The Press.
London, England, 1858-05-15 00:00:00

a; •

474

which it was intended to appropriate to a museum,
or place of deposit for models, and a library. He
moved to defer the second reading for six months.

Mr. DUNCOMBE and Sir J. SHELLEY defended the
bill, in reply to the Solicitor-General, and after some
further discussion the motion was negatived ; so that
the bill is lost.

REFORMATORY SCHOOLS.
Mr. Sergeant DEASY moved the second reading of
the Reformatory Schools (Ireland) Bill, the object
of which he explained, as well ai the amendments
he intended to propose in order to obviate objections.
Lord NAAS said he did not intend to offer any
objection to the second reading of the bill, which
extended to Ireland a measure adopted in Eng-
land. He at the same time threw out suggestions as
to its operation, and as to the state of prisons in
Ireland.

A short discussion ensued, in which Mr. Bagwell,
Mr. Hatchet!, Mr. Letroy, and Mr. Stapleton took
part, and the bill was then read a second time.
Mr. liattu,rott obtained leave to bring in a bill to
reduce the stamp duty on passports.
The house, after some further business, adjourned
at five o'clock.

HOUSE OF CO Xi MONS-.THURSDA.Y.
LORD CANNING'S PROCLAMATION.

Mr. V. Shure, in reply to a series of questions put
by Mr. Newdegate, gave an explanation respecting
the " private letter" from Lord Canning, the sub
stance of which explanation was that he had received
such letter, dated the 6th of March ; that it contained
a paragraph referring to a proclamation which Lord
Canning stated he intended to issue ; and that it did
not appear to him (Mr. Smith) at the time, and
still, that it was of that importance to render it ne-
cessary that he should communicate it to Lord
Ellenborough, who would have been justified, he
thought, in considering it an impertinent communi-
cation. He added—this part of his explanation pro-
voking ironical cheers—that he had read the letter
to Lord Palmerston, to whom it did not occur, any
more than to himself, that the communication should
be made to the Government.

THE OATHS BILL.

Lord J. RUSSELL brought up the report of the
committee appointed to draw up the reasons for dis-
agreeing from the amendments of the L)rds on the
Oaths Bill.

The reasons were agreed to by the house, after a
protest from Mr. NEWDEG iTE, and, upon the motion
of Lord J. RUSSELL, a message was ordered to be
sent to the Lords desiring a conference.

MASTERS AND WORIEbIEN BILL.

On the order for the second reading of this bill,
moved by Mr. MACKINNON,
Mr. WALPOLE suggested that the bill should be
withdrawn, considering it to be utterly unworkable.
After a short discussion, Mr. MACKINNON withdrew
the bill.

JOINT-STOCK BANKING COMPANIES BILL.
Mr. HEADLAII moved the second reading of this
bill.

Mr. BLACK argued strongly in opposition to the
bill, insisting upon the danger of limiting the respon-
sibility of bankers, and moved to defer the second
reading for six months.
This amendment was seconded by Mr. FINLAY.
After a few remarks by Mr. Dittotosn,
Sir R. CARDEN opposed the bill, which, he said,
would inflict injustice upon the banks established
since Sir Robert Peel's Act.

Sir W. DUNBAR supported the bill, the object of
which, be observed, was not to interfere with unli-
mited liability, but to extend to joint-stock banks
tile pnnciple applied to other trades of limited
responsibility, bringing them within the operation
of the general law, and be believed that this
measuro would create a better class of shareholders,
and lead to an improved management of joint-stock
banks.

Mr. Bovias. looked upon the bill as an attempt to
protect directors and shareholders of joint-stock
banns at the expense of the public, and appealed to
the repeated decisions of Parliament that limited
liability should not be extended to bankers, whose
unlimited responsibility was indispensable to the
protection of the public, the case of banks being ex-
ceptional, and not in the same category with ordinary
mercantile speculations. The depositors had no
voice in the appointment of the directors of a bank
or any control over its management.
Mr. GURNEY could 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, he should be ready to place
banks upon the same footing as other trading com-
panies.
Sir G. Lewis argued that the opponents of the
bill were bound to show sufficient reasons why
banking companies should be excepted from the
general rule. He examined the reasons alleged in
favour of the exception, which were not powerful