Lords Sitting of 27 May 1825

KINGS MESSAGE RESPECTING DUCHESS OF KENT AND DUKE OF CUMBERLAND.
The Earl of Liverpool observed, that he would trouble their lordships with only a few words on .his majesty's most gracious Message. He need not inform their lordships that the young princess, the daughter of the late duke of Kent,

899
had been left under the care of her mother under very peculiar circumstances, and that no provision had yet been made for her support. Their lordships were aware that the provision which had already been made for the duchess of Kent did not exceed 6,000 l. a-year, and that that provision had been made without reference to any issue she might have. He was sure their lordships would, therefore, readily concur in carrying into effect the recommendation of his majesty. There never was a person whose conduct had in all respects been more commendable than that of the duchess of Kent, since she came to this country. With respect to the other royal person for whose issue provision was proposed to be made, their lordships would recollect, that, since the present income of the duke of Cumberland had been settled, he had had a son, who was now about seven years of age. He was unwilling to advert to what had caused a difference of opinion on a former occasion, but though an increase of revenue had been granted to other branches of the royal family, the duke of Cumberland had received no addition to his income. Under these circumstances his majesty's ministers conceived that they were only doing their duty, when they recommended the sending down a message from his majesty to parliament, recommending, that provision should be made for the issue of the late duke of Kent and the duke of Cumberland. All that he had now to do was, to request that their lordships would agree to an address to the king, assuring his majesty that they would concur in carrying into effect that object of the recommendation contained in his gracious message. What would be proposed was, an addition of 6,000 l. a-year to the income of the duchess of Kent, and 6,000 l. a-year to the income of the duke of Cumberland.
The Earl of Darnleyexpressed his warm approbation of the proposed measure with respect to the duchess of Kent. He should do injustice to his feelings, if he refrained from declaring, that he considered her royal highness to afford an example of prudence and excellent conduct.
The motion was agreed to nem. dis.

EQUITABLE LOAN BILL.
Lord Dacrerose to move the second reading of this bill.
The Earl of Lauderdalereminded the
900
noble lord, that an order had been made for hearing counsel for and against the bill.
Lord Dacresaid, he intended to oppose the hearing of counsel. The object of the bill was merely to enable a company to sue and be sued by one of their clerks; a portion of their capital being invested in a manner calculated to afford considerable relief to the poor. This being the object of the bill, he could not think that their lordships would consent to have their time taken up with hearing counsel on such a question. The Equitable Loan Company proposed to act as pawnbrokers, in a way most favourable to the interests of the poor. Surely this was not a point on which their lordships could think it necessary to hear counsel. No question of law was at issue, which required the learning of counsel to clear up. As the affairs of the company were now conducted, no legal objection could be made to their transactions. The company was formed in imitation of several very laudable institutions on the continent; and had been promoted by laudable men distinguished by their talents and attainments. He was sure there must be some interested motive at the bottom of the opposition which this had received. That opposition came from the pawnbrokers; and he thought this should operate with their lordships, as an argument, in favour of the bill. He should oppose the motion for calling in counsel.
The Earl of Lauderdalethought he had reason to complain of the conduct of his noble friend, in opposing the hearing of counsel. His noble friend had said, that he was not present when the order was made for hearing counsel; but he had been present since, and he might have made a motion for rescinding the order on any day. His noble friend had, however, waited until a number of noble lords were collected together on another question; and he thus expected to obtain a support for his present purpose, which he knew he otherwise could not have found. He reminded their lordships' that this company now presented themselves before them in the character of an illegal association. He contended, also, that the illegality of it had been already proved by the decision of a court of justice; and for this reason, he thought the House could not refuse to hear counsel.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that as his own opinion on this subject had been

901
long formed, and that after mature deliberation, he had no wish to hear counsel; but, as his individual opinion happened to differ from those entertained by other noble lords, he was rather desirous that counsel should be heard. It was, true, that the decisions of some of the courts had been against the legality of this company; and this formed an additional reason why counsel should be heard. It was said, that in November, 1824, a deed had been entered into by this company, in which they disclaimed acting as a corporate body; but, he could not see how, by any such contrivance as this, that which was illegal before, could afterwards become legal. Whatever was done by the House, ought not to be adopted until after serious consideration. It was their lordships' duty to guard against the mischiefs which were likely to ensue from the conduct of these companies. During the last two or three years those mischiefs had been suffered to spread to a most dangerous extent. It was true that many persons were connected with .them, who were entitled to the greatest respect; but when it was stated that out of 40,000 shares of which this company consisted, all had been sold at a premium excepting 6,000, the public required some other security than the respectability, however great it, might be, of certain individuals. What was to be done in the country if such practices were to be continued? It was not enough for the company in question to say that they were not now acting as a corporation. And here he must say, he should have been very glad if the lower courts had defined exactly what was acting as a corporation; because, if, when acting under a deed, the parties concerned did the same things as they could do under a charter with the great seal annexed, he did not know what that assertion meant. For the satisfaction of their lordships, then, he wished that counsel should be called in, not for his own; for if they had nothing to allege beyond the deed, he should feel it to be his bounden duty to oppose the bill. If they had any thing beyond that to urge, and could satisfy him that the company would not do any corporate acts, then the bill should have his consent to pass. He was no foe to joint-stock companies if they were for proper purposes, and under due provisions. There were many great national objects which could be accomplished
902
by no other means, and which were fairly entitled to the privileges of a charter, or of an act of parliament. But, without such protection, nothing could be more foolish than to suppose that bills could be passed, only because they contained the clause, that the companies to which they related, might sue and be sued. Any lawyer would satisfy their lordships in ten minutes, that a more inefficacious and futile clause could not be inserted in a bill, and that nothing could be less of a security to the public. There was another circumstance which weighed with him considerably. It was this—that as the law was not now strong enough to compel the parties engaged in such undertakings to do justice among themselves, it was impossible that it could do justice between them and the public. The transactions of the Scotch commercial banks were all of this nature; and no man who thought of the inconveniences which might result from it would deny, that the law in this respect ought to be altered. While there was no dispute, the inconveniences could not arise; but when appeals should come from the courts of session, it would be found that all which had been done in the courts below must go for nothing. A more important case than this, whether it regarded the particular company now under discussion, or the general interests of the public, had not been before the House for many years. For this reason, he thought their lordships ought to hear counsel.
Their lordships then divided: For hearing Counsel 30; Against it 20. Counsel were then called in. Mr. Fonblanque addressed their lordships, against the bill; the Recorder of London followed, on the same side. After which the further discussion was postponed to Monday.