they had none over the duke of Cumber-government had no wish to confer an anland, who resided abroad, who was irre-nuity for life on the duke of Cumberland sponsible, and over whom they could have of 6,000/. a-year. It was not inconsistent,

more only, upon what had fallen from a right hon. gentleman opposite, who, in the warmth of his eloquence and the weakness of his case, had said something about a "persecuting detestation" towards the duke of Cumberland. As regarded his own feelings, he would merely observe, that in all his life, he had never had the slightest communication with the illus trious ind individual in question. On a former occasion, so far from entertaining any desire to do or say that which might be unpleasant, it had been his fortune to differ from several gentlemen on his own side the House; among others, from the right hon. the President of the Board of Control, who then sat on his side, and to have exhibited at least so much toleration as to have objected to the introduction of the duchess of Cumberland's name in the way in which it had been given to the public, and to have defended the conduct of that lady as far as it was known to him. As for any supposed quarrel between the duke of Cumberland and the Whig party, the House had been reminded that the duke had once joined the "No Popery" cry, and that he had "never changed his opinions." Why, the fact was, that his royal highness had so completely altered his feeling towards the Whigs, and had shown so much courtesy to several gentlemen distinctly introduced to him abroad as of the Opposition party, that there were honourable members sitting round him who had actually felt a doubt how far, if any personal question arose with respect to the duke of Cumberland, they could, pleasantly, take part in it. From a sense of public duty, therefore, it was, and not from any private rancour, that he opposed the vote before the House; thinking, as he did, in his conscience, that it was the most unjustifiable job that he had ever seen attempted. In case the House should still feel inclined to take a more prudent course than it was now proceeding in, and to grant the 3,000l. a-year, subject to the control of ministers, he now gave notice that, on the coming up of the report, he would move an amendment to that effect. In saying this, however, he desired distinctly to add, that he considered the grant as unnecessary altogether, and that he should certainly oppose it, in toto, in all its other stages.

Mr. T. Wilson complained of the freedom with which the learned gentleman had attacked the committee, and thrown dirt upon every individual who had voted VOL. XIII.

for the grant. He would tell the learned gentleman that he felt himself perfectly justified in having so voted with members whom he thought as wise, as honest, and as patriotic as the learned gentleman himself.

Mr. Brougham assured the hon. gentleman that he did not allude to him in what he had said; because he thought him the wisest, the honestest, and the most patriotic individual upon that side of the House.

The report was ordered to be received to-morrow.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Tuesday, June 7.

LAW OF MERCHANTS BILL-PRIN(CIPAL AND FACTOR.) The Earl of Liverpool rose, to move the second reading of this bill. In the first place, he wished to call their lordships' attention to a petition in favour of the alteration in the law now proposed to be made. That petition was signed by almost all the respectable merchants of the city of Londonby persons who represented every kind of commercial interest; so that there never had been among merchants a more general concurrence in favour of any measure. It was now his duty to call their lordships' attention to the question which this bill involved. The subject was somewhat abstruse, and to a person who, like himself, was little acquainted with the details of commerce, presented some difficulties. He should, however, endeavour to state as briefly as possible the general grounds on which he wished to recommend the bill to their lordships' consideration. It was to be expected, in the present state of the trade of this country, that many cases would arise, in which the operation of laws enacted at an early period would prove embarrassing-laws which, however proper and politic in their origin, had become totallyincompatiblewith the present complicated state of commerce and society. Nevertheless, in any alteration of the law, their lordships would take care not to give their sanction to any thing inconsistent with the general principles of equity, or the existing relations of commerce. With regard to the law of merchant and factor, if the mere principle of the contract of these parties with each other were considered, there could be no doubt that the agent ought to be bound to the principal: but, a new question

3 Y

arose as to the interests of a third party. ledge of the character of the factor, and The transactions of this kind of trade act on the presumption, that there was no were not now confined to the single act fraud: but it might be assumed, that the of merchants delivering goods for sale principal was well acquainted with the perinto the hands of their known factors. son he employed as his agent: he must Almost the whole commerce of the world have a control over him: he could limit was now carried on by commission. The or restrict him, or deprive him of all austate of trade rendered it impossible for thority to act. A principal, doubtless, any person in a foreign country to do might be defrauded by a dishonest agent; more now than to make a general con- but still it ought to be recollected, that signment of merchandise, which left to the principal must know his agent, had a the discretion of the agent or factor to de- power over him, and stood with respect termine when he should bring the goods to him in a very different situation from into the market; and if it should not be a the pledgee. The person who advanced proper time for throwing the article into money saw nothing, probably knew of nothe market, it was often necessary that he thing, but the goods; and therefore, upon should be able to raise money upon it by every ground of equity, if there was a pledge. There was no doubt that the loss, it should fall upon the principal or factor was bound by the instructions he the agent, and not upon the pledgee. received from his principal. But here The present state of the law made a discame the difficulty with respect to third tinction between possession and title to parties. The factor proceeded to raise merchandise; but, he did not see how it money on the goods intrusted to his was possible for trade to be carried on, if charge. What could the third party possession were not allowed to be primâ facie know of the state of the case? Was the proof of of titl title. The petition on the table person who negotiated for money on the prayed, that this might be the law; and goods the owner or an agent? If the lat- the greater part of the commerce of Lonter, were his instructions limited or un- don, and two-thirds of the foreign trade limited? This he had no means of ascer- of the country, already rested on this taining. He would, of course, know that principle of general equity. He had also money was to be raised on the goods; but said, that a change of system was recomthere was no possibility of his knowing mended by analogy. In support of this any thing more of the ownership than the opinion he would refer to money transacfact of possession, unless the possessor tions. With respect to Exchequer bills, chose to make disclosures to him. Now, and indeed bills of every description, the supposing fraud or bankruptcy, was the principle of protecting the pledgee was loss to fall on the principal, or on the sanctioned by law. If any person conpledgee who might have advanced money signed Exchequer bills to another, who on the goods? It was said, that if the pledged them to a third party, there was factor's instructions were merely to sell, no doubt that the pledgee had a right to he could not pledge; and that in the case the property. Therefore, with regard to of his pledging the loss ought to fall on all kinds of money securities, the law the pledgee. Such was the state of the made possession equivalent to title. He law. But, that the loss should so fall ap- did not see why the same protection peared to him to be wrong on four should not be given to the pledgee in all grounds:-1. It was contrary to the prin- commercial transactions as was already ciples of natural equity. 2. It was con- given with regard to Exchequer bills, bills trary to analogy. 3. It was contrary to of exchange, and other money securities. opinions delivered on the law by very high He came now to the point of authority. authority. And 4. It was in opposition The first decision which led to the course to the state of the law in other countries. now acted on being considered law, took He thought their lordships would readily place in 1742. Here the noble earl enadmit, that the liability of the third party tered into the history of this case, and was contrary to the principles of natural others which had more recently taken equity, because the pledgee had not, in place, and quoted the opinions of lord many cases, the means of knowing any Ellenborough, and Mr. Justice Le Blanc, thing more than the fact, that certain who had regretted that the law should be goods were in the possession of an indi- as it now stood. To these two opinions vidual who wished to raise money upon he referred as sufficient authority for alterthem. He might have little or no know-ing the present state of the law. He came now to the last point of considera- | might be started. Suppose they could

tion, which was, that the law, as it now stood, was contrary to the state of the law on the same subject in other countries. That where there was no fraud on the part of the lender, the principal should suffer for the acts of his agent, was a principle not only recognised and enforced in every other country of Europe, but uncontradicted by the law of any country, except that of England, and the United States of America, who had borrowed their laws from England. The protection he proposed to afford to the pledgee was even at this moment the law of Scotland. On these grounds he recommended the adoption of this bill, convinced that it was founded on principles of justice and equity.

The bill was read a second time.

EQUITABLE LOAN BILL.] Counsel were called in, and Mr. Harrison resumed his argument on behalf of the promoters of the bill. When counsel had concluded, a conversation ensued between their lordships on the question, whether evidence should be heard on the part of the Equitable Loan Company, to prove that the tendency of the Company's operations would be beneficial to the public, and that the conduct of the pawnbrokers was such as required to be counteracted by a more humane society.

prove that twenty or fifty London pawnbrokers had misconducted themselves, would that enable their lordships to decide upon the rights of the rest? And, suppose it did so with respect to the London pawnbrokers, would the rights of the other pawnbrokers all over England be affected by the decision without being heard in their own defence? If so heard, when would the proceedings on the bill terminate? Their lordships might be sitting examining evidence on that day twelvemonth. He was of opinion that the legality of the body who promoted this bill must be proved, before evidence could be heard as to its utility.

The Earl of Lauderdale concurred in this opinion.

Lord Dacre thought, that by proving its public utility, it would establish a claim to the privileges which it solicited.

Mr. Fonblanque, the recorder of London, and Mr. Andrews, were then heard on the part of the pawnbrokers. After which a conversation ensued between their lordships, on the course which ought now to be pursued.

The Lord Chancellor gave it as his opinion, that the evidence tendered on the part of the company ought not to be received.

The Duke of Atholl said, he hoped that something might be done for the poor, whose interests the bill professed to consult. It might be liable to objections, but its object was benevolent. He could not concur in the coarse charges thrown out against its supporters, in which they were treated as little better than swindlers. He had looked at the names subscribed to the deed, and he found them honourable. In proposing to reduce the interest of money lent on pledges to the poor one half, they would do a public service.

The Lord Chancellor thought that the first question to be disposed of was, whether this company was a legal company or not. It was confessed on all hands, that its legality could not be supported before it had executed the deed of partnership. It was still a question whether the execution of that deed made it legal. ❘ If it was not legal, their lordships, by hearing evidence of its utility, would acknowledge that on that ground they were about to make a law, granting privileges to an illegal body, to enable it to serve the public. It was a totally different question whether, if they applied to be made a legal body, the House would agree to a bill for that purpose. They assumed that they were a legal body in coming before the House, and on that ground they asked the privilege of suing and being sued by their officers. Their lordships ought, therefore, first to deterThe Lord Chancellor informed the mine whether this pretension was founded counsel that the evidence tendered to in truth. With regard to the hearing of prove the beneficial nature of the comevidence against the conduct of the pawn-pany could not be received. He then brokers, an objection of another kind asked the counsel for the bill, whether

The Earl of Lauderdale said, that the company did not propose to lower the interest on their advances so much as the noble duke had stated. He, likewise, had looked over the names of the subscribers; and he could cite two foreign gentlemen for whose respectability, probably, the noble duke would feel a little difficulty in vouching, who owned more of the stock than the whole Board of Directors.