Lords Sitting of 17 June 1824

MARINE INSURANCE BILL.
After counsel had been heard against the bill,
Lord Bexleysaid, he rose to move the second reading of the bill, notwithstanding the arguments of the learned counsel. The object of the bill was, to relieve the country from a monopoly established upwards of a hundred years ago. The capital which then was thought sufficient to carry on the Maritime Insurance of the country was not now sufficient. If the premiums now paid were as low as competition could make them, the companies complaining would not be injured by the measure; if they were not, the competition of other companies would reduce them. There was at present a practice, whether legal: or not he would not say, of parties mutually insuring their vessels; and it was a fact that such parties paid a much less sum than the amount of the premium at Lloyd's.
The bill was read a second time.

NEW CHURCHES BILL.
The Earl of Liverpoolrose to move the second reading of this bill. Their lordships would recollect the measure passed some time ago for granting a million to build new churches. That act had fully answered the expectations. There was, however, a necessity to' add to the grant, as there were many parishes which had not churches for one-fourth of their inhabitants; it was thought proper, therefore, to take a sum of 500,000 l. from a fund which had been recently obtained, and apply it to the building of more churches under the same regulations as the former million was' granted. The act, however, gave the diocesans power, when two-thirds of the sum requisite for building a church were subscribed by the parishioners, to permit them to elect the clergyman. In the populous diocess of Chester, this provision had already been acted on with considerable benefit.
Lord Kingthought the latter part of

1431
the bill the best. Only allow those who would undertake to build churches on speculation to nominate their own parsons, and there would be no necessity for public grants of this sort. Speculators would be sure to select the best performers, and they would then get amply remunerated by the rent of their seats. But, as long as they were under the control of the rector of their parishes, he would be sure to put in a worse performer than himself, and ruin the speculation. He did not see, as this money, if it had been applied to remit taxation, would have gone into the pockets of the people, why the Catholics should be deprived of their share. The French government had built churches for their Protestant subjects; and he did not think it would be unworthy of the government of this country, when it was bestowing so much money for building churches, to give some of it for building churches for the Catholics.
The bill was read a second time.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL.
On the order of the day for committing this bill,
Lord Calthorpemade several observations in support of the principle of checking wanton cruelty, and stated it to be his intention to move some amendments in the committee.
The Earl of Rosslyn, being of opinion that legislation on this subject did great mischief, would oppose the bill. He dwelt on the injustice which might be done to the owners of horses and cattle, if this bill passed. On comparing the bill with that which it professed to amend, it would be found that all the provisions which limited the penalties to intentional cruelty were left out, so that no persons would be safe in the management of animals, on subjecting them to necessary operations. Any cutting even of the skin might be held to be cruelty under this bill. He would therefore move, that it be committed this day three months.
Lord Suffieldsaid, he would agree with the noble earl in his objections, if the execution of the bill were to be left to the magistrates; but when it was provided, that the cases should come before a jury, he thought there was no danger of the law being abused.
After a few words from lord Calthorpe and the Lord Chancellor, the amendment was agreed to, and the bill was consequently lost.