The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1855-07-03 00:00:00

FRIDAY.

NEWSPAPERS TO CANADA.—In reply to a question, Mr.
WIDSON said, the recent act provided that a charge not ex-
ceeding 2d. might be placed upon all newspapers sent to the
British colonies, but the regulations which were about to come
into force imposed upon newspapers going direct to Canada a
charge of Id. instead of 2d. If, however, they were trans-
mitted through the United States, as ld. then had to be paid
to the United States' government, the charge was increased to
2d. The charge of transmission to other colonies was ld.
There would not be a charge of 2d. upon newspapers going
through Halifax, unless they were sent by way of Boston.
LORD RAGDAM.—In answer to a question, Lord PALMER-
sToN said the only information received by the government as
to the health of Lord Raglan was, that he had been labouring
under temporary indisposition for a week or ten days, which
had rendered it necessary that he should not take any active
part in the duties of his command, which had devolved during
the interval upon General Simpson, Sir G. Brown having
been at the time unwelL There was, he added, reason to hope
that a few days would restore Lord Raglan to his ordinary
health, the last accounts stating that he was considerably
better.

Sir C. WOOD, in answer to Mr. French, said the govern-
ment were not prepared to carry into execution the scheme
proposed by Lord Dundouald.
THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF INDIA.—To a question by
Mr. Cayley, Lord PALMERSTON replied that the selection of the
individual to fill the office of Governor-General of India was
vested in the Court of Directors of the East India Company,
subject to the approval of the Crown. The chairman gave
• notice of their intention to appoint, on Wednesday next, Lord
Canning as successor to Lord Dalhousie. That selection would
receive, Lord Palmerston said, the approbation and consent of
the Crown.
The Victoria Government Bill, the New South Wales
Government Bill, and the Waste Lands (Australia) Acts
Repeal Bill, were read a third time and passed, the two former,
with a few amendments, after a brief discussion.
Law OF PARTNERSHIP.-111r. BOUVERIE, in moving the
second reading of the Partnership Amendment Bill, stated
the reasons which had induced the government to introduce it
and the Limited Liability Bill. He proceeded to explain the
law with relation to the subject, the objections to the law,
and the remedy proposed. In respect to private partnerships,
the criterion of a partner was the sharing in the profits of the
concern ; and the law held that a partner, as agent of his co-
partners, in a matter of common business, bound them by his
acts to the full extent of their means. To this state of the law
great, and, he believed, just objections were entertained, and he
read the resolution adopted by the house on the 22d June,lBs4,
declaring the law to be unsatisfactory and to require modifica-
tion. He adduced instances of the severe operation of the law,
which practically prohibited innocent and profitable undertak-
ings. Having stated the provisions of the bill, which would
authorize the loan of money, under agreement to share in the
profits of a concern, without rendering the lender liable be-
yond the amount of his share, lie expressed his conviction that
the change would be productive of great social advantages ;
that the gentry would not be, as at present, indisposed to
advance money to be embarked in trade. With regard to
joint-stock companies, they were partnerships with a large
number of members, under a deed of settlement; but as the
shareholders, who were constantly fluctuating, had no voice
in the management of the concern, the bond of mutual trust
and confidence, which connected private partners, did not
exist ; yet the directors had the power of binding the
shareholders to the full extent of their fortunes. This
created a substantial distinction between private part-
nerships and joint-stock companies. He pointed out the
vicious principle upon which the existing law and prac-
tice with reference to these companies were founded, and
their injurious effects, The power exercised by the Board

of Trade, of relaxing the law, he considered odious, and
that the limitation of the liability of joint-stock companies
ought to be general, care being taken that no one dealing
with them should be liable to be deceived in his contracts ;
the bill, accordingly, provided that such companies as chose
to carry on their concerns upon the basis of a limited liability
should give ample notice that they did so. The measure ex-
empted from its operation banks and insurance companies.—
Mr. GLYN said that for all the purposes of commerce there
was no want of capital in this country. He believed that the
law, as regarded joint-stock companies, required alteration,
and should therefore vote for that bill ; but, as to the Part-
nership Bill, he thought it would open a door to fraud, since,
by means of the registration, persons might carry on their
transactions long after their capital had been withdrawn.—Mr.
MArAN s spoke strongly in favour of this change of the law.
—Mr. CARDWELL observed that it was rather late in the day
to be arguing at great length the principle of this bill, which,
if not settled by public opinion, had been settled by the prac-
tice of twenty years. But the leaving the exercise of this
power longer in the hands of the Board of Trade would not
bear examination : it was for parliament to place the law on
such a footing that it ought to be available to all persons. The
great difficulty was, to construct a system of notice, by which
any joint-stock company desirous of limiting its liability, in-
stead of being required to give special notice to each customer,
should give a general notice which should be undertood to ope-
rate as a several notice. The Partnership Bill he considered to
be a greatly improved application of the French law. The law of
Commandite, in its inception, was no law of partnership ; it
originated, as a mode of loan, in the time of the Crusades, and
acquired in France the character of a law of partnership. That
law was not a separate and distinct code, and could not be in-
corporated simpliciter into our law without confusion.—Mr.
Lows observed that no one who had addressed the House had
followed up his principle to its logical consequences. With
respect to partnership, the question was, whether a man was to
be allowed to lend money on profits instead of interest ; if so, it
was a branch of the usury question, and if the usury laws
were wisely repealed, this restriction should follow. As to the
Limited Liability Bill, he took its principle to be freedom of
contract, provided security was taken that all the parties
had a perfect knowledge of the grounds of the contract.—
Mr. HORSFILL said, he was one of those who had taken excep-
tion to the abstract resolution adopted by the house on this
subject last session, and he had done so mainly because the
evidence taken before the commissioners and their report, by_
which the house was expected to be guided, at least to some
extent, had been only a few days in the hands of members.
These bills had been described as a concession to popular feel-
ing, but he believed that a majority of the commercial com-
munity of this country were opposed to this principle. For
his own part, he approved, to a great extent, the bills, but he
thought if the President of the Board of Trade would take
into consideration the views which had been propounded, he
would meet the wishes of all parties by adopting in the present
session the bill relating to limited liability, and allowing the
other bill to stand over until the next session. He must say,
in justice to the important commercial community he had the
honour to represent, that the general question of limited
liability had been fully, fairly, and openly discussed at a meet-
ing of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, which, after a
protracted discussion of several days, came to a decision adverse
to the principle of this bill, by a majority of about 200 to 100.
The strongest protest against the principle of the bill that he
had seen was contained in a petition which had been presented
to the house from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce.
These bills, therefore, were not to be regarded as
concessions to any clamour on the part of the commercial in-
terests of the country.—Mr. W. Bnowrf thought the house
should not legislate upon so important a subject without care-
ful and deliberate inquiry, and would, for his own part, feel
great regret if this country abandoned the vantage ground it
had so long occupied as compared with other commercial
states, and which was mainly attributable to the honourable
manner in which its commercial transactions had been con-
ducted. He hoped that if the bills were referred to a com-
mittee upstairs amendments would be introduced which
would render them less objectionable than he now considered
them.—Lord PALMERSTON said it was highly satisfactory to
find so general a concurrence of opinion as to the expediency
of the principle of these bills, which was in accordance with
the real principle of the existing law. Any improvements
suggested would receive the deliberate consideration of the
government. Unlimited liability impeded the application of
capital which might be employed to the benefit of theparties and
the improvement of the country, and he anticipated great advan-
tages, social and commercial, from the passing of the measure.
—Mr. J. ARTEW said, there was a very strong feeling in Liver-
pool in favour of limited liability, and he hoped that' these
measures would be carried through both Houses of Parliament
during thepresent session.—The Partnership Amendment Bill
and the Limited Liability Bill were then read a second time,
and fixed for committee on Monday, pro forma, for the purpose
of introducing amendments.
The order for the committal of the Lunatic Asylums (Ire-
land) Advances Bill provoked a long discussion, which, after
two hours' duration, was brought to a close by the Chancellor
of the Exchequer acceding to a proposition for the issue of a
commission if the debate were adjourned for a week.
The Idemnity Bill and the Hailevbury College Bill were read
a third time and passed.—The Gold and Silver (Wares No, 2)
Bill, and the Dublin Carriage Acts Amendment Act passed
through committee.—The Christchurch (Todmorden) Mar-
riages Validity Bill was read a third time and passed.—The
Endowed Schools (Ireland) Bill was read a second time.—
The County Palatine of Lancaster Trials Bill, the Excise Duties
Bill, and the Duchy of Lancaster Lands Bill went through
•,committeee.
Mr. J. BILL obtained leave to introduce a bill for the regu-
lation of Chinese passenger ships.—The house adjourned at
Ei minutes past 2 o'clock.