The Sun.
London, England, 1855-07-27 00:00:00

STANDING ORDERS.

Lord REDESDALE moved the consideration of the
standing orders relating to private bills, with a view to
the introduction of certain amendments.
The amendments were agreed to.
COAL MINES INSPECTION BILL.

On the motion of Lord CANNING, the report of the
amendments on this bill were read and agreed to.
The Bills of Lading Bill, the Dissenters' Marriage
Bill, the Stage Carriages Duties Bill, the Convention
with the United States Bill, the Turnpike Trusts Ar-
rangement Bill, the Militia Officers Qualification Bill,
the Treasurers of Counties (Ireland) Bill, and the Sale
of Spirits (Ireland) Bill passed through committee.
The Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment Bill and
the Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) Bill were read a third
ime and passed.
The Trinity College (Ireland) Bill was read a second
time, and ordered to be committed.
EXAMINERS FOR STANDING ORDERS.

Lord 'REDESDALE moved that Samuel Smith and
Thomas Erskine May, Esqs., be appointed examiners for
standing orders for the ensuing session.
The motion was agreed to.
Their lordships adjourned at five minutes past seven
o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at twelve o'clock.

The following bills were read a third time and passed :
Dray's Estate Bill, Earl of Abergavenny's Estate Bill,
Jenkins' Estate Bill.

Mr. WICKHAM presented four petitions from the
inhabitants of the borough of Bradford, Yorkshire,
praying for the repeal of the Beer Act of last session
before the expiration of the present one ; also, one from
the shareholders of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Rail-
way against Accidents on Railways Bill.

LIMITED LIABILITY BILL.
On the order of the day for going into committee on
the above bill,

Mr. MUNTZ rose to oppose the further progress
3f the bill, characterising it as one of the most
objectionable measures that could possibly be conceived.
Every man of business that he had conversed with on
the bill expressed a similar opinion. If the principle of
this bill was a sound one, why not carry it out ? Instead
of doing that it would effectually prevent poor men
from deriving any benefit from it, and none but capital-
ists would derive any benefit from the measure. He
had read the speech of the right hon. gentleman, the
Vice• President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Bouverie),
who introduced the bill, and a more theoretical piece
of stuff he had never read. (Hear, and a laugh.)
Watt and Arkwright, and other men like them,
had made large fortunes, but it ,was by their
own energy and ability, and he doubted if they
would have done so had they been subject to
a limited liability. The Vice-President of the
Board of Trade had said it was well known that in the
Italian States the gentry, who were ashamed of taking
an active share in trade, were in the habit of embarking
their money in trading establishments without letting
their names be known, and that such a result might be
expected in this country when this bill became law ;
but he (Mr. Muntz) believed a greater delusion was
never entertained ; for, take the most intelligent and
best-intenticned country gentleman, and let Lim have an
active part in any trztding speculation, and he would
ruin it. (Rear.) He would ask the promoters of the
bill, who had asked for such a measure ? What portion
of the commercial classes of England, Ireland, or Scot-
land had demanded this measure ? (Hear.) The bill
would be a fruitful source of litigation. He believed it
was a mere lawyers' job. (Hear, hear.) Therefore he
thought if the promoters of the bill could not show better
grounds for it than they had yet shown, they ought at
least give time for more consideration than the bill could
possibly receive at this period of the session. He there-
fore moved that the bill be committed on that clay three
months.

Mr. GLYNN seconded the motion. He entreated
the house to postpone foreome time at least so important
a measure, until they should have time to consider
law of bankruptcy. (Rear.)
an-
otheron stubbejciecuteintimately connected with it—he meant the
t
the Speaker do leave the chair
being put,
Air. E. BALL rose to oppose the motion of the hon-
ourable member for Birmingham (Mr. 111untz). Ho
denied the assertion of the hon. member that every com-
mercial man out of doors was against the bill ; every
division that had taken place in this house had shown
by majorities of two to one that the house was in favour
of the principle of the bill, and he believed that the
opinions of commercial men on this subject were fairly
represented by the house. (Hear, hear.) He believed
the bill would be a great boon to the country generally,
and he hoped the Government would persevere in pass-

.ag it:
Mr. W. BROWN said he had had considerable expe-
rience of the working of the limited liability principle
both in France an 1 the United States, and he was con-
vinced that that principle would not be for the advan-
tage of this country.
_ _

STRUTT said the question they had now to con-
sider was, whether they ought to introduce the limited
liability principle to the ordinary trades of the country.
(Hear, hear.) Was there any great want of capital in
this country to enable parsons to carry on trade ? He
believed the very contrary was the case. He believed,
if they passed the bill this session, a very great clamour
would be raised against it, and they would have to re-
peal it after it bad done a great deal of mischief. He
recollected in 1825 they had new companies starting for
every conceivable purpose, and the consequence was the
ruin of a large number of persons ; and he believed, if
this bill passed, they would have the same evils renewed.
Mr. JOHN MACGREGOR expressed himself strongly
in favour of the bill.

Mr. V. SCULLY also agreed in the principle of the
bill, but believed it could not receive that consideration
which its importance demanded at this advanced period
of the session. He entertained the same opinion on
another bill on the paper—the Partnership Amendment
Bill—which was 4f equal importance, but to which the
same objection existed—namely, that it could not receive
due consideration at this period of the session.
Lord PALMERSTON entreated the house not to
waste time in discussing whether they ought or ought
not to go into committee on the bill, but to go into com-
mittee at once, when hon. members could discuss the
merits of the bill. (Hear, bear.) lie himself believed
this was a question of free trade against monopoly.
(Cheers, and counter cheers.) He did net say this
offensively ; but he was determintq the country should
see who it was that wasted the time of the house by long
speeches, and thus retarded the progress of this impor-
tant measure. (Cheers.)
Mr. SPOONER, supported the unction of the hon.
member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz).
After a few words from Mr. BASS,
Mr. MITCHELL, who rose amidst loud cries of
Divide," said he was not to be restrained from any
expression of his opinion on that bill by what had
fallen from the First Minister of the Crown. He was
in favour of the bill before the house in a general sense,
and his only objection to it was the same as that enter-
tained by the hon. member for Kent, tamely, as to the
mode proposed of carrying out the principle of the mea-
sure, though the principle itself was pretty well ap-
proved. (Hear.) Now, with regard to the remarks
which had been made by the noble lord at the head of
the Government, he must confess he bad never
heard observations more uncalled for or improper from
any Minister, (Rear, hear.) They had been applied to
a class of hon. gentlemen who had certainly never done
anything to deserve the appellation of destructives.
(Hear.) The noble lord forgot that, although the bill
was introduced before Whitsuntide—a bill which was to
revolutionise, whether for good or evil, the whole sys-
tem of commercial credit, the noble lord had allowed it
to sleep whilst his attention was occupied by two bills of
nother character—one being the Scotch Education Bill,
which he had thrown over without any compunction—
(hear, hear)—and the other the Irish Tenants Com-
pensation Bill, which the noble lord well knew could
never be passed. (Cheers.) The noble lord had occupied
himself with these two bills until the 26th July, when
he endeavoured, 'although professing all the while to
wish that the bill should be fully discussed, to intimidate
the house to allow it to progress by holding out a threat
of a protracted session. (Cries of "Oh, oh.") He did
not wish to offer any factious opposition to the bill, but
e protested against the use of such language.
Mr. L. DAVIS supported the bill.
Mr. FOSTER did not object to the bill in principle,
but he could not record his vote in favour of it without
observing that he thought it required much alteration in
a practical sense.
Mr. MALIN'S expressed his unqualified approval of
the measure, and sincerely trusted that its progress would
not be delayed longer than necessary.
Mr. HENLEY maintained that the question involved
in the bill was not, one of monopoly or free trade, as had
been stated by the noble lord (Lord Palmerston). He
did noitt objecttoo late to ttog he
into
a calm discussion of its merits. principle of the bill, but he consi-
dered
Ho was by no means affected by the threat made use of