affct the innocent third party. W~hiat did thie principal o ? Ile selected hiis atgent, and gave himi the power of manifesting to a third party that he was thie owner of thie property which was consigned to hira, It was an old miaxim of thle law, which he liad no wish to disturb further than the necessity of the case and the interests ot commnerce re. quired, that possessgion- alonie with respect te chattels was no evidence of title. That principle might accommiiodate itself to cons- mercial transactions in the early stages of society, when there was little credit, avid dealings were inade in open mairket; but it was productive of great inconvenience at the present day, when almost all dealings wvere cirried oni by credit. To illustrate what hie mneant, he would suppose that a merchanit In Ireland sent some butter 'bAcon, or pthi6r prodIuct of' that country to his agenit in Engiand to be disposed of' in the English mrira&t. He would send the go,s, to -this counitry withiott a bill of' lading. Now 1t was in the- powver of the consignor to minitute Ehe bill at' laDing, so as to prevent`the consignee fromi having any power over the goods except wlhat the formier chose to give Iiim. .(gear.) B at if ttise consignor chose voluntarily to give thie consignet suchi an uncontrolled power as would lead a third party to Stippose that hie was the ownier of the goods, and not the agent ?ar their disposal. was it not,just that lie, and not the innocent third party, shiould su.b for his negligence or fraud?e (Hear.) It' the honourable mnem-ber (Mr. Robertson) knew the manay cases of hiardiship whiceh had occurred of late veare in consequence of the present state of the law, he would not entertain the opiniion, thiat a change of that lawr would have the effect of driving foreign com- nserce frons the Englisli ports.' It happened recently, that an. in- dividual in tjse city of London boughit a 4uantity of seed, for "Which lie paid. He, however, asked thie seller to allow the seed to remain in his warehouse unitil the price should rise, when he ini- tended to sell. IThe sellercosisenred. In 3 or4 snnriazliafterivards, the expected rise in price not litaving Laken place, the purchaser caine to the seller, anid stating that he ihd nut wish tu dispose of the seed at that tiine, askedhim to advance himu 2,10031. upon it. The seller kniow- "Inthat the seed hiad never been out of hiis own possiession since he lied, sod it, anti that it was worth considerably iiore than 2,00i)l., advanced the sumn reqtilred. Shortly, after this tranisaction, the pur- cha-ser became a bankrupt; anid theni a third party froim Antwerp matte hiis appe-arance, and stated that the purchanser of the seed was factor to himn, and bad no authtloritY to raise money upon it. Under the-se circumstances, the seller was obliged to give up the seed, andI to lose his 2,0001. (Hear, hear.) lfe asked thehon. member whe~ they he thought dije interests of commierce were advanced bya systemi of law under which such a transaction as that which he had stated couild take place. ? (Hear.) It was in tIme power of every principal to guard against the miisconduct of his agent, but it was not in the power of arhtird patty to do so. The bill before the house provided a severe punishment against the agent who should be guilty of a breach oftruist. The rightshon,.gentleman concludedby statin'gthas he considered the present bill as holding forth a temnptation tothie rising states of the new world to make England the depository of their commerce. Sir J. NEWVPORT thought that she house and the country ought to be thankful to the right honi. gentleman for the introduction of thie bill. Mlr. SYKES said, that the lion, gentleman (Mfr. Robertsont) seemed to have been much mnisinformed respecting the nature of this bill-it conferred no new power, and gave no new privilege to the consignors of goods. The plain state of' the case was this :-There wvas a consignor wlho gave his goodsi to a consignee, who sold theni to att~art inthe market; sard that third party became~ repalin. sible for ny defanl of the consigniee to'his employer, with w amn he had had no conference whatev'er in the business. Surely thte loss, if any liability to los occurred in consequence of the default or in. solvncy of te cnsigee, ughtto alen the consignor, who in- trutedhi godsto un an nt o te tir patywho was the mer puchaer n te mrke,an wh ha pad fr tensin the wav of tade He as lad o se abillintoducd wichwas calcuslate'd The SLICIOR4)NERALalsosupprtedthe bill. He touglht that the conigo wh ol ua nay manner he thtight proper his own w4ndaaturn, and prtc hmeffrom his con- sge,ogtso be responsible for the acts of the latter, and not a thid prty buinganid paying fairly in the market. Mr. . SM Eflsaid, that when thie question was tirst introduced it was very intriae but the right hon. gentlemian opposite (Mr. Iluskisson) had gvnhis best attentionDto the subject, and obviated the diffcultieswhc had obstructed its comprehension, No agent ought to have any other title to goods than what the owner thought proper to invest him wish5s and this bill was calculated to set the question at rest. What could be more unjust than thie old plan- which was, that if a mani wanted 100 tons of hemp, and went to a beaker who thought proper to sell for 38s. a ton whiat he was orderedi by his prinicipal not to sell under 40s., in suchi a case the sale was to be null and void ; and thotugh that hemip was sold ten tiines over by, the buyer (which was oftein the case), still the miisconduct of the originial agent vitiated throughout all the subsequenit salest, and thti purchasers might berzuined whiils%t dealing, so far as they were con. cernied faIrly and openly in the market 1' He thaniked the righi hlitonourble genitleman for a bill which went to remiedy so much injusice. The bill was then commtiitted, the house resumiedl, and time report was ordered to be received to-morrow. WVARIiHOUSED WHiEAT BILL. Mr. HUJSKISSON muoved the second reading of the warehoused wheat bill. Mr. HANDLE'S' said, that however benieficial this bill mighit be tothe giht hon. gentleman's constituents at Liverpool, still he was informew by the m-iost cotmpetentjudges that its efbect would bee very different on the general interest of the agriculture of this country, tor that it would hold out an encouragemient to foreign counatries to de- luge the Britisht snarket with their cornl. Entertaining this opinion, he should move as an amendment, that the bill be read a second rime that day six months. 31r. DEN IS BROWNE said, that consideritig the particular in- teretsts of Ireland, ansi general interest of Great Britain, lie would second the amendment. -Mr. THOMAS WiILSON said, that he was rather disposed to promote the principle of the blil, ifthtte right hon. gentiemnan would consent in tibe committee to discuss the last clause first-he ailsided Ito that clause which regulated that there should be 1961b. of flour Ifor every 5 bushels of wheat. He wished in the first instance to hav tht caue popelyexplained, and to ascertain how it would appy t th ol an nwbweat in bond. AIr. HSKISSN said that he must without fLurther delay, re- Ipel the ungrouinded insinuation, that he bisought in this bill to suit any views of Isis 'c6nstdtuenta in L~iverpool. Hie would fearlessly ttethtso long asi he had the hionottr of filling an office under the I rw,eshould feel lte had been guilty of a dereliction of his ditty, Iif h counitenanced any mea~sure for -the benefit of his constituent.s, Iwhih could in the smnallestdegree inilisate against the general interests of thtecountry. (Louderies of "hear ") It wvas notin deference to his constituents that lie brought forwar this measutre, but wvithout thieir knowledlge when he introduced it, and at the surestion of others. (Hear, hear.) The history of his Ileasure was this-he had given nottice, and pleded himself to bring in the bill, before he had heard one wordI from Lviverpooa one-way or another. During dlie course of the last winter, he saa received numerous communications, not one of them frocts Ublrpol.-but mnany from Londori, stating that 'there weie great inuportations.eif flour f'rom Hamburgh and Dantaic, to be sent fro'm thhis coun.try to the lVest Indies. The parties who had sehl him these -rer etarn were not corn-dealers of any, slc- scription.-.they were chi,efly lVesntslwndia merchants. On his retrni to town, he insmotuted an. inquiiry, and found the fact as it had been first represented to h'dms a,wA hie .%ertainoMh a- Aes, ,ett- 1-~ -. klic n -o matCn, tnat tiere were tnen 14,UUU barrels of four in Liverpool, and about 8,00 barrels in London, whic had been recently imported from Dantsic and Hamburgh. The circumstance which led to this speculation was the difficulty which occurred in arranging and securing the supply of flour from America, for the British Wi'est India colonies. ' he subject being once started, It naturaUy led to the consideration of the state and condition of the latge quantity of foreign wfieatj *hich was for years locked up under bond in this vountry, and a good deal of it in a perishable state. In the view which he took, he saw on the one hand, that tllere were colonies dependent upon Great Britain for their supply of flour, and that it would be wise to allow some por- tion of that large British capital to get vent which was locked up in foreign wheat, nierely for the purpose of having it But into a state fit to be transshipped for colonial use. As the law stood this foreign corn was exportable as corn, but not as flour.NVhat was t'ere unfaur or rather was it not perfectly fair to permit that to be sent as flour w1iich could go as com ?-in fact, so far and for that specific purpose to make that which was technicaUy unexportablc, legally exportable. Did the house think that when sucl a considera- t0n arose, it was fair to overlook the fact, that from one million and a half to two millions of British capital was locked up in this warehoused foreign corn, and some of it perishable ? Was that to be a matter: of indifference to the country ? Did not the productive capital of individuals constitute the wealth of a state, and ought it not to have fair play when such a case arose as he had mentioned ? (Hear, hear.) Besides, seethe extent of rigour which they were inflicting, if they were to act up to the law inexo- rably, aml permit this corn to decay in stores, when aportion of it could get vent in a foreign market. As the law stood, tbis corn must Perish in store: it was not con'tertible, when it approached putridity, into mnanure, or food for any kind of cattle. A remark- able instance of that occurred not long ago. There was a calami- tous fire which consumed exte3sive stores in Liverpool-: in the pro- perty so destroyed,there was a quantityof wheat: still the consumed and deteriorated p articles were capable of being converted into manure and food for swine, but to no purpose-the law as it steod disallowed that convertibility. But all that he proposed to effect by this bill was merely to allow so much foreign wheat to be taken o f the granaries and converted into flour, to meet the immediate colonial consumption. He meant no interference whatever with the corn laws, nor had he the slightest in- tention, as had been insinuated7 of holdingeut any encoaragement to foreign growers to deluge this country with their produce. With respect to tne quantitv of flou(of . d corn,we understood) which was made fromn the bushel of corn; he bad yielded to the suggestion, not .f friends in Liverpoo}, fQr he bad previously Written totlbem differ. :it!g, in answer to questions about the bill of which they had sqen,v se nad given notice; he had yielded to the suggestion of the bon. l ssember for C'imberlaald (Nr.Curwen), that the barrel,pf flour should De six bushels, and not five, whichhe had first intended: thia was to aleet the -condition of thc old corn which was gradliaUy decaying. tt was very singular that this alarm should have been stdaenly :reated about the effect of this bill upon the home,market, when merely some bran could alone find its way there fromi the operation of his bill. A month ago, some of the verv same gentlemen enter- tained no apprehension from opening the ports and letting the corn itself out of the warehouses. (Hear,ihear.) le vwould ask, respect- ing the general markets, who could, in this iionth of Alay, antici- pate what wrould be the state of the coming harvest ? The present average price of cocn was fBs. (Cries of "no," and of" i63s.") He vould repeat the price was as he had quoted it, from the avera,re mnade up yesterday of the last wi eek's sales. Were tltey quite confi- dent, that between this time and the 15th of August the average might not rise to 70t., and then they w,ould have the market open, and on the eve of their own harvest market, to 440,000 quarters of fo- reign corn? Why, then, all this bugbear about the operation of the present bill, which yva simply and strictlv wvlathe hlid stated it to be. The result of it would be--a fearful result he allowed, if it were likely to produce the consequences whch nsome gentlemen seemned to apprenend-the result of it would be to throw some eight or ten thousand quarters of bran into the market; but surely so small a quantity as that could never injure the oat-trade of Ireland; The consumption of oats in EGngland amounted annually to 3(i,1)00,000 quarters. We were at this nmonment allowing the importa;ton of a certain species of foreign oats, which were useful in the fattening of cattle. Under such circumstances, could the landed interest be reasonably afraid of being injured by such a further supplyas would come into this contnry by a bill that mate oats once imsported into it exportable from it? By acceding to his measure, the country gentlemen would be at once consulting their own interest and giving a fresh stimulus to native industry. ''he tubs, hoops, &c., in whichDantsic flourcaime fromDsr-tsic,were form'edin thatcountry, and gav enmployment t* a vast number of industrious mechanics. If we allowed foreign corn to be ground in tits country, and af er- wards exported from it, the tubs which containedl it must be formed of staves taken from the demesnes of' English gentlemnen, and wrouglit nto shape by the industry of their tenantry. He did nct see any reason why,with our extensive colonial connexion, we should not appropriate to ourselves that trade whicil was at present carried on very lucratively by foreigners, and in which lie had no doubt we shiould soon acquire that superiority over them which we ivere now enjoyingin every other bratnch uf co nmerce. Hots. gentlemen on the I otlier side asked hinm " What security was there that this flour would not get into home consumption ?" He wouldl reply to this question by asking theiu another-" What secarity had they that Dantsic flour, or that bonded wheat, did not at this moment get into the home market ?" The onily security which they bad was the vigilance of the officers; and tie left it to the house to decide, whether it was liLely to be iticreased or diminished by the regula- I tions which he was now proposinig. Indeed, he was much surprised that gentlemen should be so nsuchi alarmed as they appeared to be regarding the effects of this bill. For his own pars, he considered it to be of imuportatnce onlyas a conimiercial measure, and was almost ashamned of having said so much to prove that it was perfectly tin- i ortait to tlie 13nded interest. (13ear. hear.) Ihr. I.ESLIE FORSTER agreed with hi. right hots. friend as to the princitle of this bill, but was ohliged to differ from him in somise ofitsdetails. Hewastheretbre in somedifficulty as tothe coursewhich a he should parsue. He did not like to oppose the second reading of the bill; but lie liad certain objections to it, which he must press if they were not obviated in theconimittee. lie wished, at any rate, that this new trahe.sAhould he founded upon correct pliinciples. because he considered it to be one which, in timne of plenty, could be sroductive of no hanm, and whiLh in tinme of dearth. might be pro uctive of the greatesi advantage. .Mr. HUSKISSON, in reply to a questions of an hon. member across the table, observed, that he intended to confine the operation of his hill to the corn that wvas bonded previeusly to the last act. Sir B. KNATCIllUWL, suggested to the hon. mover of the aimendment to withdraw it. Sir J. SEBRifGIT said, that after tie very satisfactory explaisa- tion whiicbl had been given by the right hon. g-ntleman opposite, it did not appear to hins that this bill could be in any respect injurious to the agricultural interest. As a commercial bill, itappesred to be foundedl upon time soundest principles of legislation, and he should therefore give it tin ommnosinon whatever. Ilr. LOCK1HA.RT1 gave notiee. tiat he woihli oppose the very first step which the right lion. gent. might take to alter thse present state of the law upon this subject. The defence whicii the right hon. gentleman had set up lor his bill was founded upon a very errone- ous aupposition. lie called on the house to agree to it, because it would liberate 2.000,000 of British capital. But what guarantee was there that the capital invested in foreign corn was British capital? He thought it likely to be the reverse. If this bill passed, the secu- rity of the cultivator would be greatlv deteriorated ; and, what was scarcely less tolerable, lie would have no confidence in asy future measure whichi the legislature might adopt in his favour. Mr. W'ODBHlOUSEsaidhfeshould offer no opposition to the bill. As his rightlion. friend had advertedito the necessity of makirg some alteration in the corn laws, he felt it his duty, stan in i he sittia- tion which he did, to make one or two observations on the subject. There was no subject on which the speculations of Government, of th^ir friends, aud of their opponents, had proved so enonnously erronoous. He cauitioned hon. gentlenien to recollect that fact before they legislated again-to take iothing in their new speculationsupon trust-but to deliberate well atid cautiously before they fornietI atny conclusions on the subject again. (Hear, hear.) AIr. CRIPPS was fbr going into a committee upon this bil at all events. He had'alwavs said that the warehoused corn was a mill- stone round the neck of the agriculturists; and he believed tha. thev would be in continual doubt and apprehension until it was in some wav or other removed froin the country. Colonel WOOl) opposed the bill. At any rate, he thought ic ought to be postponed til they knew the condition of the next liar- vest. Thongh the price of corn was higher at present than it had been for some time past, he was of opinion that the capital of the British farmer was still in a very poor condition. No measure was so well calculated to deteriorate it still more than the designa wlhicb the right honourable gentleman seemed to entertain of breakiog down the present system of corn laws. Mtlr. HUSKISSON trusted that the house, in consideration of the public situation which lie filled, would allow him to say a few wordsin answer to the insinuation whicih had been throwli out re- specting his having a design to do away with the present corn laws. He had never expressed his disapprobation of the whole system of corn laws, but only of that part of it which caused the ports to open or shut on a system of averages taken quarterly, in which the frac. tion of a shilling might make a weighty difference. He had never said that he wisheI to have the whole system of the corn laws al- tered. L.ord A LTHORP coisceived this bill to be a matter of indihler- ence so far as the landedt interest was concerned; and he conceived so. because if there was a bad harvest, the ports would shortlv af- terwards become open, and the 400,000 quarters now in scare- house would be lost in the great itiflusx of corn which would then conic into the country. WVith respect to the corn laws, he had no hesitation in repeating what lie had frequently said whilst tliey were under discussion in the house-that the present sys- tem of averages, with exclusion at one monient, and exportation at another, was the best receipt for causing the greatest possible fluc- tuaton in rices. MI r.BRI GHT conitenided. that this bill was not in violation of the principle of the corn laws. He Ioped tliat lte right honourable gen- tleman would persevere in it, as he thought it was likely at no very distant tinme to render this country the granary of the world. He thought that the bzll would have been much more serviceable if the right lion. gent. iad not yielded to the solicitations of his friends in reducing the proptosition frons six bushiels to five. SirJ. TEWPORT expressed liis intettion of not pressing his oppositiot tO t tis measure. Mr. C. PELHA fM addresseul the lhouse in a voice totally inaudible in the gallery. MT. SYKES hiJhlY approved oft he right lion. gentleman's plan, so far as it was proposed to affect the corn bonded prior to 1822. The damnage accruing to corn which remained long in warehouses was a loss to commerce, and of course to thk civilized world. His onlh' objection tO the plan was, that it did not seem sufficiently extensive; but, as far as it went, he highly approved of it; and trusted that no oppositionwonld deterthe right hon. gentleman from proceeding with hispDlan. Sir F.B3URDETT thought the agriculturistswokcavery mistaken view of their interests. He could have v.wished that the right lion. gentlemnan would have taken the trouble of explairung a little more atlargeto the cor-growers and ngriculturists of England how much they wvere in error. If any trade should be left free, it was that of corn. It must indeed seem attante, at first sight, to find a legislature devisitig means to abridge the supply of corn. The fact was, that the more corn there was imported, the greater would be the deniand for mianufactures; and, ii pro- portion to the call for manufactures, would be that for the natural produce of the country ultimately; so that there was very little ground indeed for thse jealousy which appeared to be en- | tertained of foreign corn. A free and unshackled trade in corn would be of more advantage to the country than almost any other measure, in enrbling her to get rid of those fetters which even now too effectually prevented the extension of free trade. They talked about free trade a good deal, but there was hardly anyn free irade in the whole kingdom. He (Sir Francis Burdett) did not complain that the measure touclhed too nearly the corn laws, but that they did not go far enough in that respect. He hoped the right honotur- able geutleman would bring forward a more extensive measure; for none cou(il oe more aeserving Ut Lme pa=runage o! kxovcrnment, or: more likely to produce effective beniefit to the country. Air. HALDIMAND withdrew his amtendment, and the bill was then read a second time, and committed for Friday next. COUNTY COURTS BILLb. Lord A LiT IORP moved thc further consideration of the report on the county courts bill. The motion being ageed to, Ar. WARRE brought up the Teport. M1r. SCARIiETT, at a tuture dime, would oppose the whole biU ijt toto," on acceunt of its departure from its original principle, which vested the appointment of judicial assessors of counties in the Lords Lieutenants of counties, whens first introduced by his noble friend; but whicl appointments it had beer. subsequently proposed to vest in the Lord Chancellor. Mr. BRIGIIT suggested, that as .he claims for compens3tion were perpetually increasing on account of old offices, it would be well to provide that offices under this bill, if abolished hereatter, should not entitle their holders to compenisation. The report was then agreed to; and the biU was ordered to be read a third time on Wednesday next. WELCH JUDGES. On the question that the house resolve itself into a committee on this bill, MIr. ALLEN rose, and pointed out several objectionable provi- sions in the bill. The SPEAKER then left the chair, and the 'Din we4t through a committee.-Report to-morrow. The repertof the pauper lunatics' bill was agreed to.-To be read a third time to-morrow. The report of the assize of bread bill was agreed to.-.To be read a third tine on Thursdav. INSURANCE COMPANIES. AIr. F. BUXTON rose, in pursnance of notice, to move fer leave to bring in a bill " to repeal so much of the act of the 0th of Geo. I., cap. 18., as restricts partnerships anti societies fron insuring slips and goods, and from lending money upon bottomry.' Alderman THOMPSON requested his honourable iriend not to intzroduce the measure at so late an hour (eleven o'clock), anti in so thin a hous.e. Mllr. F. BUXTON said, he could not consent to postpone his motion.* but if he were allowed to bring the bill in to-night, he would flit any day that was con'eieat tin this or the next week, for the purpose Of debating it. Mr. *RE:NFEIJL expressed himself hostile to tbe mncasure. It was levelled~ aganst corporations, who had paid a valuable consider- .,tjon for those right.. which it was the object of this bill totake from Mr. BXTONas.i, hewoul shOtl dscrie at vhese Iaoua iot go where hie pleased to effect that insurance, buat was reduced ~t' tI hie law to app~ly to one of two chartered companieS. Now, he _oth isk bis hon. friend (Mr. Grenfel!) what good reasoncol beadnla Is support of this restriction ? 'What 'reasonk could be given for d0et Bning insutrances to one of two chartered companlies, or to cer ae individuals at Lloyd's;, hile every other Species of trade was IUea lucted by firms, what reaon, hie demanded, could he advan rrippling nmarine insurances by this restriction ? (Hjear.) Hejglft insure his life orhis hioLse where he pleased- t ih nsr s ship, while building, or when in port, wvherever he itioght fit-_b,'i, when she proceeded to sea,when the risk was greatest, then, and thtch DnlVY7 he was compelled to seek, that insurance whlich perbaps I considered the least eligible. This sysem was oroductive OF vethcer g~reat expense. Suppose a meirchanit at Hull wvishle to, insure a valuet a be cargo; he appliel to a London asitorney", at considerable expes to effect that insurance, and the latter in his turn miade aPnhicatioed to an inisurance broker, at a charge of 25 per cent. on the insurandezes Perlhaps ap'plication was made where he could nuot effect the polic,the and le wasnultiimatelyoibliged Ito go to Lloyd's coffee..house wher,afc9A some difficulty, thepolicy was signed by 25 or 80Persons. Supposof the vessel was lost; when the owner demanded the fulfilhetu Cot the po'lcy, he probably found that some of the underwriters wer Of dad an_ewa bied to etuploy an attorney t eteted ina.O perhaps h'e wa.nom ta some Of the p)arties wer'e- bankrupt here again he was compelled to aPPly to an sttorney, teer arrange the matter withi tite assignees. If neithier of those rc e stances occurred, he might meet with some of the unoderwriters whi were litigious, and in that case he was plunged into a law-suit. ne the present system,then,the merchant had to cntendagaistlwtrMy charges, agents' cbarges, andbrokcrs' chaTges; whereas, if tberestric-d tion were removed, all this expense and incon'.enience would be reIe moved with it. (ffear.) If thin Huill or London merchants were alOT. ed to formi companies for the pu-pose of insurance, they %ould, in thn event of a vessel being lost, be relieved from these great legal diffi., culties, and that weight of expense, to whiich a man was necets%W3i. exposed,when he lhad to settle an account with eXecutors orsasi gnees He knew that acoimpany might fail as well asindividitals; biut he feir that it wasan occurrence far less likely to takeplace. (Hear.) if if- were necessairy, he could eatbli, ii by the clearest evidence, everyr one of the difficulties he had described-every one of the posila tions lie liad laid down :and lie was quite sure, that, by netting- Tid of delays and litigation-by getting rid of agents' enhargea~ and of lawv expenses, they would open a new and extensivefield'. for commrerce in this country. (Hear.) There was one other point4 whichd he wishied to press on the house at this momuent,-namely,. that the efiect of this mecasure would be to bring into this country a- vast numnber of foreign insurances. There wvere at present somne fo-9 reign insurntrces effected in this country, but not near so many as.' would be eli'ected if the restriction were remroved. The great mer-' cantile houses in England were perf'ectly well kniown on the Conti-! nent ; but that was not the case with tlose persons by wh~ the in.1 surance business was carried on axwd the foreign imerchan t~orse, did not like to trust to the respoiisihility of 20 or 30 indiviuaswho were not known : but it wouldi be an inducetnent flbr him to bring his poIicy here, if he were assutredof the respectability of thesecurity of- fered. Histhonoumable frien-d (M)r. Grenfeilihad touched on ce .topic whichi it woultd he improper for himi (Mr. Buxton) to omiit. Hils lionourable frieiid said, these wvere chartered companies, and pos- sessed rights for which they had paid, and of which they oughit not to be deprived. Now he would sutt'e to the house how thesr chiarters were obtained. In 1720, thie civil list was considernbly in arrear, aind it wams necessary to obtain a suipply of money. The Allinisserof that dlay foundic it imipossible us tax the counitry fistEher; and i-n this state of' things, the comnanies to which alluision had bern made caime forward with ani ofter of 1301,OOOL, and in consequence ob- tained those chartersi. Hfe must observe, that in the firsit place, thev obtained thiem unider f'alse pretences. It was, stated in the pre. amble of the bill, that those companies were necessary to prom .ote the trade of the country; and that therefore Parliament granted themn certain imimuniities. Now it would be seen that they had siot promoted, but thaut they hdiurd, the trade of the country. l1ila honour.ib!e friend said tiy a a righlt to hiold those privileges, becauise they hiad bogt theircarters. How, then, stood the fact ? They had agedt pay 300,0001. a-piecc, and it was agreed thishat if, in the course of 1years, notice to that effect was g iven, thoe carters3 miight be revokedI on the money being paid by the country but that if thiee continued beyond 31 years, the money was not to he refunded. ' He demande whether those companies had enjoyedt their stipulated 31 years ? They had enijoyed their pri'. vileges f6r 104 years. (Hlear, lhear.) The next questionr was, had they paid the amountibargained for? No; theY had not. Theyvhad paid 11 1,0001. instead of 300,0001. a piece. Having onlv paidf one- third of what tleyrcovenanted for, and having enjoyed their pri- vileges for more than three timies the length of the period mentioned, he did not think they, hiad quite so strong a claimu as his hon. fniend seemied to suppose. (Hear.) This bill, he contended., would be productive of grea advantage, not to particular persons or to par- ticular branches of trade, but, to the general commerce of the coun- try, and therefore he should move for leave to brig it in. llPLM-)ER opposed theimotion. The hon. gentleman had ,obs-erved ihat the privileges granted to those companies were confined to 31 years,and that they'were then liable to be revoked. But he be- lieved thje fact was, that the grants were in perpetual siuccession, and subject to redemnption. They could not be interfered with, unless the King in council notified that some inconvenience arose fronm themn. In that case thie grants might be repealed but it wKas provided in that event that no siminlar privilege should be giveni to any other party. The honoutable gen-leman was also In error with respect to the sum of money advanced.. He (M1r. Plummer) wvould take the liberty of stating, that those'twvo companies. paid the large sum of 1 50,0001. each, which was all that was required. lThey were originally asked for 300,00U1. each ; but, by the act of th G overnment, the rest was remitted. Unless it was shown that these charters were injurious to the commerce of the k-ingdlom, there was, he mraintained, no ground advaced for taking them away. To remove themn would be. hin fact, to interfere with private rights. It was stated, that parties wishing to effect insur- ances were not at liberty to go where they'pleased. But what bad consequences had reulted from this? He would ask- of the house, whether it was not perfectly easy to effect in- surancesi either at Lloyd's coffee-house, or at the office of those companies ? Such a 'measure as that now proposed would destroy Lloyd's coffe-house; and theref'ore he would meet it with f li most effectual opposition in his pow,er. He believed insurancesxwere effected there at a much lower rate than at any other place, andt those who went there would find the most ample aCCOMModation for every species of insuraLnce. It was not now a question whether it was right or wrong to grant those charters. They were in existence, and they couild not, without injustice, be abro- gated, uniless it was shown that they operated prejudicially to the commerce of the counitry. Other companies, such as the Bank, and the East India Compay, hati also paidl for their pri'vi- leges; but, he contended, that the two insurance companies stood in a very ditferent situation, and could noit, consistently with justice, be meddled with. Until a proper ease was made out against them. he hioped the justice of the house would interpose to prevent this nieasure from being carried into effect. Alderman THOMPSON said, the lton. mover had cormpained. that this was a monopoly, and that both at these insurance compa.. nies' offices, and at Lloyd's coffee-house, great difficulty, existed in effecting insurances, and inrecovering the sums underwritten. But ac- cording to the report of a comniittee of that house, in 1810, it appeared that no less than 681,8001. was insured on one ship ac Llod's cof- fee-house, and that, too, at a very moderate and fair rate. The num- ber of personsatlJoyd3's who were connected with marine 'msurances was no fewer than 1,500, and he believed the amount of' property insured there was not less than 200,00l0,000l. They had a-gents in every part of the world, fromn whomc they received imiportant com- mercial intelligence, which they ,published to all. Now, if the businesst of insurance we-re thrown into the hands of a few corporate bodlies, would it not be their object to get the larget premiutm possible and, in pursuance of that object, would theY not endeavour to conceal all infonnation ? The security would not be near so goodI as att present, since each shareholder woutld only be responsible for thaa amiount of his subscrip- tion. If there were a petition from the merchants of London in fas- iYour of such a measRure, that would be some reason for introducing it : but thar not beinig tae case, the measuire being uncalled for, and one which, in liia opinion, was likely so be prejudicial to the commerce of the country, he certainly should resist it. Mr. HIUSKISSON regretted chat the hon. gentleman had brought forward his motion in the absence of the Chancelor of the Exchnequer. His right hon. friend had ftrsnerly, it 'was tr-ue, record- ed hiis opinion, that this monopoly ought not to be continued ; but still it was proper thaLt he should bear every objection whirls gentlemuen urged against the measure. The twb companies in ques- tion were founded on this principle, as stated in Ithe preamble of the acts of Parliamnent under whichi t-hey wvere formed, where it Was set forth, that it was desirable to give to the public greater security, by inoprting companies tor the purpose of marine insurance, than col= eaffoirded by individuals. The object,therefore, was toex- tend o.th pubic igher and firmer security than they before had; iind the questin was, whether hose companies,whose privleges wereourcase by he acriice f nt alowig boiesto carontt speces f ba'mss,hadansere th pupos whch theleiatr 1usdin vew?Now,to olvetha quetio. itwasnec-essary to en- quire, what ato h business hadi been effected bv chose corpora- tions?' It apad,by she report of the -onmmittee of 1810, ont this s,thi-~ that tseersons who carried on the business as corporate bodies,' eiFected about tour parts in one-hundred of the lnsur- ances. The ninety-six other parts of the insurances were nos Y deprived of this better security (as the act of PIarlatnt . denominated it), but of the ordinary security which would hire existed if those chartered bodies had not been allowed; for if ;heY had not been formed, the business would have been carried-an by large and wealthy bodies of partners. It appeared, therefore, thar only four parts out of every 100 parts of all insurances efFected had the advantage of this superior security, and that 96 p"rts were in a much worse relative situnaion than the legislature had in view when they established this provision. The second question was, whether, if these companies had answered the purpose for which they were in- tended, it would or would not be beneficial to the public to continue them ? Even if they had answered an the purposes that were contem- plated, a question would arise whether it was desirable that this moe nopoly should be kept up? W'hen. however, he found that they did so small a portion of the business, the question was very much linited; and he certainly thoueht it compqetent for the legislature to consider whether they oughtnot to relieve the public from a restraint whichhad been imnosed fora purposewhichbad evidently notbeen an- swered. Then, of coarse, they came to the mode of doing it. Now it seemed that if within 3' years of their incorporation, and two years before thatperiod was completed, notice was given to them, and.thesum ot 150,0001. advanced by them was refunded, themonopolywas to cease and determine, and the like lrivileges were not to be granted to any other corporation. The law farther provided,that if at anytime thev were found to operate prejudicially, then also their monopoly should cease.The question was reduced to this-was there anycalim ofju.tice on the part of those corporations for their original advances, if-the Parliamnent should think tit to sanction the motion of the honou-mble gentleman ? In his (Mlr. Huskisson's) opinion there was no such claim. If there wvere no such claim, then was it p3operto continue this system for the benefit of the insurers, witrout reference to the interests of the insured ? - There were four modes of transacting insurance businesti-by corporate bodies v ith ex- cusive privilcgcs; by partnerships; bv joint stock compaules, or by individuals. Now, as, the law stood at present, only the two ex- tremes of corRoratc boties or individuals could transact the busi- ness, and all tne middle modes must be essentially wrong. Ele would admit that the gentlemen at Lloyd's Coffee-house, bytAheir ingenuity, correctness, sand hononrable conduct, had raised the mert cantile character of the countrvy and were deserving of the lighest raise. The hon. gent. contended. that this bill would destroy EloydTs Coffee.house he (Mlr. Hiuskis'on) did not see -that it could produce any such-effect; but if it did, he would still say thlat the interest of the public as insurera shouldbe thefirst consideration. Looking to the law on the subject, how did it stand? At the end of 31 years, the cbarters of the two companies might be repealed by ete King; but wvas it from tbence to be inferrea- that the law could not be repealed by Parliament if Parliament should see fit? He ce-rtainly thought that such was not the trne construction of the act ef ?aTuiament. If tie bill should pass into a lav, the two chartered c. omnpanies would still cor.tinue in possession of their charters, carry- mflg on theirbtsiness of marine insurance, fire insurance, and lending mhoney on bottomry, having to contend with the competition of joint stock companies and partnerships; but the puiblic woultl have the benefit-of that more extended gmode, and whicb, in his opinion, wotild be more benefioial for the public ; but at least the option would be given, antl each insurer would be cble to go where his interest in his Own opinion would be best consulted. He thought the hon. gen. tleman (M1r. IBuxton) had taken the right course in bringing tite subject before Parliameitt, and that it was not necessary to apply to the Crown. 3lr. GRENFELL said, the lion. gentlemnan (.;lr. Buxton) had spoken of the two charters as of leases which had exDired; but what wvas the real history of these charters ? In 1720, the two companies w7ere incorporated, and they were to pav 300,0001. each; but in a subsequent year they were excused from paying more thun 150,0001. each; which sum they actually tlid pay. anrd the act of Parliament stated that on givinz three vears' notice, anti repaving tite moriey advanced, the charters sho'uld cease; and bv the 16th section of the same act, it was provided that if the charters shltild( be found incon- venient, the King mi ht at the end of '1 years revoke thein. He (:r. Grenfell) wouXldput it to the house, whether this was not a Materially different statement from thlat of the hon. gentleman ? He (Mr. Grenfell) never would coniprotuise his opinions, from anv regard to the situation in whiich he stood with respect to the char- tered cornpanies, but he would contend that the application ought to have been made to the Privv Council, anti that it would be agross breach of faith if this bill shor;ld pass into a law. This measure was certainly not a novelty, for it wva; the fouirth attempt of the sort Which had been inade.since he hadthe honourofaseatinthathiouse. The first was in 180; the second was iR 1310, when the hon. mcmber for Taunton initroduced the mcaNure, the third attempt was made in 1811, when the hon. meint er for Lymington advocatea it, and the biii vwent *o a second reading. The p;orsons who tlieti concurred with him (Mr. (;renfell) in opposin.g it were MNIr. Spencer Perceval, Sir Vicary C;ibbs. then Attorney-General. and Dir 'Thomnas Plomer, the Solic:onr-Gencral. These distinguished lawyers all opposed it, on the -vunH t!hat thiis house was no- the :-roper tribunal, blit that it should go in the rirst place to the I.ing in Council. In 1:113 the Rsme parties slid hring thie subject before the Privy Council, but the opinion of Lord Ellenborouigh, wlio happened to be presrnt, was so adverse to the proposition, that no more was ever heard of it till the present *nintion. which, he would again repeat, the housecould not consent to without a breach of faith. DT. LL SH INGTON said, the act of Parliament reterred to by the honourable ventleman was franned 104 years ago. on principles which no man at the present moment couldi consider, without saying at once tbey wrere totally erroneouts. Thepreanible stated, that the etablishment of the companies was to give security to the parties insuring; but if it should appeatr that only four parts in a hundred of the whole insurance business of the countrv wvas done by these r ompanics. it was quite clear that the aci of Parliament had failed to etH;t its oh)ect. The hon. gentlenian (AIr. Grenfell) sup. posed that the act oi Parliament cave these cliartered companics ex- clusivc rigohts tor ever, unless some person went before the Privy I Council and proved theni injurious: but the legislatrre, so far from haviniz tiedf up its own hands, hail been particularly careful, andi had in .act fixed two mro:les of loing the same thing. Mr. T. WILSON thouxht the presenit companies must be pro. tected, unless it could be proved that they bad been hartful. Ile was of opinion there were but few insurances but what couldl he effected bv the underwriters at Llovd's. even without the two companies., and that at present the puiblic had all the advantagesof the respectable tirins in the citv; tii either ot,e p trtner signesl for the others, or a br.,lier at !oyd's signed "or the whole. With respect to the charge of 2.5 per cent. by the broker, the honourabic gentleniats must be in error, for the charge was only ii per cent. He thought there was no. thing before the house to jtsstivy the assertion that theqe companies had been hurtfuil, and therefore. under the words of the act of' Par. hament, they ought to be protected. The proper tmeode, he thought, would be to move for a comnmittee tu in,qusire if they had been inju. nous. or to refer it ti the competent tribunal. Alderman BRIDIGES concurred in the praises sehicli hai beet, given to the underwriters at lJoyd's for their liberal mode of trans- acting buines.,. Ile (li.i not wish the tto ciartered companies to he touched ; but he should be sorry if rheYv were to be the only two companies of hidis character in the city of London. The S(),LI CITf R-.GENERAL, said, that without pledging himself to a definite opinion, lie thought there was nothing in the act of Parli-ment to prevent the house reconsidering the subject. Mlr. BUXTON bridev replied. The ques'ion was tlienput. an(i leavewas given tobringin the bill. 31 r. BUXTON subsequently krought in the bill, which was real the first ttin'. and ordered to be read a second time on Tuesday, the 25:h instantL Dr. LUSMH IN(TON gave notice, that he should on Friday pre- sent a petition from three Britisi subjects who had been sent away by the Government (as we understood) of India. The other orders of the day were then disposed off, and the house adjourned at a QUARTER TOs ONE O'CtLOCi. HOUISE OF COMMIONIs Mnvn,v vl- 1. - _ - TSr. CA*I'HERINE'S DOCK.