§ The Lord Chancellor, in moving the second reading of the Banking and Trading (Clerical) Copartnership Bill, would briefly state its object. According to the law as it now stood, and as it was laid down in a recent decision of the Court of Exchequer, none of the large joint-stock companies, which were now so common, were enabled to recover any sum of money which was due to them, if by chance any one of the shareholders should happen to be a clergyman, and sharing in its profits. By the 57th George 3rd, all clergymen were prohibited from dealing at all. They were not prohibited from buying and selling as in the former Act, but they were absolutely prohibited from dealing. That was not found out till the recent proceedings in the Court of Exchequer. A company brought an action upon a bill of exchange against the drawer; the defendant pleaded that two clergymen were shareholders in the company, and that therefore all contracts made with the company were void, and that he was not liable to pay. The case was fully argued, and in the month of January last the judges unanimously pronounced their opinion that, by the 57th George 3rd, they were left no option but to decide that the transaction was illegal. There had been no appeal from the decision, and, therefore, their Lordships were bound to take it as the state of the law. The Bill was not intended to put parties into a different situation than they intended—it was merely to prevent them departing from their contract. He trusted their Lordships would have no objection to make the act retrospective, so as to put an end to all actions now pending of the nature contemplated by the Bill, giving at the same time the defendant the full costs of his defence connected with the legal point embraced in the Bill. The Bill was limited only to next session of Parliament, and the reason of that was, that there was a Bill for abolishing, and for regulating pluralities, now before the other House, which would provide for the manner in which clergymen might deal; of course it would never be allowed that they might buy and sell; but, on the other hand, it was impossible that they could debar 1131 clergymen from holding bank stock, or from insuring their lives in any company which divided the profits among the insured. He trusted their Lordships would cordially give the second reading to that relief Bill.
§ Lord Denmanthought, it was absolutely necessary this Bill should pass, although he was not an advocate for ex post facto law. But this Bill was requisite, in order to prevent a dishonest man getting rid of his own liabilities by means of particular enactments in an act brought in for other purposes. This case differed from that of a common informer, who was set in motion by the Legislature, and if he, in obedience to the law, sued a person for that which was made an offence, it was hard that he should be deprived of his costs. He thought that persons who had set up a dishonest defence to actions already commenced relating to this matter ought not to have their costs; but, at the same time, he should be sorry to risk the fate of the Bill by proposing any amendment of that sort. He would, however, submit to the consideration of their Lordships whether it was not proper in such a case to refuse the costs.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, it was necessary to pass the Bill, but he thought it would have been advisable if the preamble had contained the grounds upon which the alteration of the law was made.
§ Bill read a second time.