The Press.
London, England, 1855-06-30 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

by a resolution of the house in the Indian admin-
istration, who bad been selected by Lord Derby for
the seals of the Foreign-office, and had been sponta-
neously chosen by the directors.
On the motion for adjournment till Monday, Mr.
CAYLEY again called attention to this subject, assert-
ing that no one had hitherto dreamt of Lord Can-
ning's appointment. He was no doubt an able man,
but he had no antecedents to justify the placing in
his hands the management of such an empire as that
of India. The public voice had already pointed out
Lord Elgin as the fittest man.
Lord PALMERSTON, after some further explanation
of the facts of the appointment, deprecated the
attempt to make it dependant on the will of the
House of Commons.

Mr. F. FRENCH, inquiring if the statement was
true that Admiral Seymour had been wounded by an
explosive machine, once more brought Lord Dun-
donald's offers under notice.

Sir C. WOOD said that forty six explosive machines
had been picked up in the Baltic by the fleet, one of
which had exploded and wounded Admiral Seymour,
but not dangerously. It was not intended at present
to accept Lord Dundonald's offers.
Mr. M. MILNES asked some questions respecting
the examinations of clerks in public offices, comment-
ing on the inconvenience of examining those who had
been examined before.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the
second examination would only be necessary when
the clerks had been appointed since the orders in
council appeared.
Mr. V. SCULLY complained that a notice which he
had on the paper would be superseded by Mr. Roe-
buck's motion, and begged an attendance of hon.
members on his own day.
Mr. ROEBUCK said that he did not know of the
important notice given by Mr. Scully when he gave
his own, and afterwards had certainly begged that
hon. member to withdraw it, on the simple ground
that he would not be listened to.
Mr. Wrilisras commented on the course taken at
public examinations, which was a premium on idle-
ness and inefficiency.
Sir F. BARING and Lord EBRINOTON denied the
charges just made.
The Victoria Government Bill was read a third
time and passed, after a protest from Mr. HADFIELD
against the religions endowment clause, and an
attempt by Sir J. PAXINOTON to introduce an amend-
ment more distinctly defining the powers of the Crown
and the Colonial Legislature.
The New South Wales Government and Australian
Waste Land Acts Repeal Bills were read a third time
and passed.
On the motion for the second reading of the
Partnership Amendment Bill, Mr. BOUVERIE ex-
plained its objects, which were to alter the present
law when it interfered with useful undertakings,
with the due transaction of business under many
peculiar circumstances, and with the introduction of
inventions, by preventing persons from engaging in
them through dread of the risks of partnership. The
law of other nations was free from restrictions of this
kind, and he instanced more especially the success
of the French societies en commandite. His bill
mainly provided that the lending money to a firm at
interest for the purposes of business should not con-
stitute a partnership. He believed that if the law
was altered, the gentry of the country would take a
pecuniary interest in trading affairs. The bill ex-
cepted from Ls operation bankers and insurance
companies, which were regulated by distinct acts,
and conducted on different principles. He adverted
to the mischief caused to the other joint stock com-
panies by the liabilities which now affected its share-
holders.

Mr. COLLIER, expressing his delight that the pro-
posal of limited liability was at length adopted,
thought the bill needlessly cautious, and pointed out
several cases where the caution would operate
injuriously.

Mr. this would not oppose the project of the bill,
but deprecated hasty discussion on so important a
subject

MALINS declared the existing law of partner-
ship to be disgraceful to a civilised community, and
cited a multitude of cases to prove the injurious con-
sequences of the restrictions of the present system.
He thought that bankers and insurance companies
might be safely excluded.

Mr. CARDWELL hoped that they might be able to
pass such a measure as would give business asso-
ciations of all kinds just as much credit as they were
entitled to, and no more. Drawing the distinction
between partnerships and joint-stock companies, he
thought that the last was the more pressing subject.
What was required was a general system of notice,
by which companies could secure to themselves the
advantages of limited liability. He pointed out the
details by which he thought that object might be
attained, and objected to some of the restrictions by
which the bill was too jealously guarded, but thought
that they should wait before they included banks in
their new conditions.

SATURDAY,

Mr. E. BALL was in favour of limited liability.
Mr. LOWE said that the question was in its infancy,
and the proof was that the supporters of the bill were
afraid of carrying out their own principles, and with
this view argued upon the trammels and limitations
of the bill as unjust and incongruous..

Mr. CAIRNS, warmly approving of the bill, thought
that its basis was not sufficiently broad.
Mr. J. U. Puu-LudoßE accepted the bill as an
earnest of what we might be able to do hereafter.
Mr. HORSFALL rebutted the assertion that the pro-
posed law of limited liability was founded on a spirit
of monopoly among the great mercantile classes.
Mr. W. BROWN required some better guarantee for
the good faith of companies than accounts, which
might be cooked in many ways.
Lord PALMERSTON urged the importance of passing
the bill this session, and begged those who required
further extension of the principle to take this first
improvement as an experiment in the way of pro-
gress. He congratulated the house on the unani.
mity which appeared to prevail upon the general
principle.
Mr. A. Hesriz said that limited liability had not
raised the country to its present commercial im-
portance, and had not worked well in France.
After a few words from Mr. MOFFAT and Mr.
EWART, the bill was read a second time.
The Limited Liabilities Bill was also read a second
time.

The notice for going into committee on the
Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) Bill was resisted by
Colonel DUNNE, who moved the adjournment of the
debate. On a division the house agreed to go on
with the bill by 138 to 34-104. Colonel Dunne
renewed his opposition to the bill, and moved that
the committee be postponed for three months.

. .
Mr. FAGAN opposed the bill, which was explained
and justified by the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
A prolonged discussion ensued, ending at last in an
adjournment of the debate on the understanding
that a commission should issue to investigate the
subject.
The House adjourned at two o'clock.