The Express.
London, England, 1855-03-01 00:00:00

prise, whilst it has afforded no protection against
rash or fraudulent undertakings. " If, by ad-
witting the principle of limited liability" (says the
report of the Law Amendment Society), " freedom
from responsibility could be insured in ordinary coin-
mercial undertakings, enterprise of a healthy charac-
ter, inasmuch as it would be based upon sufficient
capital, would be fostered. The present state of the
commercial law does not p t the occurrence of a
vast amount of fraudulent and rash speculation, lead-
ing to bankruptcy and insolvency, and therefore only
restrains individual enterprise without effecting the
good which is alleged as the justification of the
restraint." That the existing law secures a monopoly
to capital, by excluding competition, may, we think,
be conclusively established. Take the case of
the great brewers of the metropolis, of our ship-
builders, ironmasters, copper smelters, of the
workers of mines and collieries, and the monopoly
of capital, with its baneful consequences upon the
consumer, will be at once perceived. It is only
capitalists of large resources that can successfully
carry OR those trades; they are necessarily few, and
the absence of competition gives them a power to
command prices. The profits, therefore, go to en-
rich the fortunate few, whilst the equally deserving
many, whose united contributions would otherwise
secure for them a participation in those profits—thus
equalising wealth, and benefiting the public by lower
prices—are excluded altogether by the operation of
the existing law. Thus it is evident that capital has
a monopoly. It is true that, in the case of mines
and collieries, a system, first adopted in Cornwall—
which endeavours, as far as may be, to avoid the
inconveniences resulting from our law of partnership
—bas been largely resorted to, and our courts,
especially those of equity, have extended to it some
encouragement. These attempts, however, and the
favour they have received from the administrative,
are evidence of the impolicy of the present law, and
consequently of the necessity which presses for its
modification.

Not leas condemnatory of the existing law, as per-
nicious in principle and obstructive in practice, is the
case of those who benefit the world by discoveries
in the arts and sciences. It is not every
Warr that finds a BOULTON. Nor is it going
too far to assert that many an invention which
would have rewarded in a competent manner the
genius and labour of its discoverer, and have enriched
those who contributed their small fonds to mature it
or make it known, has been lost to the world, to
the equal injury of the individual and the State,
owing to the apprehensions entertained of the con-
sequences of failure under the law of partnership
las it at present stands. That the proposed change
will entail no real hardship or injustice upon creditors,
we showed in a former article. It will no doubt be
an object of the new law to define the resources of
all partnerships which may be formed under its
sanction; and it will treat the means of information
thus afforded as a sufficient notice of their responsi-
bility to any parties who may deal with them. The
effect of this will be to make creditors more cautious
and circumspect, and less obnoxious to the censure
justly cast upon them by an able writer, who com-
plains of " the indolence, the carelessness, the positive
dishonesty, with which parties (under the existing law
of partnership) are too apt to enter into contracts with
companies when they know that every individual
member is liable to his uttermost farthing." That
there is no natural right or principle of justice
opposed to the formation of partnerships with
limited liability, where the law provides information
as to their nature, object, and means, has never been
controverted. Amongst others who affirm the expe-
diency of the contemplated change, we have the
opinion of Mr. BRAMWELL, one of the soundest
authorities. He states that it is not expedient "to
prohibit by law persons from entering into partner-
ship, and to prohibit them and others from dealing
together, on the terms that the liability of one or
more or all of the partners should be limited."
But aftmall, perhaps, the strongest condemnation
of the existing law is the fact that it has been found
necessary to exclude from its operation certain com-
mercial undertakings, by the special intervention
of the crown, or by the operation of a private
law. By royal charter, by special letters patent,
and by act of parliament, the liability of partners
may now be limited. Thus privileged, an enormous
amount of capital has been securely invested and
profitably employed. The opponents of the proposed
change have never pretended that any injustice has
resulted to creditors from such exemption. This being
so, its advocates may reasonably argue that, as cre-
ditors are not damnified, and as a large number of
small contributors may be admitted to share the
benefits resulting from such partnerships, and thus
the more equal diffusion of wealth be promoted, it is
not only safe but desirable that the principle should
be extended, under similar conditions, to every branch
of productive enterprise; for to persons of limited
fortunes, a royal charter and an act of parliament
are equally unattainable.
Having shown the evils resulting from the pre-
sent law, we might (and it would appear the natural
course) proceed to show the benefits flowing in other
countries from partnerships with limited liability,
We might point to France, Austria, Prussia, and
America, where the system has been long tried and
found to work most beneficially. We might instance
the manufacturing towns of Mulhausen, in France,
and Lowell, in America, which have been called into
existence, and have grown into importance, by capital
furnished in this manner. But oar limits compel us
to elect between this and another branch of the sub-
ject; we therefore turn to consider for a moment the
social bearings of this great question. We have
incidentally treated one branch of it above, when
insisting upon the advantages which the general
body of small capitalists would derive if they could
with safety unite their contributions in commercial
and other undertakings. But there is another section
of the community to be considered. Let any one take
a survey of the country, and he will everywhere find
"working men" of energy, probity, ability, and ex-
perience, well qualified to carry on successfully various
branches of trade or commerce with which they are
familiar, and who would do so, to the benefit equally
of themselves and their supporters, if they oould
procure capital. The penalties of the law of partner.
ship deter those who have the means from associating
themselves with such men, to the detriment of all
parties. The philosophy of this part of the question
has been well stated by Mr. MILL. He says:—
" What the working classes feel, is not so much the
inequality of property, considered in itself, as the
inequality consequent upon it which exists now,
namely, that those who already have property have
so much greater facilities for getting more than those
who have it not have for acquiring it." This alone
is a strong argument for the change we have here
advocated, and which, we have little doubt, the wis-
dom of Parliament will shortly accomplish.—Daily
Nam

CRYSTAL PALACE, FEB. 28.—SHILLING DAY,
Admission at the doors, 429 ; autistic& by season tickets,
128; total, 666.
DIAN AND WOOLNIER Fortyrrs.—Yesterday 4 go•
vestment bill was printed to authorise the letting paste of
the royal forests of Dean sad Wooliner, and certain ether
parts of the hereditary pagodas of the mows. The
power to be granted may be exeralesal by the eamaissitom
et ether sear to whom the aisseginist of the males
may be melipted. Several seta are est forth of royal per
maw to which the power of kodag Is to be Mended.