The Press.
London, England, 1854-07-01 00:00:00

AUSTRIAN CONVENTION WITH THE
PORTE.

Government being asked on Thursday by Lord D.
STUART for any information they might possess re-
garding the treaty concluded between Austria and
Turkey for the occupation of the principalities,
Lord JOHN Russ Era, replied :

" Her Majesty's Government have received information
that a convention has been signed between Austria and the
Sublime Porte for the occupation of the Danubian princi-
palities by Austrian troops in any case, either whether the
ltussian troops shall have quitted the principalities, or
whether they shall seek to remain there—that is to say, if
the Russians have voluntarily left the principalities, the
Austrian troops will occupy them ; and if the Russians
should refuse to quit the principalities, the Austrian troops
will enter those principalities for the purpose of driving
them out. (` Hear, hear,' and a laugh.) That is the effect
of the treaty ; but we have not at present an official copy of
the convention which has been signed."
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY : I wish to ask if this country is any
party to the convention which he states has been concluded
between Austria and the Porte?

Lord JOHN RUSSELL: It is a convention between
Austria and the Porte, and this country is not a party
to it.

RUSSIAN PRISONERS.
A vote of 20,0001. to purchase a prison and defray
the anticipated charge of maintaining the Russian
prisoners who might be taken during the war was
brought up for consideration and sanction by the
House of Commons on Monday. Sir J. GRAHAM,
being interrogated by Mr. Milner Gibson, gave some
details of the principle on which the Government
purposes treating the prisoner question. He said
that

" it had appeared to the Government that whilst Parlia-
ment was still sitting preparations should be made for the
reception of prisoners who might be captured during the
war. In the last war there were three or four large
buildings for this purpose in different parts of the country
and one in Scotland. These had all, however, been sines
pulled down or converted to other uses, and therefore other
preparations were now necessary for the reception of
prisoners of war. An opportunity had recently presented
itself to the Government for purchasing a prison of con-
siderable size at Lewes, in the county of Sussex, for this
purpose and as the price was very reasonable he bad
struck a bargain with the owners, and Parliament was now
asked to defray the cost. At Constantinople also, with the
consent of the Sereskier and the admiral, preparations
had been made fur the reception of prisoners of war—not
so much of sailors as Russian soldiers—to the extent of
several hundreds. It was true, with reference to &consider-
able proportion of the commercial sailors who had been
captured, that their parole had been taken, and they were
offi•red permission to enter the British merchant service
upon the condition they should sail to the south and west,
hut not return to the Baltic or the Black Sea. Some bad
accepted this offer, and already a considerable number had
been liberated. No expense would be incurred in regard
to these prisoners of war that could be avoided, but the
Government had felt it necessary to make some provisions
for their reception, and to defray the cost of their mainte-
nance. The sum now asked for was only 20,0001. altogether,
including 5,000/. purchase-money for the gaol ; whereas in
the course of the last French war he believed the cost of
prisoners amounted to a million annually."
The vote was agreed to.
OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL.

The last lingering stages of this measure were got
through on Monday and Thursday last by the House
of Commons. On the former day Mr. HEYWOOD
brought forward once again his clause enabling dis-
senters to take degrees, which underwent some
discussion. Presently it was discovered that the
clause had been modified into a new shape since it
Was put into the notice paper, and the debate was
accordingly stopped by the Speaker on a point of
form.

By Thursday the formalities were complied with,
the remodelled clause having been duly notified in
the interim. It now removed the necessity of taking
oaths, other than the oath of allegiance, upon taking
the degrees of bachelor in tuts, law, medicine, and
music. Mr. Heywood supported his proposition by
contending for the expediency of throwing open the
university privileges to all classes, so far as was pos-
sible, without allowing Nonconformists to share in its
government. This, he said, his clause would do
with a just mixture of liberality and caution.
Mr. DENISON, who seconded the motet!, reviewed
the course which the measure had run through the
rocks and shoals 9f opposition, and tried to congra-
tulate himself upon the amount of reform which had
been saved out of the wreck.

Mr. HENLEY, referring to the clause before them,
observed that it was avowedly introduced as a step

606

for further innovations, and moved its rejection.
This motion was seconded by Mr. NEWLEGATE.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER announced
his intention and that of the Government generally
to support the clause.
Some further discussion followed, and ended in a
division, when the clause was adopted by a majority
of 2:13 to 79-151:
On the motion of Mr. J. G. PHILLIHOILE, a clause
WAS added to the bill for the purpose of providing
that no distinction or precedence should be allowed
to any member of the university on account of his
rank in passing examination or taking degrees.
The CHANCELLOR of the ExcHEQUER moved an
addition to the clause previously adopted on the
motion of Mr. Roundel! Palmer, for reserving the
rights and preferences to college degrees or emolu-
ments hitherto enjoyed by various public schools in
accordance with the founder's will. Mr. Gladstone
proposed to make an enabling proviso, giving the
colleges power, under certain limitations, to throw
open the " close" fellowships belonging to this
category.
A long and animated debate followed, in the

course of which much censure was passed upon the
vexatious course adopted by the Chancellor of the
. Exchequer, in many instances, with regard to the
bill. Ultimately, upon a division, this attempt to
neutralise the effect of Mr. Palmer's clause was
defeated by a majority of 10, the numbers being—
Ayes, 129; Noes, 130. Much cheering hailed this
final Ministerial defeat.
A new title, rendered necessary by the transmuta-
tions which the measure had undergone, was then
prefixed, and the bill declared to have passed the
House of Commons.
THE LAW OF PARTNERSHIP.

A motion designed to pledge the House of Com-
mons to the principle of " limited liability " in part-
nership for commercial and industrial enterprises
was brought forward on Tuesday by Mr. COLLIER.
The principle was embodied in a resolution which he
asked the house to adopt, declaring that the present
state of the law was most unsatisfactory, inasmuch as
it rendered every partner in a commercial under-
taking responsible for the whole of its debts to the
uttermost farthing of his own property, and that the
system should be so modified as to permit persons
to contribute capital and share in the profits of such
concerns without incurring more than a limited
amount of responsibility in consequence. Abroad, as
Mr. Collier showed from numerous instances, the
system he recommended, under the title of partner-
ship en commandite, had proved eminently useful ;
and at home was most beneficially adopted in the
case of railway and other companies, associated
under the provisions of an act of Parliament. The
facilities and immunities thus offered should,he con-
tended, be placed withinithe reach of every one, with
the result of calling into activity much individual en-
terprise, of opening a channel for a multitude of
small investments, of developing many sources of
wealth now left uncultivated, and of rescuing others
from the hands of mere jobbers and speculators.
The resolution was seconded by Lord GODERICII,
who expatiated upon the disabilities under which the
possessors of small capitals now laboured, preventing
the industrial classes from obtaining the proper re-
turn for their hard-earned savings, and hampering
the development of the great principle of associa-
tion.

Mr. CARDWELL would not offer any arguments
against the resolution, whose principle he admitted,
hut pleaded for time, observing that opinions differed
much upon the subject, that the reports of parlia-
mentary committees and royal commissioners varied
considerably in their conclusions, that the last and
longest report was only presented a week ago, and
that the question was surrounded with perils and
perplexities which required much time and delibera
don to remove. Altogether he submitted that, while
it stood confessed that something must be done, there
was no consonance of opinion as to what it was best
to do, or how it was best to do it. The matter WAS
not ripe for settlement, and meantime he recom •
mended the house not to pledge itself to a conclusion
on the abstract principle.
Mr. Luc.ts urged a plea on behalf of Ireland, where
capital was scarcer and more necessary, and where
the reasons for delaying the application of the princi •
ple of limited liability did not obtain. He moved a.,
an amendment the addition of a" rider" to the reso-
lution, declaring that the proposed modification was
especially necessary in Ireland.
The debate, if such it could be called when the
opinions expressed were almost identical on every
side, was prolonged for several hours. Successive
members repeated in various phraseology, and sus-
tained by various proofs, their conviction that the
unlimited liability system was unjust in principle and
injurious in practice. The working man, it was
shown, would be especially benefited by the change.
At present all opportunity of making the most of his
small savings was practically denied him, the chief
motive for prudence and economy on his part was
thus annihilated, and the increase in the capital of

THE PRESS.

the country from that source almost wholly stopped.
In supporting these conclusions Mr. COBDEN dwelt
upon the commercial and Mr.lllAtiss upon the legal
anomalies of the existing system ; Mr. J. G. PHILLI-
MORE combatted Mr. Cardwell's plea for delay, ob-
serving that the topic had been discussed and han-
selled during the last twenty years; and the Hon.
Mr. LEVESON GOWER wished fora change which would
develop the great principle of association.
Mr. GLYN and Mr. BROWN faintly resisted the mo-
tion—the former because, when sitting upon a com-
mittee on the subject in 1851, he had learned that a
multitude of frauds were to be apprehended if the
present law were abrogated.—the latter because
the Chamber of Commerce in Liverpool had voted
by a considerable majority that any admission of
limited liability in partnerships might tend to
undermine the very delicate organisation of com-
mercial credit in the country. Two more ministers—
the ATTORNEY-GENERAL and Lord PALMERSTON—after-
wards spoke. Both professed themselves warm
friends to the principle advocated by Mr. Collier, but
recommended him to withdraw his motion, since it
led to no immediate practical result, and the adoption
of a barren and " abstract " resolution might produce
some legislative inconveniences. The HOME SE-
CRETARY at the same time gave a qualified pledge that
the Government would try and do something towards
realising his object next session.
Mr. IllcAnno, Mr. CAIRNS, and other members, in-
sisted on the expediency of going to a division. If
opinions were unanimous, or nearly so, it was right
that the fact should be recorded in a formal vote,
which would besides give the Legislature a fixed
point as a basis for future action.
After much disputation upon the relative expe-
diency of voting or not voting on the resolution, Mr.
COLLIER expressed his readiness to withdraw the
motion. The house, however, took the matter out of
his hands, by refusing leave for its withdrawal. The
question was then put from the chair, and Mr. Lu-
cas's amendment being first adopted, the resolution
itself was agreed to unanimously, the members of
the Government offering no opposition.