AI>PENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 



S8i 



but to every one engaged in mer- 

 cantile transactions ; for if the 

 learned gentlemen were right in 

 their construction of this oath, 

 there was not one man who acta 

 as a broker in the city of London 

 who was not perjured : but what 

 were the words of this oath ? 

 They were, " You sliall sincerely 

 promise and swear faithfully to 

 discharge your duty as a broker, 

 between party and party, without 

 fiaud or collusion, to the best of 

 your knowledge." It was ad- 

 mitted, that if a man acted as 

 broker, and principal, and took a 

 larger price than he would have 

 taken in any otiier character, he 

 had violated this oath ; but it was 

 material to state with precision 

 what brokers engaged to do, and 

 in what instances they were per- 

 jured, if they did otherwise. They 

 Undertook, first, to keep a book, 

 or register, and to enter every 

 contract within three days, with 

 the names of the principals ; and, 

 on demand, to produce such en- 

 tries, in order to prove the truth 

 of the contricts. Secondly, they 

 were to produce a silver medal, 

 to shew that they were authorised 

 to act in the character of brokers. 

 Thirdly, they were not to deal 

 for themselves, or for their own 

 or any other broker's benefit or 

 advantage, and were not to em- 

 ploy a deputy. The question, 

 therefore, came to this : whether 

 the petitioner had done any thing 

 to render his transactions with the 

 bankrupt illegal, so as to prevent 

 him from recovering his debt, on 

 principles of jniWic policy. The 

 learned counsel asked what the 

 law was tiiat he had violated, 

 which made thu.se transactions 

 Illegal ? It had been said^ that a 



man must not carry on trade, 

 holding out false colours, in other 

 words, making false representa- 

 tions to the world. But what was 

 the case here ? One miglit as well 

 say, that a man could not recover 

 who wiites up, as many personis 

 do, " This is the cheapest shop 

 in London." The fact was, the 

 learned gentleman had argued 

 the case of persons acting as 

 brokers and merchants in the 

 same transaction : but here, a 

 considerable part of the debt 

 arose out of other transaction*. 

 No less a sum than 8,0001. was 

 for loans of money, in which there 

 was no mercantile transaction 

 whatever. Upon the whole, the 

 arguments on the other side were 

 not warranted by the facts of the 

 case, or the principles of equity, 

 and the petitioner was clearly en- 

 titled to recover. 



The Lord Chancellor said, that 

 this was, indeed, a most im- 

 portant question to the mercan- 

 tile world. His Lordship had al- 

 ready ordered a question on the 

 statute of James, as to dormant 

 partners, to be made the stjbject 

 of a case for the opinion of the 

 Court of King's Bench, and he 

 hoped, that when that question 

 came to be argued, it would be 

 considered that the Court of 

 Chancery was not merely a court 

 of equity in matters of bankrupt- 

 cy, but was bound to enforce the 

 provisions of the several statutes. 

 In point of fact, that question had 

 greatly distressed his Lordship's 

 jnedecessors, and was justly 

 tliought a most difficult question. 

 The present, he repeated, was • 

 most important case, and he was 

 quite satisfied that he did not know 

 enough of the facts to decide it. 



He 



