The Sun.
London, England, 1855-07-26 00:00:00

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
of 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 capitel-
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,
bad 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 'he
expected iu this country when this bill became law ;
but he (Mr. Mintz) believed a greater delusion V:tli
never entertained ; tor, take the most intelligent at,
best-intentioned country gentleman, end let him have an
active part in any trading speculation, and he would
ruin it. (Hear.) He would ask the promoters of the
bill, who had asked for such a measure ? What portiru
of the commercial classes of Ecgland, Ireland, or Scot-
land bad demanded this measure ? (Hear.) The bill
would be a fruitful source of litigation. He believed it
was a mere lawyers' job. (Hear, hear.) Therefore be
thought if the promoters of the bill could not show better
grounds for it than they had yet shown, they ought n t
least give time for more consideration than the bill could
possibly receive at this period of the session. He there-
fere moved that the bill be committed on this day three
months.

Mr. GLYNN seconded the motion. He entreated
the house to postpone for some time at least so important
a measure, mita they should have time to consider an-
other subject intimately connected with it—he meant the
law of bankruptcy. (Hear.)
On the question that the Speaker do leave the chair
being put,
Mr. E. BALL rose to oppose the motion of the hon-
ourable member for Birmingham (iVir. Muntz). He
denied the assertion of the hon. member thatevery 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 Gov
i ng it. ernment would persevere in pass-
Mr. W. BROWN said he had had considerable expe-
rience of the working of thelimited liability principle
both in France and the United States, and he was con-
vinced that that principle would not be for the advan-
tage of this country.
Mr. STRUTT said the question they had now to con-
sider was, whether they ought to irnateosduce the limited
liability principle to the ordinary t
of
of capital in
the country.
(Hear, hear.). Was there any great want
this country to enable persons to carry onilerade ? He
believed the very contrary was the case.
if they passed the bill this session, a very great clamour believed
would be raised against it, and they would have atm() ore
peal it after it had done a great deal of mischief. $e -
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 of 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.) He himself believed
this Rasa question of free-trade against monopoly.
(Cheers, and counter cheers.) He did not say this
offensively; but he was determined the country should
see who it was that wasted the time of the house by long
es, and thus retarded the progress of this irnpor-
t;:ne:lNtmirbm'eeSraPfsuu°rr°Be.Nir:ln(Cheers.)
o(rxit erd.
Muntz).
the n
tz
)motion.
After a few from Mr. BASS,
Mr. MITCIIELTs,
" Divide," said he ;awlan rose amidst loud cries of
expression of his opinion
not to be restrained from any
fallen from the First la on that bill by what had
ttr of the Crown, He was
in favour of the bill befores
was the
in a general sense,
and his only objection to it
tained by the hon, member for 'tee Same as that enter-
namely, as to the
mode proposed of carrying out thent'•
sure, though the principle itself pwriansel
Prettyt well ap-
ple of the men,
proved. (Hear.) Now, with regard
the remarks which had been made by the noble lordhoaet the head of
the Government, he must confess
eelaezied to
never
heard observations more uncalled fur or improperd front !
any Minister, (Hear, hear.) They had b
a class of hon. gentlemen who bad certainly
anything to deserve the appellation of destructdivonese (Hear.) The noble lord forgot that, although the bill I
was introduced before Whitsnutide—a bill which was to 1
revolutionise, whether for good or evil, the whole ays- '
thin of commercial credit, the noble lord had allowed it
t e sleep whilst his attention was occupied by two bills of
another character—one being the Scotch Education Bill,
which he had thrown over withouts 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 t,
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 c 1 Oh, oh,") He did

not wish to offer any factious opposition to the bill, but
lie nretested against the use of such language.
Me. L. DAVIS supported the bill.
_,lr. ,•.'11.71t did n..t object to the bill in principle,
b it he .-oold not record his vote in favour or it without
observing that be thought it Izquired mach altera, ion in
a practical ser.-,e.
.Mr. MALES S expressed his unqualified approval of
Vie 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
,lid not object to the principle of the bill, but he consi-
dered it too late to go into a calm discussion of its merits.
He was by no means affected by the threat made use of
by the noble lord to sit until September, and he should
ender these circumstances vote against the further pro-
;sees of the bill. (Hear.)
Mr. LAING considered that the debate up to that
~oint did not fairly represent the opinions of the house
upon the measure under discussion, inasmuch as those
who were in favour of it, and had reasonable hopes of
is going into committee that morning, had permitted its
opponents to speak against it one after another, without,
with one or two exceptions, offering anything in reply.
The hon. gentleman then went on at some length to re-
ply to many of the objections which had been urged
against the bill, and illustrated the arguments he brought
forward by statements of the results of his experience and
observation in commercial affairs. These, he said, evei e
practical instances why the existing law of partnership
ought to be altered, and that at once. At the same time he
thought the details of the bill ought to receive the deep-
est consideration, and should be well digested before
they were adopted.
Mr. HASTIE, at some length, opposed the further
prcgress of the bill, and cited various instances in which
its operation would prove injurious to the interests of
commerce. He believed that these bills would lead to
nothing but evil, and he hoped, therefore, that
the noble lord at the head of the Government would
postpone them to another session.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS thought the present was a most
'unfavourable moment to bring forward so important a
measure as the one now under discussion, and while he
admitted the great benefits that might be derived from
the passing of such a measure, he could not but depre-
cate the time at which it had been brought forward,
considering the present state of the session.
Mr. BOUVERIE thought the question of going into
committee on this bill was one of great importance, and
ti.at was the reason why he had put the measure forward
as the first order of the day. He believed that it was
necessary that this measure should pass, and he trusted
that no further opposition would be made to its further
progress. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. CARDWELL wanted to know how it was that
if those bills were of such importance they had not bad
an opportunity of discussing them ? It was well known
the standing orders of the House of Lords precluded the
further prcgress of them. The course that had been
pursued with respect to these bills compelled him to
vote in favour of the amendment.
Mr. DILL WYN, although he saw great benefits in
the principle of the bill, thought that at the present
period or the session it would not be pressed forward
with any good result, and that the labours of the house
wonid be in vain. (Hear.)
Tile house then divided, when there appeared—
For going into committee l2l
Against it. 4O
Majority for going into committee —Bl
The house then resolved itself into committee on the
bill, Mr, Fitzroy in the chair.
Mr. CAIRNS moved that the chairman should report
progress. The noble lcrd at the bead of the Govern-
ment was alone responsible for the delay that had taken
place on this measure, which he now considered of so
much importance. He should like very much to know
when the light of the importance of the measure first
broke in upon the noble lord. (Laughter.) The Govern-
ment had not been sincere in this matter. They had
seen that the measure was popular out of doors, and at
the last hour they had taken it up for the purpose, and
that alone, of popularity.
Viscount EBRINGTON believed that the Govern.
ment was not to blame for the non passing. of the bill,
but it was attributable alone to the mode of proceeding
in the house.
The CHAIRMAN then reported prcgress, and ob-
tained leave to sit again to-morrow at 12.
NAVIGATION WORKS (IRELAND) BILL.
The committee on this bill was postponed till to-
morrow.
LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND) ADVANCE
BILL.
The committee on this bill was postponed till to-
morrow.

PASSENGERS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill. Clauses
up to the GSth were agreed to, and thefurther considera-
tion of the measure was postponed till to-morrow.
The house shortly after four o'clock adjourned till
six o'clock.

The house resumed at six o'clock.
SALE OF BEER BILL.
Mr. H. BERKELEY brought up the report of the
committee on this bill.
CRYSTAL PALACE.
Vigconnt EBRINGTON gave notice of his intention
early next session to move that the Crystal Palace, the
National Gallery, and the British Museum should be
optined on Sundays, like the Botanical Gardens at Kew.
BEER BILL.
Mr. H. BERKELEY gave notice that, in accord.
ance with the report of the committee, he should, on
Thursday next, move for leave to bring in a bill for
altering the present law with respect to the sale of beer
ou Sunday.

[LEFT SITTING.]

THE LATE DISTURBANCES IN HYDE-
PARK.

INQUIRY INTO THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT
OF THE POLICE.-(THIS DAY.)

The commissioners took their seats this morning at a
quarter-past 11 o'clock.

The court wits densely crowded.
Mr. Ellice said that one of the witnesses who had
sworn to a certain policeman, called on him this morn-
ing to say he should not attend to identify the police.
man unless he (Mr. Ellice) guaranteed the payment of
his expenses. He informed him he could do no such
thing, and referred him to Mr. Mitchell.
Tim Chief Commissioner said they bad no power to
award compensation to any witness, and he thought Mr.
Ellice had done perfectly right in not promising to pay
any expenses.

The first policeman cal!ed was 413 A, who Mr. Oliver
swore he saw strike a man, but Mr. Oliver this morning
was unable to identify the man other than by his

number.

John Winters, 413 A said, he had been in the force
years, and before that he was 6 years in the Irish
constabulary. He was 28 years of age. At half-past
4 o'clock orders were given to clear the carriage-way.
Witness, with 470 A, proceeded to do so by striking at
the railing and deslriog the people to go back. Mr.
Mair was near and said he would not go back. 470 A
said, "I'm only obeying orders." Mr. Mair said,
" Damn your orders ; I'll not go back ;" and called on
the people not to do so. 470 A went to him, when Mr.
Mair pushed him in the chest. He saw Mr. Mair ap-
prehended and conveyed away in a cab.
Cross-examined by Mr. Mitchell—Are you sure it was
470 A?

Witness—No ; it was 370 A. There was not a great
crown where Mr. Mair was standing. He could not
say how many people ware behind Mr. Mail'
whether the people were three or four deep. To
the best of his recollection there were eightpeople
behind Mr. Mair. It is difficult for a person to push
back, with
so many persons behind him. He would
snweeesaari3:o A. did not strike Mr. Mair on she hand. Wit-
no
Nvbalekestdrat:le
thet strike the railing. He heard the order given
to keeppeople back from the rails, but did not
people came forward again knowno backt l
iakwsehhnteoeave it. 370 A called on the eople to stand
peoplewwithAs the police passed on the
to the railings. He should
He should think
4e
positively
express irritation at be-
a policeman's truncheon.
truck any one that
ing so struck.
ZelY swore that he never
He did not see 370 A strike ITrk.thMaliiri3
:i:dis.sstick ;
givenpuneh
that
thet if a m constablean
createdwith buttrtuhnechlaetotner.
tturbance he was to be
Moir,
heard orders
vasho.ag e the orders. A eau-
cautioned, and if he did not desist take him into cus-
tody, but he could not say
who was repeatedly questioned by hini
tion was given in Mr. Mair's
to
istand bi
witness,
Mitchell relative to the observations made by mr Mair, Mr.
appealed to the commissioners to know if he we.
pelled to answer the questions so often put to him,corn-
Mr. Chief Commissioner Wortley told him yes ; the
commissioners would take care no improper question
was put to him.
By Mr. Commissioner Henderson—He pursued a man
from the Serpentine towards the Marble-arch, who was
knocked down by a man running between him and wit-
ness. He endeavoured to apprehend the man because
he had been creating a disturbance, and witness being
struck on the back by a stone that came from the direc-
tion where the man was standing. He did not strike
the man (who was called Benjamin Bancroft) when
be wae on the ground, neither did he see him
struck by any policeman. The man never cern-
plained of being struck by the police. He had
his face cut by a stone, and was also struck on the back,
and had his hat knocked off by stones. Stone throwing
k wase very general at one time. (Witness produced his
Ile c,,rrobu
"a,vrliith I,al a hole in it, near V:e top.)
been . Retry Edwards, 434 A, was 26 years of age, and had
pr
o;tield
.. In the Re".
ISt Dragoon
Robert Bur
Guards, which he left, owing to
ice four years. Before that he was in the
ill health.
413 A's statement relative to the ap-
prehension
he was a labourer.
been • Burney 370 470 A, was 35 years of age, and had
in the service upwards of 12 years. Before that
the crossing, and eil ~Ilz had to clear the rails near
-y-,,u Leer. Mair refused to stand
h:s truncheon as a cauutio-eY knZeking on the rails with
had-. He said,
bac4.. - Yolk have no riglit °W, who aro you ordering
I'9 order, us bscU.".„ Wit-

ness said he was only obeying orders. Mr. Mair
said, "D— and b------ your orders, who are
you ?" He went un to him, .;211 .7,1-t:ir
him back. On going to tnko him by the collar
he made a thrust at vvitneos in the grin with
his stick. He endeavoured to ward off the blow with
his truncheon, but could not say if in so doing he struck
him. At the station-house Mr. Mair admitted he had
assaulted witness, and that it was not the act of a gen
tleman, and he was sorry for it.
Cross-examined by Mr. Mitchell—The Superintendent
gave orders that the police were peaceably to request
the people to desist from creating a disturbance
before they took them into custody. He was two
yards from Mr. Mair when he called out to him.
Witness, at the request of his superior officer, sat once
between Mr. Mair and his solicitor, at Vine-street
Station. Mr. Mair, when apprehended, did not appear
to like his grasp—very few people like the grasp of
a policeman. (Laughter.) He told Mr. Mair he "could
see he was a gentleman by his appearance, and that
he would act more cautiously with him than any one
else." Had Sir Richard Mayne acted as Mr. Mair, he
should have taken him into custody.

Mr. Mitchell examined the witness as to Mr. Hard-
wicke, in dismissing the charge against Mr. Mair, ob-
serving there was no imputation on his character ; but
Mr. Chief Commissioner Wortley said ho could
scarcely understand how Mr. Mair could have been dis-
charged and Mr. Hardwicke express his opinion there
was no imputation on his character, when it was shown
Mr. Mair was bound in recognisances to keep the peace.
Mr. Mitchell asked the witness how many times he
had been reported for misconduct ? He replied about
seven times ; and at first refused to btate what they
were, and appealed to the Commissioners. He ulti-
mately stated them but they were of a trivial character.
Witness only apprehended Mr. Mair. He struck no
one, but he was repeatedly struck by stones thrown at
him.

Mr. Chief Commissioner Wortley—You say you were
punished for " gossiping." What is the punishment ?
Witness—Fined from ls. to ls. 6d., according to the
time so occupied (he stated the gossiping sometimes was
with females).
Mr. Ellice proposed to recall Mr. Mair to examine
him in a similar manner to the course pursued by Mr.
Mitchell with reference to charges that had been
made against the police, but the commissioners thought
Mr. Ellice should have questioned Mr. Mair, with a
view to show he was a man of violent temper at the time
of his examination. It would be an inconvenient
course to pursue such a line of examination and re-ex-
amination, as that now suggested.
The identification of the policemen was then gone
into.

385 A was called and identified by Mr. John Dan-
ford as the mast spoken to by him in his evidence.
429 A and 12 A were both identified by Mr. Robert
Sims.

At the suggestion of Mr. Eliice the commissioner
asked Mr. Sims if he had been in the police force, and
under what circumstanes he left it ? He said he was in
the force from 1843 to 1853, when he was dismissed by
Sir Richard Mayne. The report was that he had been
15 minutes absent from his beat. He was a marked man
for some time before he left the force, in consequence of
his opposition to an arbitrary order of the late Superin-
tendent Marquard, compelling him to submit to drill
because they did not attend the Church of England. He
was for some time sent to " Botnay Bay," a section of
the K division into which a man is placed they wished
to get rid of. Mr. Duncombe presented a petition from
him to the House of Commons, and he courted inquiry
into his conduct in every way.
Mr. Ellice said the order of dismissal stated it was
for insubordinate conduct, insolence, &c.
Mr. Sims denied such was the case.

349 A was identified by James Martin, the naval
brigade man, who received several wounds in the
trenches before Sebastopol, as the policeman who struck
him.

80 C was identified by Mr. Stephens as the man who
refused him admission to Marlborough-street, but Eliza-
beth Bloxham could not identify him ; 80 was the num-
ber, but there were men of the D division present.
21 C and 84 C were identified by Mr. Humphreys, and
84 C by Mr. Stephens and Mr. Nightingale, as the men
who assaulted Mr. Stephens.
Mr. Commissioner Armstrong said he concurred with
the witnesses who had stated there was a difficulty in
taking a policeman's number, from the indistinctness
caused by the scroll work round the figures.
147 A was identified by Mr. King as the man who
assaulted his son.

593 A could not be produced, being ill with fever in
Westminister hospital.
402 A was identified by Mr. Calrow as the man who
apprehended him.
375 A was identified by Mr. Berry and Mr. Blanchard.
The latter wculd not swear to P. S. 31 D, but he was
the build of the man spoken to by him in his evidence
he saw strike a boy.

344 A Mr. Char:es Daniell was unable to identify ; he
was certain of the number.

3G3 A was identified by Mr. Henry Austin.
554 A Mr. George Payne could not identify person-
ally, although he was certain of the number.
155 A (who appeared in plain clothes) was identified
by Mr. James Marsh, who complained of the policeman
being in plain clothes instead of his uniform. 155 A
said he appeared in the same dress he wore in the park.
He had been in plain clothes for 10 years. Mr. Marsh
said he bad seen 155 A on duty in the park since the
Ist of July, and in uniform. Ile went up to him and
looked him in the face.
The Inspector of the A division said the man pra-
duced was the only man in the division of that number.
He was employed by the Inland Revenue in checking
the omnibus numbers.
155 A said the last time he wore his uniform was the
day of the Duke of Wellington's funeral.
Chief Commissioner Wortley said it was evident Mr.
Marsh was mistaken.
Mr. Marsh said if he could see the whole of the divi-
sion he could pick out the man.

Tile inspector said the man produced was on duty in
Holborn checking numbers on the I,t, July.
Chief Commissioner Wortley said there mast be some
miAake, and the Commissioners could not hop
147 A. was identified by Mr. Sears. Mr. Smith could
not identify him, but was positive of the number.

Inspector Webb of the C division was identified by
Mr. Lewis Franklyn.
Mr. Marsh here informed the Commis-ioners he had
corrected himself with reference to the policeman's
number. He had been to King-street station and iden-
tlfied the man, whose number was 551.
Tne Chief Commissioner directed the man to be sent
for.

147 A, spoken to by the lad Charles James, was iden-
tifiedby him.

376 A, spoken to by Mr, Staples, appeared in plain
clothes, but Mr. Staples could not identify him.
076 A. said he was not in the park that day.
Mr. Chief Commissioner Wortley said probably Mr.
Staples bad inistaken the number.

idr. Staples said he was not mistaken in the number.
376 A said he was on the sick-list at the time spoken
of.

Mr. Staples said he thought he should know the man
again if he r,aw him.

-393 A was identified by John James White.
335 A was ide: tiled by Mr. John Hodgson.
A number of other witnesses who spoke to specific
numbers were not present to identify the men.
The policemen were then called to rebut the charge
male against them, or explain their conduct. They
were first asked if they wished to be examined, and
cautioned as t ) any statement they might make tending
to criminate thernsel yes.

385 A was the first man called. He denied striking
a man a blow that felled him to the ground, or kicking
a lad of 12 or 14 years of age under the rails. He took
a man to Vine-street station, but used no unnecessary
violence in doing so.
[Mr. George Blandford stated 385 A had a cut on his
lip, but witness had none.]
Cross-examined by Mr. Mitchell—There did not ap-
pear to be much difficulty in taking a policeman's num-
ber that day. Many said they would take his number.
Many persons said " That b— has been busy, take his
number."c, ,He did not see any person take out a
pencil and paper and take his number. The police
formed in line to clear the road, when they requested
the people to go under the rails. They were much
opposed, and had to handle many to get them out of the
drive. From 15 to 20 were ordered by the sergeant to
clear the people from the north side of the drive under
the railings. The people on many occasions said they
had as much right in the park as the police, and would
not move. Every person that he spoke to gave him
that reply. A policeman's truncheon was always in his
pocket. The police marched into the park in double
file, with their truncheons drawn. Stones were thrown
at the police. Superintendent Hughes was in the park,
but he could not say what orders he gave. He
could not say how many people he struck that
day. He struck at fa man, and believed in doing so he
struck several people. The repeated rushes amongst the
crowd had the effect of preventing stone throwing from
a particular point. There was excitement in the park
at 3 o'clock, which did not subside until about 4 o'clock.

struck Commissioner
with il. e
an d
policeman'se Henderson--He o n— He
saw
intentionallyß y Mr.
Witness had no recollection of shaking a young man,
who fell down. He took a young man into custody,
truncheon.none
o
and led him along the carriage way, but used no unne-
cessary violence. He apprehended the lad for throwing
stones. Between three and half-past five o'clock he was
struck by stones with some violence.
By Mr. Chief Commissioner Wortley—Three men
assistedchargeshitninatgaakininstgiim.
onel prisoner.
The witness did not appear to have any knowledge of
al the circumstances spoken to by the witnesses who had
lie
marki him. 429 A, Robert Bryden, has been in the service nine
years. lie had no recollection of telling a man he would
shouting told a lll a n
cautioning
would him,take thathim
i lie Continued
and yelling into custody. A byestander said, "If the man has done
wrong, why not take him into
custody—it looks revenge-
ful." Witness replied, "It might be useful to him."
He denied saying the people bad not pluck to fight.
lie thought he recognised Mr. Sims as the man who
addressed him.
Examined by Mr. Mitchell—He did not strike any
one that day. He saw stones thrown, but
was not
struck. Witness was examined as to a horse being
frightened, ridden by a groom, who bad some difficult;
to sit him ; the gentleman's horse was not frightened.
Mr. Ciiief Commissioner Wortley said a gentleman
generally rode the hater. horse, grid
ari- put his groom on the
• rh one.
tout, ) (Laug
Mr, Mitche. I—This horse was too large for the groom
d laughter.)
—it did not fit him. (Renewe

Mr. Ayrton being in cane, 387 A was called and
identified by him ; as was 551 Aby Mr. Marsh. 345 A
olir. Smith could not PiNitlYelY idUtifY ; be was much