The Press. — London, England, 1854-07-01 00:00:00

JULY 1, 1854. It purports to be a petition from the under signed clergymen of the United 'Church of England and Ireland residing in England; and, when we state that it is signed by no fewer than 5,414 of our English clergy, com prising 170 dignitaries—and among them some of the most distinguished men who adorn our Church—we need scarcely add that it affords a strong proof of the sympathy which exists in this country as regards the position of the clergy of the Established Church in Ireland in respect of the national system of education in that country ; and vindicates amply the course which that body has been constrained to take in maintaining the great principle of scriptu ral education. A petition so numerously signed has never, we believe, emanated from the clergy of England. The petition is as follows : The Humble Petition of the undersigned Clergy . men of the United Church of England and _ Ireland, residing in England, Sheweth,—That your petitioners are deeply interested in all that concerns the welfare and progress of the United Church of England and Ireland, and specially in the edu. cation given to the children attending parochial and other schools, under the direction of ministers or members of the Church. . . That your petitioners have regarded with much anxiety the rules and practice of the Irish National Board of Education ; in accordance with which, as it now is clearly ascertained, even the parochial schools of the Established Church in Ireland, if receiving aid, could not be permitted to make instruction in the word of God an essential part of the education of all the children attending the same. . . That your petitioners have with thankfulness observed the decided stand made by a very large majority of their clerical brethren in Ireland in favour of scriptural educe• tion, and cordially sympathise in their efforts to secure in their schools the unrestricted use of the word of God : whilst in their steadfast refusal to connect themselves with the National Board, under conditions which would prevent them from instructing in the Holy Scriptures every child in attendance, they have only acted in accordance with the principles of the Church and in strict fulfilment of their ordination vows. That your petitioners have noticed that in England there is no interference with the religious instruction given in schools assisted by the State; that in all Protestant schools the Scriptures are taught to every child attending; and in iloman Catholic schools such instruction as their directors think proper is given to all the children in attendance : consequently it seems unjust and invidious to place the Irish branch of the United Church in a position which would not be assigned to any sect or denomination in England. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray your honourable house to pass such enactment or make such other provision as may secure for the ministers and members of the Irish branch of the United Church who seek or receive aid from the commissioners of education the free and unrestricted use of the Scriptures in their schools, and enable all persons freely to read and honour God's holy word, and thus to remove every hindrance to giving or accepting public aid for promoting sound and scriptural education in every part of the United Kingdom. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c. LIMITED LIABILITY. THE question of limited or unlimited liability is one of those in which it is easier to act as an advocate than as a judge. The merits are not all on one side : both the present law and the proposed change offer grave objections, some of which, indeed, require no elaborate argu ment to expose them. Weighing the case well, and remembering the individual hard ship and injustice produced by the existing system, we incline to agree in the decision which, though not formally expressed, was virtually come to by the House of Commons on Tuesday night. Few mercantile subjects have been more thoroughly sifted by compe tent persons. Two parliamentary committees had, within the last few years, reported in favour of the principle of limited liability but, distrusting their own judgment, or anxious for fuller evidence, recommended the appoint ment of a commission to which the duty of collecting testimony should be delegated. This suggestion was complied with. Eight commissioners were appointed : their report has been issued within the last week, and it is fortified by the written opinions of more than one hundred and fifty authorities, impartially taken from England, Holland, France, and America. Analysing this evidence, it seems that nearly all the foreign witnesses advocate limited liability, while rather more than one half of the British subjects invited to express - . THE PRESS. an opinion (sixty-nine in number) take the same view; and of the other half, a majority recommend certain modifications in the actual law. More weight is due to this preponde rance of testimony than might otherwise belong to it, from the fact that the Commis sioners themselves incline the other way. Five of them report against limitation of liability as a rule—two only in its favour—one fill. modification. The general conclusion which we draw from the above facts is the following—that both Parliament and the Com missioners see plainly the faults of the exist ing system, and desire to amend them; that, they see, likewise (and those most clearly who have studied the subject longest, and who give judgment under a sense of responsibility), the danger which may arise from an extreme relaxation of the law of partnership ; that they accordingly desire some change to be made, but are not clear as to the exact length to which they are prepared to go, nor as to the restrictions which must be substituted for those taken off. This conclusion represents fairly enough, in our belief, the state of the public mind—not hostile to improvement, but wisely cautious, and perplexed by the prospect of practical difficulty. We do not, therefore, censure the tone of Mr. CARDWELL'S speech, ambiguous and undecided as it was. It is one thing to say offhadd that a change must be made, and quite another to undertake the working out of it in detail, where numerous interests are involved, and uncounted objec tions, often unexpected, start up among those most friendly to the projected reform. In such matters it is right that public opinion should anticipate parliamentary action; nor is it wrong that the expressed will of Parlia ment should precede and sanction a Ministe rial measure. We can well afford to wait a few months ; and, in a matter which has nothing to do with the organisation of parties or the distribution of political power, we may fairly hope that the united agency of Govern ment and Opposition will bring about a satis factory settlement. The plain argument against unlimited liabi lity is this, that inasmuch as scarcely any one will risk his whole fortune in a concern of which he has not the direction, it prevents the combination of small capitals for the carrying on of a joint business. It is answered by the defenders of the law, " But if you limit each " shareholder's liability to his share, what " becomes of the creditor if the debts of the " concern come to exceed its capital ?" To which the reply is again, " In that case let the " creditor take care of himself. It is his own " fault if he lends on insufficient security. " No public object is attained by enabling "joint-stock companies to borrow money " largely." . The change, in fact, will lessen the facility of borrowing. This consequence has been disputed, but to us it appears indis putable, and not objectionable. What is wanting in credit will be made up by the lenders, or rather by those who under the actual law would have been lenders, becoming in lieu thereof partners en commandite. Money will always be obtained on sufficiently easy terms for safe or promising speculations, and for speculations of any other kind it is not desirable that it should be found. We confess that we cannot share in the anticipations of those who, like Lord GODERICH or Mr. COBDEN, think that the savings of artisans will be largely invested in enterprises of a commercial character. We should indeed be glad to think this likely. But the artisan has means already available of increasing his hand capital by economical investment. Savings banks are for the most part trustworthy, though instances to the contrary have occurred. It is not the want of opportunity, but of pru dence, that condemns the workman who for years has received from 255. to 30s. weekly to an old age of poverty. The fault is in him, or in his teachers, more than in the law. Never theless, let the experiment be tried. There is pleasure in commercial enterprise on a small as well as a large scale ; and some perhaps may save, in order to speculate, whom the mere prospect of three per cent. interest, regularly paid, might not have induced . to deprive themselves of the customary in dulgences of their class. But, so far as we may judge, the results in this direction will be 603 less important than is commonly anticipatel What the world really gains is this—that confiding capitalists will run less risk of bei ng ruined through the dishonesty or incaution of partners ; that, by the greater facility of coin • bination among small proprietors, the holders of large moneyed fortunes will cease to ettjoy their present monopoly ; and that the com mercial law of England will be assimilated in an important respect to that which already prevails throughout nearly all the civilised world. THE BISHOP OF NEW ZEALAND. LAST night Sir JOHN PAKINGTON very pro perly drew the attention of Government to the hard case of the estimable Bishop of Nrw ZEALAND. Dr. SELWYN, twelve months since, gave up his claims to preferment at home, and accepted the episcopate of New Zealand, with the moderate stipend of six hundred a year, paid by the home Goverdment. The financial reformers succeeded in raising a cry against the payment to a colonial bishop, and the Go vernment agreed to discontinue the vote ; but Sir GEORGE GREY, in withholding the well earned salary, expresses his hope that the New Colonial Council at New Zealand will award the Bishop his fair claims ! We apprehend that thus withdrawing a salary from an office constituted so many years since, and so cre ditably filled by its respected occupant, is as contrary to precedent as it is to equity. If the ample salary of the Clerk of the Council is to be increased by five hundred a year, on the plea that he once held a sinecure, surely rea sons cannot be wanting for continuing the moderate income to Bishop SELWYN. whose disinterestedness is not loss remarkable than his piety, and whose zealous labours for• the propagation of the gospel eminently entitle him to the consideration of a Christian Legis• lature. STIFLED SCANDALS. -.!‘......1644114 Adrift ' WE have seldom read a more unsatisfactory docu ment than the report from the committee ap pointed to inquire into the charges made against certain Irish members. On the truth or falsehood of these charges the report is not only inconclusive but ridiculously illogical in its expressions. Divided amongst themselves, the committee concluded hy appending four paragraphs, which nullify each other. In the first of these four parapraplis the report says:-- " They cannot but regard it u matter both of regret and animadversion that even the excitement of political passion should have induced gentlemen to place before the public allegations so vitally affecting the honour of one class of Irish representatives—allegations which, when they had the opportunity of sustaining them, they failed to substan tiate by any reliable proof." The censure therein conveyed is very strongly ex pressed, but its "animadversion" is rendered futile by the first sentence of the next paragraph : " Your committee have, however, to adJ,that respectable witnesses have stated that in Irish society there is a general belief that practices of the gross traffic indicated in these charges have existed." We surmise that most readers of the report will, after a perusal of its details, give their credence rather to the " respectable witnesses" than to the parliamentary exculpators in the committee. Mr. HENLEY proposed the insertion of the follow ing well-considered words : " Many respectable witnesses, however, have spoken of a general belief of the existence of corruption in a section of the Irish representatives as being notorious. Your committee are, however, of opinion that no inquiry, such as has been entrusted to them, can ascertain the truth or falsehood of this belief; and they have not received evi dence sufficient to enable them to come to any conclu sion." But Mr. BUTT succeeded by a majority of five to four in defeating Mr. HENLEY'S amendment, which appears to us to meet the essential facts of the case. There is not any necessity for our discussing the various scandals alluded to by this report. We may, however, observe that no Conservative Irish mem bers have been implicated in those disagreeable charges. Not one among their body has been in any wise incriminated, and we are pleased that such should be the case. We observe that the committae conclude their re port by branding the article in the Times as " calum nious." We concur with the minority, Lord HOTHAN, Mr. VERNON, and Mr. BRIGHT, that the word should have been omitted. No doubt the article was censo• I a • I • I - -.`"""f :. jJ