The Press. — London, England, 1856-07-12 00:00:00

050 one parson, his Lordship contributed to the rejection of the Bill, which, as a member of the Commission, it was previously supposed had received his support. Lord ELLESMERE had a perfect right to publicly express his dissent from the conclu sions of the Commission, though he had been silent as a member of it. But as the opposi tion to the Government Bill was ostentatiously proclaimed as adverse to the influence of the Prince Consort, his Royal Highness has, by selecting Lord ELLESMERE as the medium of his communication with the Manchester Committee, gracefully shown that he is quite free from all personal feeling in regard to the decision of the House of Commons, and that it is quite possible to oppose his views without forfeiting his favour. THE FROME ELECTION, AND PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATISM. THE election for Frome has considerable in• terest in our eyes, on account of the excellent address put forward by Lord EDWARD THYNNE. ft is the language of manly, hearty, and intelligent Conservatism; and, though we differ from his Lordship in one point, we recognise no small ability in the expression of his sentiments, which are worth examining in detail. First, we are glad to see that one of his emi nent family and influential connection has clearly recognised the necessity of social pro gress. His Lordship says, " The true policy " of every real Conservative must be to ad " vance with the times in which we live." His Lordship, in enforcing the necessity of " useful reforms, observes, " that economy and effi. " ciency will be alike promoted by a searching " investigation into the present mode in which " patronage is administered, and the public " departments conducted." It is satisfactory to find that the strictures of THE PRESS 011. " the jobbery of Liberalism" have not been without fruit. At former periods the Conservatives of England felt reluctance at touching on official scandals. But the " jobbery of Liberalism" has become too out rageous to be borne with, and we tell the Conservative body throughout the country that in various directions the patronage of the Executive is most unfairly used to thwart and molest the legitimate social pretensions of the Conservative interest, not in Parlia mentary circles alone, but in other classes of life. Mr. HAYTER'S " choristers" of " happy, happy Wells," diffused through the public offices, are too faithful representatives of the way in which Liberals work in power. Lord EDWARD THYNNE significantly says that he is not " less liberal" in his views than those "who would arrogate to themselves the ex " elusive possession of liberal opinions." We believe the fact to be that no party is less really " Liberal " than that which assumes the title. It runs down one man because he is a member of " the Haristocracy ;" it vilifies another because he is not a Dissenter, as if there were any positive virtue in mere title. It declines to be served by practical talent and honest qualifications if their pos sessor will not degrade himself to be a mere delegate, and if he will not swallow pledges and forget them like a Sir Benjamin Hall or a Mr. B. Osborne. If Bob Acres were now living he would wear a long beard and indulge in Crimean small talk. We should laugh at the " ridiculous humbug," but our contempo rary Radicals, salaried and sycophantic, who silently eat their official pudding while an army is rotting—the men of Liberal principles and lax consciences—these politicians well merit the sneer of Lord EDWARD THYI4iNE as " arrogating to themselves the exclusive pos " session of liberal opinions." Of liberal places they have, indeed, a most exclusive possession. His Lordship then observes, " I cannot view " the present position of the country as satis ." factory, or one that an Englishman should "be proud of." " The culpable negligence of " the Home Government" is censured ; and he hits the Ministry hard in saying: " While THE PRESS. " the nation is insulted, and lowered in the " estimation of the world, all discussion in the " House of Commons is sought to be stifled." Just so. Lord PALMESSTON was a colleague of Lord CASTLEASAOH in the days of the " gagging bills." The country is not now seditious, but the Premier treats publld opinion as lfOrd CAItIAREAGH treated sedi• tion. He "stifles" it, Ins Lord E. THYNNE well remarks. Lord EDWARD Titillpt is opposed to May nooth, and we are fbr it ourselves only in the setae of supporting it as a choice of two evils. In all other points we heartily concur with his Lordship, and we sincerely trust that he will rescue Frome from being the pocket borough of the Boyle family. We hope that the elec tors will act with spirit. Major BOYLE stands on " family principles," and the country is tired of the Whig families. Mr. IsTreoL is an impracticable Radical, and Lord EDWARD THYNNE is " the right man" for Frome. THE PARTNERSHIP AMENDMENT BILL. MR. LOWE and his fellow-thinkers seem deter mined to push the so-called principle of "limited liability" still further than it was carried by the late measure. Under the law as it is, the trade and commerce of the United Kingdom have attained an unexampled mag nitude, and are even yet extending with un paralleled rapidity. Yet, although this prosperity is strikingly in favour of the insti tutions under which it blooms and flowers, Mr. LOWE has the boldness to assert that the "burden of proof lies upon those who support " the law." Such an assertion is against all experience and common sense ; it is known, as a principle by all arguers, that the burden of proof lies upon those who require the change of a law. Yet, although we might leave Mr. LOWE to prove his point if he could, we are not unwilling to enter the lists with him. Almost all the commercial world have ex pressed their opinions on the question, and not only numbers, but the weight of opinion is against it. Gentlemen whose great expe• rience and intelligence eminently qualify them to judge of this matter have strongly deprecated any immunity from the present legal liability. These gentlemen include amongst their number Lord OVERSTONE ; the presidents of several chambers of commerce ; the principal merchants and bankers in England and Scotland—in fact, nearly all those names that the commercial classes of England are accustomed to look up to : and Mr. LOWE, in his infinite wisdom, says the burden of proof lies upon those who oppose a dangerous experiment. The movers of the change are, however, bound to show several points—to show that, in the present state of trade, there is any evil of sufficient magnitude to justify so great a change in the law, or for which the proposed change would be an appropriate remedy ; and, further, to show any new advantage which the change is calculated to secure, e ither in the legitimate expansion of trade, or in the increased steadiness and solidity of its operations. This they are unable to do. They have been challenged to do so, and have not taken up the gauntlet. Limited responsibility is altogether an ex ception to the universal obligation which lies upon every one to pay his debts and fulfil his engagements to the utmost of his means. The interest of the individual whom it protects is not the ground on which so important an ex ception to general principles can ever rest, but the necessities of the community alone ; and the extension and development of trade under the present. system leads to the conclusion that there is no call for any further change. The principle of limited liability strikes at the f , undation of credit ; and credit is to capital what the channel of a river is to the water that flows over it. A general fallacy lurks in the argument on the other side, which assumes that capital remains unemployed, SATURDAY, deterred by the apprehensions in respect of unlimited responsibility. No more capital than is necessary as a reserve remains on the average idle, but is longed out productively for induakial undertakings or mercantile operations, and is thereby As effectually en gaged in the business of society as if every one *ere directly devoting his own quota of it to individual effort. Om great advantage of the present law is that ills already establish e d and naderetood by the Whole community en gaded ii active trading or commercial pur suits ; and the introduction of a new system must be always dangerous, and liable to much abuse and misunderstanding. What is it that is proposed? It is to enable the partners of any mercantile company— without the authority of Parliament, or the Crown, or of any other tribunal, and merely by making certain arrangements amongst themselves, and making certain, or rather uncertain, publications of those arrangements —to confer upon one or more of their mem. bers an immunity from the liability of the debts of the partnership. Now, this is a great privilege to ask; and we repeat again, that un less the promoters of limited liability are pre pared by argument and evidence to show (and in both they have hitherto failed) that the general interests of the community would be advanced by the introduction of such a system, they have failed in their case. Such associations are totally unnecessary in England. For all legitimate purposes capital is more than abundant; and there are always persons ready to enter into any line of busi ness, or any adventure affording a chance of profit. The " limited liability would enable clever speculators to get other persons' money and to carry on trade on a large scale impro vidently. They would engage in large opera tions, and would acquire credit based on the reputation of large capital, and this capital might be withdrawn, or even cease to exist, without the knowledge of the public. In the recent failure of a house connected with Italy, where there had been successive commandite partnerships, the greatest embarrassment was found to exist in ascertaining the legal rights and liabilities of the partners ; and generally the working of such copartnerships in France, and also in Canada, has been shown to be very unsatisfactory, as respects both the public and the parties. The ostensible part ners have necessarily the sole conduct and management of the business, and the corn mandite or unknown partners may (and do in France) find themselves and their capital exposed to the most serious risks without any means of interfering to prevent it. This so called reform is sought for in the very spirit of gambling and the allurements of unc;.,.r tainty. France is the very hotbed of reckless speculation, owing to this system. It has been found to be most demoralising. Speculation in England, as well as there, requires regula tion, and inexperience still demands protection against designing and reckless adventurers. THE HOUSE OF LORDS AND MAYNOOTH. THAT a vast number of persons are disposed to keep up a cry against Maynooth is a fact which cannot be denied, and the importance of the subject compels us again to return to the question. There are special reasons which ought to go far in showing the utter impracti• cability of agitation on this dangerous theme, so encircled with inflammatory passions. We ask of the promoters of the agitation against Maynooth one practical question, which it is impossible for them to answer satisfactorily to themselves. Have they ever considered " What would " the House of Lords do about Maynooth ?" That is a topic on which we have ourselves made some reflections, and we should strongly advise those who are inclined to promote an anti-Maynooth cry to meditate carefully upon it. Let them recollect that it has always been one of the most marked characteristics of the