The Sun.
London, England, 1855-07-28 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARIAAMEY

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.)
LIMITED LIABILITY BILL.
The house then went into committee on the abc
bill.

On clause 1,
Mr. WILKINSON moved an amenthnent to exam
insurance companies.
Mr. HENLEY opposed the amendment. If such
exemption were extended to insurance companies, aur
they could not refuse to extend the same principle
banks.

Mr. BOUVERIE said banks were treated special
and therefore the provisions of this bill were not
tended to them.

After some further discussion,
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the introducti
of limited liability was no new principle in our la
Insurance companies were at liberty to introduce ii
their charters the principle of limited liability, and t
principle of this act would not at all interfere with th
right to do so. (hear.)
Mr. M. CHAMBERS was of opinion it would
right to extend to insurance companies the principle
limited liability, but he thought the law was not yet ri
for that purpose.
Mr. A. WILKINSON then withdrew his amendmei

Viscount GODERICH then moved the amendment
which he had given notice, namely, to leave out of t'
operation of the bill any company having a capital sto
of the nominal amount of not less than 20,0001., divid
into shares of a nominal value of not less than 251. E
object in moving this amendment was to give the bet
fit of this bill to companies that had less capital tb;
20,0001., and not to allow companies that had a capit
of 20,0001. and upwards to have a monopoly.

Mr. W. WILLIAMS seconded the amendment. 1
could not see why any party having a capital of ov.
only 1,0001. should not be entitled to.the benefits of tl
bill.

Mr. EWART supported the amendment of the not
viscount (Goderich), considering that the benefit of t►
bill ought to be extended to small capitalists.
Mr. A. WILKINSON also supported the amen
ment of the noble viscount, thinking that the man wl
had small means and the most honest intentions oug
to be allowed to avail himself, if he thought fit, of tl
provisions of the bill.
Mr. HASTIE supported the amendment, thinkir
that its operations ought to be taken advantage of by tl
middling classes.

Mr. BOUVERIE was willing, if it met with the a
probation of the committee, to reduce the amount of ti
minimum capital to 10,0001., and the value of tl
shares to 201. instead of 251.

Mr. MITCHELL thought the course taken by tl
Government was inconsistent with that which it hi
pursued en former occasions. He could not see why as
limit should be made as to the amount of capital.
Mr. HENLEY could not see the necessity for limi
ing the amount of capital at all. He thought it wou
be far better to leave parties to look to the nature of tl•
concern in which they proposed to embark, and leaf
them to do as they like, putting aside any notion y
tmit altogether.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the
of the bill was to define each man's liability, and to

lish to the world what those liabilities were. If th
present amendment was carried, and he believed that t
be the object of its noble mover—(cries of " No, no,
from Lord Goderich)—the whole preamble of the bii
would be vitiates.

Mr. CARDWELL said the object of the bill was to
cut up monopoly by the root, and he asserted that if the
bill was carried with any limitation, monopoly, instead
of being cut up by the root, would be increased and multi-
plied. He warned the small traders of the country
that if this bill passed with any limit, they would be a,
the mercy of the great capitalists. If the bill was carried
without any limit the law would be clear to everybody,
and they would only have themselves to blame if they
got into difficulty.
Lord PALMERSTON said that the limit of 10,0001.
was quite sufficient to show that a real existence was
given to substantial companies, but to give the same ad-
vantage to companies of greatly smaller capital appeared
to him ridiculous ; for instance to companies of shares
of the value of is. 6d. and 201. capital.
Mr. LOWE maintained that the badge of fraud was
large capitals and not small ones. He should, there-
fore, support the amendment of the noble viscount.
Lord J. MANNERS supported the amendment, be-
lieving that there ought to be no limits in the bill.
Viscount GODERICH replied, stating his determi-
nation to persevere in his amendment.
The SOLICITOR•GENERAL stated, that if the
amendment of the noble viscount was carried, it would
be impossible to carry out the principle of the bill.
Mr. HENLEY deprecated the course pursued by the
Solicitor-General, and considered it unworthy of the high
poi.ition he held.
Mr. COWAN, in order to relieve the Government
front the difficulty into which they appeared to have got,
would move that the Chairman should report progress.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but
Lord PALMERSTON said be would not trouble the
house to divide upon the amendment. (Hear, hear.)
The provision therefore with respect to the limitation of
capital was omitted from the clause.
Lord GODERICH then proposed an amendment to
omit the words fixing the amount of shares, and upon it
the committee divided, when there appeared—
For the original motion
Against it 34
Majority against amendment —s4
The amendment was consequently lost.
Mr. WILLIAMS then moved the substitution of 51.
for 251. as the amount of shares.

Viscount EBRINGTON seconded the amendment.
Mr. BOUVERIE opposed the amendment, but stated
his willingness to substitute 101. provided 50 per cent. of
the shares was paid up.
The house then resumed, the chairman reported pro-
gress, and obtained leave to sit again to-morrow at 12
o'clock.