The Express.
London, England, 1865-05-02 00:00:00

THE BANK NOTES ISSUE BILL.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the
recommittal of the Bask Notes lame Bill, the alterations
introduced into which, sham it was last before the house,
he explained at sore length.
Mr. AYRTON condemned the bill on several grounds,
the priocipal of which wee that He effect would be to sus-
peed all legislation on banking and paper money for 15
years, during which the existing monopoly enjoyed by
banb of issue would remain in full force. Moreover, be
objected dealing with the question at the clone of a nearly
defunct parliament se most inopportune. He moved as an
amendment that the order be postponed for a month.
Mr. Alderman SALOMONS pve a general support to the
bill, but suggested that legislation on a more extended
scale woe mammary.
Mr. CAVE particularly approved of the alteration doing
away with the sixty-five mile limit around London, but he
could not help thinking that the measure was, in some m-
onocle, an interference with the provisions of the act of
1844. He also stated several objections to its minor details.
The discussion was continued by Mr. Neste, Mr. Black,
Mr. Heypte, Mr. Rankly, Colonel Edwards (who stated
that the hal was regarded in the light of a 0211111111r0 of con-
ametion by the country bankers), Sir C. Wood, Sir 8.
Northcote (who expressed himself in favour of going into
ormimittee believing that it was not desirable to let the
banks ofissue continue on their present footing), Mr.
Hubbard (who opposed the bill), and Mr. °oaken (who
supported it). Ultimately Mr. Ayrton withdrew his amend-
ment, and the hones having gone into eommittes the
various deans were agreed to.
PARTNERSHIP AMENDMENT BILL.

Mr. GIBSON, in moving the second reading of the Part-
nership Amendment SOL explained its objects to be three-
fold ; namely, to enable partial to invest in commercial
undertakings without the liabilities of partnership, to
enable employee to °Win an interest in a business without
becoming partners, and to entitle widows and children to
take the profits of the doomed partner.
Mr. J. PEEL opposed the bill, and moved u an amend-
mandate/et that it be read • mond time that day six
months.
Mr. TURNER seconded the amendment, and explained
that he did so although he wen in favour of the principle
of limited liability. In his opinion the bill would have •
mischievous tendency, as it would convert the lender of
capital into an exhausting creditor.
The bill was supported by Mr. &Bothnia.% who ad-
mitted that it was a better measure than that which he
himself had introduced.
Mr. H. Moox and Mr. HutounD also opposed the bill,
on the posed that it would destroy responsibility without
giving asy countervailing advantage.
The Attorney and Sdiator Generals, Mr. Goschea, Mr.
Melina, and Mr. Healey supported the bal, which was op-
posed by Mr. Bovill. Mr. T. Baring. and Mr. Newdepta
On a division the dieesedaleat of AL Peel was negatived
by 126 to 39.
The Waimea:eke Bill was reed • mewl time, sad ordered
to be referred to a select committee.
Sir J. SHELLEY moved the mond read* of the Chel-
sea Bridp Toll Abolition BILLMr. MI 4TINCH moved that it be reed • meant time
that day six months.
Mr. COWPER suggested that a clause should be added
reimbursing the Them, from a local rate.
The bill was read • second time by • majority of 27 to
14, and referred to the select committee on metropolitan