The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1858-05-18 00:00:00

THURXDAY,

In reply toe Nadel of questions put by Mr. Noted'.
gate,
Mr. V. SMITH gave an explanation respecting the
" private letter "from Lord Canning, the subetanoe of
which explanation was that he had reoeived such letter,
dated the 6th of March ; that it contained a paragraph
referring to the proclamation which Lord Olannlng etatod
he intended to issue ; and that it did not appear to him
(Mr. Smith) at the time, and dill, that it wee of that
importance to render it neoessary that he should corn•
munieete it to Lord Ellenborough, who would have been
justified, ho thought, in considering it an impertinent
communication. He added—this part of his explanation
provoking fronted 'Moors—that he lied reed the letter to
Lord Pslinerston, to whom it did not occur, any more
than to himsolf, that the communication should be toads
to the Ooverninent.
_ . _ . . .

Lord J. Rusiici!. brought up the Import of the dom.
mitts' appointed to draw up the reasons for disagreeing
from the amendments of tho Lords on the Oaths Bill.
. .

-'-'fbsTr—easo—n-s--v;;;;—Arre-'oTioT4iii;ifo-us•-
test from Mr. Newdegate, and, upon the motion of Lord
J. Russell, a momege warn ordered to be sent to the Lords
desiring a conference.
On the order for the second reeding of the bluters and
Workmen Bill, moved by Mr. Macatrimoer,
Mr. WALPOLV anageoted that the Bill should be with.
drawn, considering it to be utterly unworkable.
After • short dl.OOlllOll, Mr. MA0E120101( Withrll4lW
the Bill. .

Mr. BEADLAK moved the second reading of the Joint.
Stock Banking Companies Bill.
Mr. BLACK Argued strongly in opposition to the Bill,
insisting upon the danger of limiting the responsibility
of bankers, and moved to defer the second reading for
six months.

This amendment was seconded by Mr. FINLAT.
After • few remarks by Mr. DRUSIMOND,
Sir R. CURDIN opposed the Bill, whioh, be said,
would indict injustioe upon the banks established sinoe
Sir Robert Peels Act. -

Sir W. DUNBAR supported the Bill, the object of
which, he obeerved, was not to interfere with unlimited
liability, but to extent to joint-stock blinks the principle
applied to other trades of limited responsibility, bringing
them within the operation of the general law, and he
believed that this measure would create • better class
of shareholders, and lead to an improved management
of joint-stock banks.
Mr. BOVILL looked upon the Bill u an attempt to
protect directors and shareholders of joint-dock banks
at the expense of the public, and appealed to the re-
peated decisions of Parliament that limited liability
should not be extended to bankers, whose unlimited re-
sponsibility was indispensable to the protection of the
public, the case of banks being exceptional, and not in
the same category with ordinary mercantile speculations.
The depositors had no voice in the appointment of the
directors of • bank, or any control over its manage-
ment. -

Mr. GURNEY oould not vote in favour of the Bill, not
because its principle was unsound, but because the
general experiment had not been tried long enough, and
until then, he thought it would be unwise to extend it.
If the general experiment should prove successful lie
should be ready to place banks upon the same footing
as other trading companies.
Sir G. LEWIS argued that the opponents of the Bill
were bound to show sufficient reasons why bankurg

companies should be excepted from the general
rule. He examined the reasons alleged in favour
of the exception, which were not powerful enough
to induce him to withhold his assent from the
second reading of the Bill. The measures, he observed,
was merely permissive, and if the public felt more con
-
Amino in banks with unlimited liability than in those
the responsibility of which was limited, the latter could
not compete with the former, and it was probable that
the cases in which the Act was adopted would not be
many.
Mr. MALLtee insisted that it was a fallacious ergo.
ment that the Legislature was on all occasions to
in-
terfere for the protection of one party, the creditors of
a bank, who had ample means of protecting themselves.
There was no substantial distinction between a banking
and any other trading company, if provisions were made
for due notice of their extent of liability. He sup-
ported the Bill, as well as
Mr. BAXTER, who said he saw no valid reason whr
the terms upon which one man was to deal with
, another should be prescribed by law. The rule of un-
limited liability prevented shrewd and cautious men of
, business from carrying on banks upon • sound principle,
and tempted the public to repose undue confidence in
banks, which, on their part, were induced to give
facilities to wild and reckless speculation.
Mr. JOSEPH EWART and Mr. SHERIDAN spoke in
favour of the Bill.
Mr. Bromine likewise supported the second reading.
He still considered the principle of limited liability
unsound ; but he could see no reason why, if applied to
other trades, it should not be extended to banks.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER also gave his
support to the second reading of the Bill. It put an
end, he said to • restriction which could be maintained
on no sound principle and although it might be true
that the principle of limited liability had not been suf-
ficiently tried, and the Legislature might be obliged to
retrace its steps, this was no reason why it should not,
be applied to banks.
The amendment was negatived, and the Bill WAS read
a second time.
The House then went into committee upon the
Church-Rates Abolition Bill.
The first clause, abolishing ohurch.rates, was carried,
after a long debate, by 227 to 153.
The other clauses were agreed to.
Sir A. ELTON moved the addition of two new clauses,
one providing that any church-rate made before the
passing of the Act may be collected in the same way as
if the Act had not passed; the other, empowering the
churchwardens and parishioners to make a voluntary
rate upon the occupiers of all property now liable to
church-rate, provided that no occupier who shall have
refused or neglected to pay such voluntary rate shall
be entitled to vote at any vestry summoned for church,
business for 18 months.
The first clause was agreed to and added to the Bill;
the other clause, after some discussion, was with.
drawn.
The Bill then passed through the oommittee, and was
ordered to be reported.
The Poor Law Amendment Bill was amended on the
report.
The Non-Parochial Registers Bill passed through corn.
mittee.
On the order for going into committee upon the Pro-
perty Qualification Bill, moved by Mr. L. KING,
Mr. BENTINCIL moved that the debate be ad.
journed.
This motion was negatived upon a division; where.
upon,
Mr. Hone moved that the HOMO do adjourn.
Mr. Kirin then consented to the postponement of the
committee.
Mr. ATHERTON moved for leave to bring in • Bill to
amend the Common Law Procedure Act, 1834, with
reference to the exercise of equitable jurisdiction.
The ATTORNET-GENERAL did not object to the intro-
duction of the Bill, and leave was given.
The House adjourned at 20 minutes to 1 o'clock.