But the true way, as it strikes me, of, considering the principle of the law on this subject, is to examine what authority is to be inferred from the actual possession and custody of merchandise; for surely it is a solecism in reasoning, to infer a greater right and power in the holder of the mere order or authority to receive the possession, than in the actual possessor. To say that the custody of the various documents, which entitle the holder of them to receive possession of merchandise, shall be conclusive evidence of his right to transfer the property, but that the actual possession of the merchandise itself, which is the result and consequence of these documents, and in effect the very consummation of their object, shall confer no such right, is a manifest absurdity. It seems, therefore, that the necessary consequence of this law is to revive the ancient and only rule of property in the first stages of society; namely, possession. Now, it may be worth while to pause for a moment, for the purpose of inquiring to what extent this ancient rule of property may be carried in our present artificial condition. If the possession of personal chattels is in all cases to enable the possessor to make a binding disposition of them, then it follows, that the renter of a ready-furnished house may make a binding pledge of the furniture to a pawnbroker; that a servant intrusted with his master's goods, jewels, or plate, may sell or pawn them to a broker for his own benefit; that a drover, intrusted with a farmer's cattle or sheep for sale in Smithfield (he is properly a factor), may pay his own debts with them, or raise money upon the pledge of them. Nay, why shall not a coachmaker pledge or sell a carriage sent to him for repair? or a stable-keeper, horses standing with him at livery? or a gentleman, his jobcarriage and horses? All these, and a thousand other cases, depend on the principle now proposed to be subverted for the benefit of those who have money to lend. It would be more simple and intelligible to declare at once, that possession is in all cases conclusive evidence of title.

It is said, however, that a bill of lading is a negotiable instrument by the custom of merchants, and that there is no reason why it should not circulate like a bill of exchange, the property in which is always transferred by endorsement for a valuable consideration. It is certainly true, that

by the general rule a bill of exchange is transferred by endorsement, without reference to the title of the endorser. But this rule is subject to certain exceptions in those cases where the bill is offered or endorsed under such circumstances as ought reasonably to have excited the suspicion of the party accepting it. If in such cases he takes it without inquiry, though he gives the full value for it, the property is not transferred to him. But in fact, there is no just analogy between a bill of exchange and a bill of lading, any more than between the things they represent. A bill of lading is a contract for the carriage and delivery of goods to the shipper, or his order, or the consignee. It entitles the holder to receive the goods. By the custom of merchants, the power or title to receive the goods may be transferred by endorsement; but the property in the goods cannot be transferred by endorsement, except by the true owner. The indorsee of the bill of lading receives the same title as the endorser had, and no more. The title to receive possession cannot give a better right than the actual possession. A bill of exchange, on the contrary, is the acknowledgment of a debt from the acceptor to the drawer. It represents neither specific goods, nor specific monies, but imports a debt which may be paid in any lawful coin, and which, by the custom of merchants, may be transferred to an endorsee. If that endorsee should be but an agent, he would nevertheless be accountable to his principal only in the character of a debtor, and not for the delivery or safe custody of any specific monies. The receipt of money by an agent for his principal, by the laws of all nations, makes him a debtor to his principal, and he may discharge that debt by paying the same amount in any other lawful coin. The currency of a nation, or that which represents the currency, as a bill of exchange, has been deemed of too fugitive a nature to be placed under the same regulations in all respects as other property. As far as I know, the distinction exists in every civilized country. It is founded upon the very nature of the thing. The loan or deposit of a horse, or other specific chattel, implies a contract to return the same individual article: the loan of a guinea, or of a sum of money, implies no such thing; if it did, what would become of the profits of a banker? The cases of a bill of lading and a bill of exchange

would be more parallel, if the bill of exchange were for a particular sealed bag of money; but then it would cease to be a bill of exchange, and become an order for a specific bag of money, not intended to circulate, but to be brought to the true owner in that form.

For the purpose of illustrating further the distinction between bills of lading and bills of exchange, and indeed of expressing my own sentiments on the whole subject in language of higher authority, I appeal once more to my lord Rosslyn. In the same judgment from which I before cited a passage, that learned person says, "Bills of exchange can only be used for one given purpose; namely, to extend credit by a speedy transfer of the debt which one person owes to another, to a third person. Bills of lading may be assigned for as many different purposes as goods may be delivered; they may be endorsed to the true owner of the goods by the freighter, who acts merely as his servant; they may be endorsed to a factor to sell for the owner; they may be endorsed by the seller of the goods to the buyer; they are not drawn in any certain form; they sometimes do, and sometimes do not express on whose account and risk the goods are shipped; they often, especially in time of war, express a false account and risk; they seldom, if ever, bear upon the face of them any indication of the purpose of the endorsement. To such an instrument, so various in its use, it seems impossible to apply the same rules as govern the endorsement of bills of exchange. The silence of all authors treating on commercial law, is a strong argument that no general usage has made them negociable as bills. And unless there was a clear established general usage to place the assignment of a bill of lading upon the same footing as the endorsement of a bill of exchange, that country which should first adopt such a law, would lose its credit with the commercial world; for the immediate consequence would be, to prefer the interest of the resident factors, and their creditors, to the fair claim of the foreign consignor. It would not be much less pernicious to its internal commerce; for every case of this nature is founded in a breach of confidence, always attended with a suspicion of collusion, and leads to a dangerous and false credit at the hazard and expense of the fair trader."

Before I conclude, I would call the at

tention of the House to the very peculiar situation in which an owner of goods may find himself placed by this law. By the laws of Russia, and of some other countries, the owner of goods actually shipped, who may have transmitted bills of lading duly signed by the master of the ship to his factor in London for sale, has a right, if he hears of the insolvency of the factor, to compel the master of the ship, before she quits her final port of departure, to re-land the goods upon paying a reasonable compensation for the freight, or to sign fresh bills of lading. What would be the surprise of such an owner, if he should afterwards accompany his own property to England, to find, that some rich merchant or banker in possession of the first set of bills of lading, pledged by the insolvent factor, not only claims the goods, but is entitled by the law of England to maintain an action against him, the true owner, to recover against him the possession of his own goods? The predicament will be strange, and, I apprehend, will not be very honourable to the commercial code of our country. At present, notwithstanding the appearances that are exhibited of dissatisfaction with the existing law, it is my firm belief, that one, if not the chief cause of the superiority of British commerce, and of its triumph over all the absurd restrictions introduced partly by the supposed necessity of revenue, but chiefly by the narrow views of commercial men themselves, is the undoubted security which the laws of England afford to property. Her tribunals are resorted to by all nations, who repose with confidence upon the protection of her laws, as much as upon the integrity of her merchants. The effect of any alteration which shall enable a factor fraudulently to apply the property of his principal to pay his own debts, or to increase his own resources, must be, as I conceive, inevitably to excite great distrust. The probable result will be, to throw the foreign consignments into the hands of a few of the most eminent and affluent houses, such as the house of my hon. friend, the member for Taunton, perhaps the greatest now in Europe, whose known affluence and resources place them above the possibility of any breach of trust.

Sir, I beg pardon for having troubled you so long on so very dry and uninteresting a subject. Much more may be urged upon it than I think it convenient

Mr. Huskisson combatted the arguments of the hon. and learned gentleman. He entered, at considerable length, into the details of the bearing of the law as it at present stood, and stated the absolute necessity of altering it; a necessity the more pressing, as England, under the warehousing system, was now becoming the dépôt of the merchandize passing between the two worlds; and unless they were prepared to renounce all the advantages of that system. Every security ought to be given to advances made on the goods so warehoused. The consignors were, in numberless instances, not the owners, but drew their bills against goods, the property of different individuals who employed them to ship them. If, therefore, any person was to come forward and only have to state his ownership to enable him to invalidate the pledge on which money had been raised to enable the consignee to transact the business to the consignors' advantage, it was evident, that an entire bar must be placed to the raising money on any goods whatever; as no one could ascertain the real owner. The bill certainly did place the bill of lading in the situation in which Exchequer bills stood at present; as negociable securities; but the parties might always make the bill of lading special, if they chose so to do. As to the objection of trusting the clerks of brokers and merchants, it was well known that property to an immense amount was daily trusted to the clerks of bankers, from which no inconvenience resulted.

Mr. J. Smith said, that this bill originated with the merchants of London, who were exposed to the greatest frauds. For instance, he would suppose a merchant at Calcutta to ship 50,000l. worth of indigo to a merchant in London: he at the same time draws bills on him for 48,000l. which are accepted. The indigo does not belong to the Calcutta merchant, for no indigo grows near Calcutta; it belongs to a grower in Bengal, who sends it to Calcutta. The merchant in Calcutta fails, and the owner then comes and demands his goods from the merchant in London, who had already advanced nearly to the amount of their value. The same took place in the corn-trade. VOL. III.

Mr. Huskisson said, the extension of the period was necessary, that all the parties whom it might affect should have notice of it.

Mr. J. P. Grant opposed the bill.

Mr. Baring supported the bill, both on account of its obvious necessity, and on the custom of merchants. All agreed in the inconvenience which resulted from the present state of the law.

Mr. T. Wilson supported the bill, and stated that it originated with the merchants of Liverpool two years ago.

The bill was then read a third time.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Wednesday, June 29.

COMBINATION OF WORKMEN BILL.] On the order of the day for bringing up the report,

Mr. Hume contended, that this bill did not go to do equal justice between the masters and the men; and ought not, therefore, to pass. The numerous petitions that had been presented against the combination laws ought to have been examined into. As it was, the petitioners might as well have kept their petitions to themselves. If it were shown that, by reason of any defects in his bill of the last session, any disturbances had happened in the country, he would not object to such alterations as might be proposed in the way of remedy. Out of 97 petitions that had been presented to the House on the subject of the combination laws, there were seven from masters, calling for an extension to them of a power to coerce their workmen. Into those petitions and allegations, it was the duty of the House to have entered. This bill, in its present shape, could not fail to work much injustice and conduce to much oppression. The masters might at all times prevent combinations against working, by contracting with the journeymen for a certain

5 A

period. He knew that men who had been engaged in this manner had never quitted their work whilst combinations were existing all around them. The masters, then, had the remedy in their own hands, and had no right to call upon parliament to support them with the strong hand of power. He then read a long petition from certain journeymen, asserting their right to obtain what they considered a remunerating price for their labour. He agreed with the petitioners; and he was surprised that those members who advocated the principles of free trade could bring themselves to vote for this bill, the object of which was to reduce the rate of wages. He had heard it said, that low wages were a good thing. That he denied. Low wages tended to degrade the labourer. It was the high wages which the English artisan received, contrasted with those received by the Irish artisan, which made the former so superior in energy and independence of spirit. It appeared to him to be extremely inconsistent, that at a moment when mechanics' institutions were rising in all parts of the country, a legislative enactment should be determined on, which would limit the means of gratifying their newly-acquired taste for study. He again protested against the power given to magistrates by the bill to punish men for what was called molesting their fellowworkmen. He could not define molestation. Any act, however innocent, might be considered molestation. The House, perhaps, might consider that he was molesting them at that moment [Cries of "hear"]. That cheer convinced him that his objection to that part of the bill was proper; for an act of right and propriety, on the part of a workman might be construed to be molestation, just as it was in the present instance with respect to himself; for he unquestionably was perform ing a praiseworthy act in opposing an unjust measure.

The House divided: Ayes 56; Noes 2. The report was then brought and agreed to, with several amendments.

SPRING GUNS BILL.] Mr. Tennyson moved the third reading of this bill. The bill was accordingly read a third time.

Mr. R. Colborne then proposed a clause to legalize the use of spring guns in the night, which after some discussion the hon. gentleman agreed to withdraw.

Lord Binning moved an amendment, to

|

allow their use in gardens and orchards, which, after debate, was carried, the numbers upon division being:-for the amendment 35; against it 26. On the question, that the bill do pass,

Mr. Tennyson begged to have it understood, that the motion did not procede from him. He would not be instrumental in moving that so anomalous and mischievous a measure as this had now become, should pass the House.-After a pause,

Lord Normanby moved the passing of the bill.

Mr. Tennyson said, that although he had conducted the bill to that point, he now felt it his duty to vote against it. The measure had been changed from one declaring the use of spring guns to be altogether unlawful, into one of mere regulation, and which, to a certain extent, was to legalize the practice. As the bill now stood, homicide by a spring gun was declared to be manslaughter on one side of the hedge, while on the other, it was for the first time to be sanctioned by law. He had rather leave the question with all the uncertainty, which, in the opinion of some, might belong to it, until another session, than be guilty of voting for a measure which, in its present shape, would give a legal existence to the very principle which it had been designed to stifle in its birth, as repugnant to reason and humanity and to the rule of law on which homicide had hitherto been alone justifiable.

Neither would he ever have to charge his conscience with voting for any bill which was to authorize and recommend to the people of this country the brutal practice of employing these diabolical machines for the protection of any species of property whatever, be it what it might-his object had been, to put an end to it altogether; instead of which, it was now to a certain extent, to be legalized and established, perhaps for ever, and the new and frightful principle thus introduced might at a future period be indefinitely extended. If that House sanctioned the bill as now altered, he trusted the Lords would reject it. If it passed into a law it would be an eternal disgrace to the British legislature, and as he was anxious to rescue the House of Commons, and himself individually, from the odium and responsibility which would justly attach to them if they sanctioned it, he should vote against the passing of the bill.

The House divided: For the passing of the bill 31; Against it 32; Majority against the bill 1.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, June 30.

CUSTOMS CONSOLIDATION BILL.] The Earl of Liverpool moved the second reading of this bill. The main principle on which the measure was founded was, he said, the doing away with prohibitory duties, and introducing certain regulations. There were, however, some exceptions: for instance, the bill did not interfere with the corn laws, nor with cattle now prohibited. He hoped, however, that this part of the subject would be brought, at another opportunity, under the consideration of parliament, as French cows were introduced under the name of Alderney, and this fraud was accomplished by means of the grossest perjury. A considerable change had been made with respect to the silk trade, the prohibition being removed, and a protecting duty of 30 per cent substituted. In mentioning cotton, he reminded their lordships of the remarkable circumstance, that the British manufacturer could undersell the natives of India in their own market, though the price of labour was here 2s. 6d. a-day, and in India only 2d. On paper the duty was also reduced. He should next direct their lordships' attention to the duty on woollens. Hitherto, the import duty had amounted to 65 per cent, but this measure proposed to allow importation with a protecting duty of 15 per cent. It was necessary to act on liberal principles of commerce, if we expected other countries to adopt a system of liberality in their intercourse with us. Upon this view the whole of these regulations of reductions were founded. But he now came to one branch in which the reduction was more considerable than any he had yet mentioned. He meant the great branch of metallic articles. The first he should mention was iron, in which the reduction was from 6l. 10s. to 17. 10s. per ton. This important alteration was likely to prove highly advantageous to our manufacturers at the present moment; for, such was the demand for iron at Birming ham, that the manufacturers had for some time been unable to make all the articles ordered. In the article of copper, the reduction was from 2l. 14s. to 1. 7s. He came next to lead, an article which could

well bear a similar regulation; for the price of lead, which during the last ten years had been not more than 19. 10s. per ton, had, within a few months, risen to about 30l. per ton. The reduction proposed on this article was from 1. 16s. to ll. The reduction of the duties on manufactured articles was from 50 to 20 per cent, and on unmanufactured articles from 20 to 10 per cent. It was probable that this system of regulations would make other countries adopt a similar course of policy. To do so, a just sense of their own interest would be a sufficient inducement; but it was proposed to lay an additional duty of 5 per cent on imports from all countries, the governments of which did not allow trade to be carried on with them on equal terms. He thought their lordships would agree with him, that the regulations he had described went as far as it was at present proper to go. In the distressed situation in which our manufacturers were some years ago placed, it would have been improper to attempt such a change; but the time for carrying into practice a liberal system of commerce had at length arrived. The principle acted upon, he repeated, was the doing away with prohibitions.

The Marquis of Lansdown concurred with the noble earl in every word he had stated. He regarded the measure as forming a very great and a very salutary revolution in the trade of the country.

The bill was then read a second time.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Thursday, June 30.

COMBINATION OF WORKMEN BILL.] The bill being read a third time, a clause for directing that justices should transmit to the sessions a copy of the commitment, and another, allowing appeal to the quarter session, were added to the bill, on the motion of the Attorney-general. Another clause, "that every master of workmen, and the father and son of such master, be rendered incapable of acting as a justice of peace in cases of complaint under the act," was offered by Mr. Hume, and negatived. On the question, that the bill do pass,

Mr. Hume said, that no individual, however high or low, ought to be coerced or controlled by combinations; but he was satisfied that nine-tenths of the recent disturbances had arisen from a want of conciliation between the parties; often, he