The Press.
London, England, 1856-07-12 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

" the nation is insulted, and lowered in the
" estimation of the world, all discussion in the
" House of Commons is sought to be stifled."
Just so. Lord PALMESSTON was a colleague of
Lord CASTLEASAOH in the days of the
" gagging bills." The country is not now
seditious, but the Premier treats publld
opinion as lfOrd CAItIAREAGH treated sedi•
tion. He "stifles" it, Ins Lord E. THYNNE well
remarks.
Lord EDWARD Titillpt is opposed to May-
nooth, and we are fbr it ourselves only in the
setae of supporting it as a choice of two evils.
In all other points we heartily concur with his
Lordship, and we sincerely trust that he will
rescue Frome from being the pocket borough
of the Boyle family. We hope that the elec-
tors will act with spirit. Major BOYLE stands
on " family principles," and the country is
tired of the Whig families. Mr. IsTreoL is an
impracticable Radical, and Lord EDWARD
THYNNE is " the right man" for Frome.

THE PARTNERSHIP AMENDMENT
BILL.

MR. LOWE and his fellow-thinkers seem deter-
mined to push the so-called principle of
"limited liability" still further than it was
carried by the late measure. Under the law
as it is, the trade and commerce of the United
Kingdom have attained an unexampled mag-
nitude, and are even yet extending with un-
paralleled rapidity. Yet, although this
prosperity is strikingly in favour of the insti-
tutions under which it blooms and flowers,
Mr. LOWE has the boldness to assert that the
"burden of proof lies upon those who support
" the law." Such an assertion is against all
experience and common sense ; it is known,
as a principle by all arguers, that the burden
of proof lies upon those who require the
change of a law. Yet, although we might
leave Mr. LOWE to prove his point if he could,
we are not unwilling to enter the lists with
him.
Almost all the commercial world have ex-
pressed their opinions on the question, and
not only numbers, but the weight of opinion
is against it. Gentlemen whose great expe•
rience and intelligence eminently qualify
them to judge of this matter have strongly
deprecated any immunity from the present
legal liability. These gentlemen include
amongst their number Lord OVERSTONE ; the
presidents of several chambers of commerce ;
the principal merchants and bankers in
England and Scotland—in fact, nearly all
those names that the commercial classes of
England are accustomed to look up to : and
Mr. LOWE, in his infinite wisdom, says the
burden of proof lies upon those who oppose a
dangerous experiment.
The movers of the change are, however,
bound to show several points—to show that, in
the present state of trade, there is any evil
of sufficient magnitude to justify so great a
change in the law, or for which the proposed
change would be an appropriate remedy ;
and, further, to show any new advantage
which the change is calculated to secure,
e ither in the legitimate expansion of trade, or
in the increased steadiness and solidity of its
operations. This they are unable to do. They
have been challenged to do so, and have not
taken up the gauntlet.
Limited responsibility is altogether an ex
ception to the universal obligation which lies
upon every one to pay his debts and fulfil his
engagements to the utmost of his means. The
interest of the individual whom it protects is
not the ground on which so important an ex-
ception to general principles can ever rest, but
the necessities of the community alone ; and
the extension and development of trade under
the present. system leads to the conclusion
that there is no call for any further change.
The principle of limited liability strikes at the
f ,undation of credit ; and credit is to capital
what the channel of a river is to the water
that flows over it. A general fallacy lurks in
the argument on the other side, which
assumes that capital remains unemployed,

SATURDAY,

deterred by the apprehensions in respect of
unlimited responsibility. No more capital
than is necessary as a reserve remains on the
average idle, but is longed out productively
for induakial undertakings or mercantile
operations, and is thereby As effectually en-
gaged in the business of society as if every
one *ere directly devoting his own quota of it
to individual effort. Om great advantage of
the present law is that ills already established
and naderetood by the Whole community en-
gaded ii active trading or commercial pur-
suits ; and the introduction of a new system
must be always dangerous, and liable to much
abuse and misunderstanding.
What is it that is proposed? It is to enable
the partners of any mercantile company—
without the authority of Parliament, or the
Crown, or of any other tribunal, and merely
by making certain arrangements amongst
themselves, and making certain, or rather
uncertain, publications of those arrangements
—to confer upon one or more of their mem.
bers an immunity from the liability of the
debts of the partnership. Now, this is a great
privilege to ask; and we repeat again, that un-
less the promoters of limited liability are pre-
pared by argument and evidence to show (and
in both they have hitherto failed) that the
general interests of the community would be
advanced by the introduction of such a system,
they have failed in their case.
Such associations are totally unnecessary in
England. For all legitimate purposes capital
is more than abundant; and there are always
persons ready to enter into any line of busi-
ness, or any adventure affording a chance of
profit. The " limited liability would enable
clever speculators to get other persons' money
and to carry on trade on a large scale impro-
vidently. They would engage in large opera-
tions, and would acquire credit based on the
reputation of large capital, and this capital
might be withdrawn, or even cease to exist,
without the knowledge of the public. In the
recent failure of a house connected with Italy,
where there had been successive commandite
partnerships, the greatest embarrassment was
found to exist in ascertaining the legal rights
and liabilities of the partners ; and generally
the working of such copartnerships in France,
and also in Canada, has been shown to be
very unsatisfactory, as respects both the
public and the parties. The ostensible part-
ners have necessarily the sole conduct and
management of the business, and the corn-
mandite or unknown partners may (and do in
France) find themselves and their capital
exposed to the most serious risks without any
means of interfering to prevent it. This so-
called reform is sought for in the very spirit
of gambling and the allurements of unc;.,.r-
tainty. France is the very hotbed of reckless
speculation, owing to this system. It has been
found to be most demoralising. Speculation
in England, as well as there, requires regula-
tion, and inexperience still demands protection
against designing and reckless adventurers.

THE HOUSE OF LORDS AND
MAYNOOTH.

THAT a vast number of persons are disposed
to keep up a cry against Maynooth is a fact
which cannot be denied, and the importance
of the subject compels us again to return to
the question. There are special reasons which
ought to go far in showing the utter impracti•
cability of agitation on this dangerous theme, so
encircled with inflammatory passions. We
ask of the promoters of the agitation against
Maynooth one practical question, which it is
impossible for them to answer satisfactorily
to themselves.

Have they ever considered " What would
" the House of Lords do about Maynooth ?"
That is a topic on which we have ourselves
made some reflections, and we should strongly
advise those who are inclined to promote an
anti-Maynooth cry to meditate carefully upon
it. Let them recollect that it has always been
one of the most marked characteristics of the

JULY 12, 1856,

House of Peers to differ from the House of
Commons on the treatment of religious ques-
tions. Its course on such subjects has always
been more guarded than that of the popular
branch of the Legislature. Even on the
" Catholic Question" the House of Peers was
far more wary and circumspect than the
House of Commons. It has never been prone
to give in to " cries." Thus when, about the
year 1780, there was a most outrageous " No
Popery " feeling excited by Lord GEORGE GOR-
DON and his followers, the House of Lords
acted a far more dignified part than the
House of Commons. In the Lower House at
that time Sir GEORGE SAVILLE brought in a
bill for preventing Roman Catholics from
educating the children of Protestants. The
bill passed the Commons by a large majority,
but it was rejected by the House of Lords.
So, after the Union with Ireland, the Peers
seem to have argued that the concession of the
Catholic claims was merely a question of time,
and must be yielded eventually. On the motion
of the Marquis WELLESLEY, in 1812, a majority
of two in the House of Lords decided in favour
of the Catholic claims, which did not pass the
House of Commons until many years after-
wards. Then let us mark the contrast after
the Reform Bill between the Houses of Peers
and the Commons.
The Dissenting interest had been vastly in-
creased by the Reform Bill. The Whigs used
" Appropriation " as an electioneering cry, and
were for secularising the property of the
Irish Church. With the House of Commons,
as it existed in 1833, 1834, and 1835, these
measures found favour, but the Peers rejected
" Appropriation," the Houses came into colli-
sion, the country was appealed to, and it de-
cided finally with the Lords. The Dissenters'
Chapel Bill of 1845 encountered far more
opposition in the Commons than in the Lords;
and on the right of Jews to sit in the Legisla-
ture, the two Houses have decidedly differed.
It is, indeed, on religious questions that the
House of Peers shows its strength against the
House of Commons. On SACHEVEREL'S trial it
nobly contrasted with the vulgar fanaticism
of the Commons. "Itis on occasions such as
" these," says a recent ecclesiastical historian,
" that the House of Lords has so often com-
" mended itself to the deep respect of the
" English people, and shown that if the
" House of Commons gives full expression to
" their will, the House of Peers is no less
" necessary to interpose between democracy
" and its excesses."
Now, Maynooth is exactly the sort of ques-
tion upon which the House of Lords would be
likely to encounter the House of Commons
with unyielding spirit. The Whigs and waverers
in that assembly would join upon it, and
their votes would be aided by a most powerful
section of the Conservative Peers, who con-
scientiously believe, as we do ourselves, that
a cry against Maynooth is not only impracti-
cable, but most dangerous. We put it to any
intelligent politician whether there is the
least likelihood of the House of Lords con-
senting to repeal the grant to Maynooth?
And to what purpose would be a struggle be-
tween the two Houses on such a subject? Of
the dangerous character of such an agitation,
political discretion forbids us to state all the
particulars.
We trust, therefore, that those who take a
practical view of politics will reflect on the
certainty of the House of Peers refusing to
endorse the anti-Maynooth " cry." Let them
recollect also that there is only one Roman
Catholic in the representation of England and
Scotland ; and that, if the Maynooth Act be
repealed, there will certainly be a sort of
" Long Parliament " shout against the Church
of Ireland, and that the whole of our Protes-
tant system will be disorganised. Such
thoughts might deter them from lending their
voices to an agitation more sincerely under-
taken than O'CoNNELes "Repeal," but just as
certain to end in nothing, after having excited
mischievous discord throughout the land.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL.
IT is of no great consequence that the Appel-
late Jurisdiction of the House of Lords is to
remain unsettled for another year ; but it is of

THE PRESS.

some consequence that the House of Com-

coons should show itself so uncertain in its

judgment. The second reading of the Bill

passed by the Lords was carried by the Com-
mons on Monday, in a House of 333 members,
by a majority of 49. On the following Thurs-
day a motion for referring the Bill to a select
committee was carried, in a House of 288
members, by a majority of 22, the latter deci-
sion completely reversing the former. During
the present session the House has given more
than one instance of the same instability of

purpose, but never, we think, with so little
rational explanation as during the past week.

A reference to a select committee merely
amounts to an assertion that sufficient time

has not yet been allowed for discussion. Why
could not the opposers of the Bill perceive
this on the Monday as well as on the Thurs-
day ?
It being accepted as a principle that a sove-
reign Court of Appeal should form, as it were,
the apex of our legal system, it follows as a
natural consequence that a tribunal exercising
such paramount influence over the rights and
property of her Majesty's subjects should be
invested with all possible dignity and gravity.
Doubtless some such consideration has all
along weighed with those who cling to the
Appellate Jurisdiction of the House of Lords
as at present constituted, in spite of the
anomaly by which it is pervaded and the ad-
mitted defect of its machinery ; and the same
feeling would probably induce them, in the
case of any change, to prefer eateris paribus
that these supreme functions should still con-
tinue attached to their Lordships' House.
Owing to the vote of Thursday night the
question is still in abeyance, and in the mean-
time it may not be amiss to consider what are
the indispensable conditions on which the new
Court should be constituted, and the nature of
the alternatives presented to us, if the prin-
ciple of Lord DERBY'S plan should be finally
rejected.
There are two points to be considered
touching the practical efficiency of such a
court, which are, the eharacter and number of
the judges to be created, and the dignity of
the position they should occupy. In the first
place, it is most necessary that they should
not be taken from the class of worn-out judges,
but should consist of men able to give the
whole weight of a vigorous intellect to the in-
vestigation of the extremely subtle and diffi-
cult questions brought before them—men not
passed beyond that period of life when the mind
is capable of dealing satisfactorily with ques-
tions which demand an original solution. For
one of the leading functions of a sovereign
Court of Appeal is obviously that of laying
down principles of law, and establishing pre-
cedents where no precedents before existed,
for which duty persons in whom experience
and energy have both reached the highest
point at which they can ever coexist are im-
peratively required. In regard to number, we
are disposed to think that not, less than three
or four, besides the LORD CHANCELLOR, would be
sufficient ; while, in point of salary, we can-
not allow that it should be less than that of a
Lord Chief Justice, even if it should not be
more. The proposed sum of 5,0001. a year
would, in our opinion, be decidedly too
small.
Supposing this plan to be thrown over, what
remains? There is the old expedient of un-
limited life peerages, which a certain party in
the State is still most zealous to accomplish,
but which has received such condemnation
from the leading lawyers and statesmen of the
country, and is pregnant with such grave
constitutional dangers, that we cannot antici-
pate the possibility of its revival. In addi-
tion to which we may observe that the class
of men called up to the House of Lords by the
operation of this measure would be exactly
not the class which the exigencies of the case
demand. They would have had no fixed
position and no determined duties; they
would be past the exercise of their functions,
or they would have had duties to engage them
inconsistent with the labours required from
them in the House of Lords. Tho new

651

judges should certainly, as a rule, be men of a
higher :alibre than even our puisne judges in
their prime. Men do not necessarily become
wiser through elevation of station. If Vice-
Chancellor STUART were removed to the Wool-
sack to-morrow, wo do not suppose that any
greater confidence would be felt in his de•
cisions. The very institution of courts of
appeal supposes that those courts are com-
posed of the highest ability in the realm, and
that they have leisure for maturely considering
their judgments.
Of the other alternatives which have been
proposed, one and all involve the separation
of the Appellate Jurisdiction from the House
of Lords. What necessity for such separation
exists? There is not one of the proposed
schemes which does not involve greater diffi-
culties than the adoption of the principle of
Lord DERBY'S proposed committee. We find
ourselves a little at a loss to understand the
objections to it. It is said to be a " sham,"
because the Peers will not in reality be the
judges ; but does that constitute it one whit
more of a sham than the present state of
things? Would it not be fairer to say that it
is a measure which provides at once a distinct
and efficient court of appeal, without depriving
it of such weight in the eyes of the country as
its connection with the House of Lords is un-
questionably calculated to produce? It is
said that it would be dangerous for their
Lordships to have a permanent court sitting
while the other branches of the Legislature
are dispersed. This is an argument fitter for
the times of High Prerogative than our own
day. Dangerous to whom and to what? We
cannot comprehend in what the mysterious
peril consists, as the legal committee would
sit for the specific purpose only of hearing
legal appeals. Till the oracles who announce
it can speak less ambiguously, we shall ven-
ture to doubt of its existence.