The Sun.
London, England, 1855-08-10 00:00:00

TESTIMONIAL TO THE LATE LORD

DUDLEY STUART.

A meeting of the committee to promote this object
was held at Sussex Chambers, 10, Duke-street, St.
James's, on Tuesday, the 7th inst., P. F. C. Johnston,
Esq., in the chair, to receive the report from a sub-
committee previously appointed to invite proposals from
the several metropolitan general hospitals, in pursuance
of a resolution adopted at a meeting on the 19th of
June. There were present, the Earl of Harrowby, Earl
Fortescue, Lord Viscount Ebrington, M.P. ; General
Count Ladislas Zamoyski, Captain Townshend, R.N.,
M.P. ; J. V. S. Townshend, Esq. ; Jacob Bell, Esq. ;
Horatio J. Montefiore, Esq. ; Edward Eagleton, Esq. ;
W. L. Birkbeck, Esq. ; Dr. William O'Connor ; Major
Gieglud ; F. H. Goldsmid, Esq. ; Lieutenant Charles
Szulczewski ; William Rothery, Esq. ; T. D'lffanger,
Esq. ; N. F. Zaba, Esq. ; William Pritchard, Esq. ; J.
E. Taylor, Esq. ; E. Beales, Esq. ; George Poland,
Esq. ; Thomas Campbell, Esq. ; James R. Carr, Esq. ;
Henry Hayward, Esq, ; J. H. Nicholay, Esq. ; Peter
Graham, Esq.
The report stated that an applieation had been ad-
dressed to each of the metropolitan general hospitals,
with the view of ascertaining which establishment would
be enabled to effect. the greatest amount of good with the
" Dudley Stuart Fund ;" and also which hospital would
in return for the fund do. most toward the object
entrtained by the committeel—the perpetuation of Lord
Dudley Stuart's memory. Proposals were received from
all the general hospitals with one exception ; liberal,
but various in their kind. A selection of three was
made, and a deputation appointed to visit the establish-
ments, confer with the authorities, and report their ob-
servations. In the end, University College Hospital
was recommended as, under all the circumstances, the
one most calculated to hand down to posterity the
philanthropic qualities of the noble deceased. A pro-
posal was also received from the board of managers of
the " North-west Nightly Refuge for the Houseless
Poor," an institution which was established by the late
Lord D. Stuart, assisted by Mr. H. J. Montefiore, and
a few other gentlemen, some three years since ; but as
the terms of the resolution of the 19th Jude confined
the committee to hospitals, the application could not be
entertained without the sanction of the general commit-
tee.

Air. J. BELL moved " That the report now read be
received and adopted." He did so the more readily, as
he was most anxious that the committee should that
day come to a final decision as to the nature and cha-
racter of the testimonial.

Mr. P. GRAHAM seconded the adoption of the report.

Mr. W. L. BIEKBECK moved an amendment—'/That
the resolution of the 19th June be rescinded ;" and the
committee had already by their first vote decided that
the most suitable testimonial to Lord Dudley Stuart
would be the foundation of an independent charitable
institution, if such a measure were practicable. He be-
lieved their funds would be sufficient for this purpose,
and proceeded to explain the plan, of which he had
given notice, for erecting almshouses for the blind—a
class of i-ufferere in whom Lord Dudley Stuart had over
taken the utmost interest. The amount already raised
—upwards of I,2ool.—would be sufficient to purchase a
piece of land large enough for 20 almshouses, and for
the erection of several. There were no almshouses for
the blind in existence ; and there could be little doubt,
if so good a work were once commenced by securing the
land, there would be numerous contributors to it, by
testament and otherwise. He was very unwilling, for
personal reasons, to oppose the proposition brought for-
ward by the University Hospital, but he felt convinced
that, if adopted, it would by no means carry into effect
the principal object of the committee—that of establish-
ing a,public testimonial to the virtues of that great and
good man, Lord Dudley Stuart. He therefore proposed
that the resolution should be rescinded, in order that
they might be at liberty to entertain a plan for an inde-
dependent charitable institution.
Mr. C. Szutezewster seconded the amendment.
Earl FORTESCUE did not agree with the gentleman who
had moved the amendment. He gave him every credit
for his laudable desire to couple with the testimonial to
their lamented friend a charitable institution to alleviate
the infliction of those suffering from blindness ; but he
did not think the establishment of almshouses at all cal-
culated to effect the object he wished ; he should, there-
fore, strongly oppose the amendment.
Dr, O'Connor, Mr. F. H. Goldsmid, and Mr. Pritch-
ard, each opposed the amendment, and recommended
those hospitals that appeared to them to be the most
eligible for the testimonial.
After a few words in favour of the amendment from
Mr. Zaba, Mr. Birkbeck replied, and a division took
place, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against 4--7
The motion for the adoption of the report was there-
fore lost.
The Earl of HAEROWBY said, as the committee had
now rescinded the resolution of the 19th June, it was
competent for them to entertain the application from the
committee of the "Nightly Refuge ;" and he thought,
when they took into consideration the amount of the
fund, ,they could not do better than employ it in increas-
ing the usefulness of an institution which mainly owed
its origin to his lamented kinsman, and which had for
its guide principles so entirely in accordance with the
views entertained by the late Lord Dudley Stuart ; he
therefore begged to move—" That the proposal from
the Board of Managers of the Nightly Refuge' to per-
petuate the memory of the late Lord Dudley Stuart be
accepted."
Earl FORTESCUE regretted that the institution now
introduced had not come under their notice at an earlier
period. He entirely concurred in all that had. fallen from
his noble friend, and had much pleasure in seconding
the motion ; which was carried unanimously,
A sub-committee consisting of the Earl of Harrowby,
Mr. W. L. Birkbeck, Mr. Poland, Mr. C. Szulczewski,
Mr. P. F. C. Johnston, and Mr. Henry Hayward, was
appointed, with full authority to confer with the com-
mittee of the Refuge, to make the best arrangements for
perpetuating the memory of Lord Dudley Stuart in
connection with that charity.
On the motion of Mr. W. L. DIRKBECK, seconded by
Captain TOWNSHEND, R.N., M.P., the secretary was
reference to the nference general hospitals
instructed to convey the unanimous thanks of the corn-
fmoritttehi
eetro
very the
Isibeevrearlaloffmereetrowpiothlit
testi-
monial.
After some formal business, and a vote of thanks to
the chairman for his kindness in presiding on the occa-
sion, the proceedings terminated.

ht the apportionment of the French loan con-
THE FRENCH LOAN.—The inconvenience caused by
be felt in the money-market. No positive in-
thineodeselatoy
formation has yet been received from Paris on the sub-
ject, but it is said the allotment to each applicant will
be a little below 16 per cent. of the amount asked for
the exact proportion named being 1512.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT,

HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.)
PUBLIC-HOUSES (IRELAND) BILL.
Earl GRANVILLE rose to move that, inasmuch as
the bill for the Transfer of Licenses of Public-houses in
Ireland is intended to remedy a ccnstruction of the law
in relation to the transferof licenses which has been but
rececsly arrived at, the introduction of the bill took place
at a late period, and as the decisions on the existing law
have been such as to be productive of much public in-
convenience, consequently the circums!ances which
render legislation ou the subject-matter of the said bill
expedient are of such urgency as to render the immediate
consideration of the same necessary.
The Marquis of BATH thought that the course taken
by the Government was most objectionable.
Earl GREY reiterated :his objection to the proceed-
ings of the Government.
After a few words from Earl GRANVILLE,
The motion was agreed to, and the bill was read a
second time.
DISEASES PREVENTION BILL
This bill was read a second time.
LIMITED LIABILITY BILL.
On the motion for going into committee on the Limited
Liability Bill,
Lord ST. LEONARDS expressed a hope that, when
he showed how the law at present stood, and the na-
ture of the bill, the Government would see the necessity
of making; the concession to arguments and facts which
they were not disposed to yield to the small number of
peers in attendance to oppose the measure. He had
never obstructed useful legislation, but this was a mea-
sure which he should oppose to his utmost unless the
Government would make such concessions as would
make it a safe bill. Should the noble lord be forced to
go into a select committee he would undertake that the
whole subject should be considered in a day, or in a few
hours, and he would promise not to offer any factious
opposition.
Lord CAMPBELL earnestly advised his noble friend
to assent to the select committee. In two hours the
bill could be considered, and he had not the smallest
doubt but in a very short time it would be rendered in-
nocuous.
Earl GREY could assure their lordships that he
would do anything to promote the bill's passing in the
present session, but he could not be so sanguine as to
think that it could be brought into the shape in which it
should pass in the course of a few hours. He should
move that the order of the day for going into committee
be discharged, and that the bill be referred to a select
committee.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY referred to the
evidence given before the commission for the purpose of
showing that a very large proportion of it was in favour
of the principle of the limited liability proposed by the
bill. He was strongly of opinion that it would be un-
wise to endanger the progress of the bill by referring it
to a select committee, and maintained that the house
was perfectly competent in committee to discuss any
suggestions for the improvement of the measure.
Lord MONTEAGLE contended that their lordships
could not in a committee of the house discuss with effect
the amendments necessary to be introduced in the bill.
The bill as it now stood admitted the principle of the
necessity of safeguards, and in his opinion it ought not
to be allowed to pass without a more complete system of
safeguards being provided.
Lord REDESDALE, after pointing out the defects
and omissions of the measure, urged the Government not
to press it further at the present period of the session.
Earl GRANVILLE said he had a public duty to per-
form, and it appeared to him after what had taken place
that it was impossible to agree to the proposition of his
noble friend. He could not understand any course by
which their lordships would more stultify themselves
than to withdraw this bill after passing a resolution
affirming that it was a matter of urgency their lordships
should at once proceed to its consideration. If those re-
strictions were to be introduced, it ought to be done
in a committee of the whole house, in justice to that
large number of the middle classes ho were anxious to
see the bill passed into a law, and in order that they
might be informed as to the nature of those restrictions.
Their lordships divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment ll
Against it
Majority for going into committee.. —l7
A proposition was then made for the adjournment of
the house, which was resisted by Earl Granville and
Lord Campbell, and after a brief discussion the house
went into committee.
Lord ST. LEONARDS moved that the chairman
should report progress.
Earl GREY hoped that the motion would not be
pressed ; but again protested against the course taken
by the Government in forcing on this measure. As he
knew the Government could defeat the motion, be asked
his noble friend to postpone the motion until they saw
in what spirit the discussion was carried on by the noble
lords on the Government benches.
After some discussion,
Clause 1 was proposed for adoption.
Lord ST. LEONARDS handed in an amendment, to
the effect, as was understood, that 10,0001. should be
inserted in the clause as the minimum amount of capital
to be required, in shares of not less than 251.
Lord MONTEAGLE supported the amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL also supported the amendment.
Earl GREY felt there was no good argument against
theamendment, which was,, in fact, the original pro-
posal of the Government themselves.
The Duke of ARGYLL held the opinion that there
was really no good argument in favour of the amend-
nient. They were not to dictate to individual men and
to companies the branches of trade to which they were
to apply their capital.
Lord ST. LEONARDS reminded their lordships
that in the measure originally introduced by the Go-
vernment themselves 20,009/. was introduced, instead
of 10,0001., which he sought by his amendment to get
inserted.
Lord CAMPBELL supported the ainend:nent. He
thought that every one should be bound to fulfil his en-
gagement.
The LORD CHANCELLOR fully admitted that
every one should be bound to make good his engagement,
but the question was, what were the engagements under
this bill—whether they would not enable parties to enter
into a limited instead of an unlimited liability.
The committee divided—
For the original clause—Contents lB
Non-contents 9
Majority against the amendment —9
Earl GREY moved an amendment to the effect that
the shareholders should not be less than twenty-five in
number.
Earl GRANVILLE agreed to this amendment.
Clause 1, as thus amended, was ordered to stand part
of the bill.
On clause 2,
The LORD CHANCELLOR proposed an amendment,
insuring that before any existing company should re-
ceive the benefits of this bill its solvency should be ascer-
tained, and that not less than 20 per cent. be paid up.
Earl GREY proposed words more stringent than those
moved by the Lord Chancellor to the saute effect.
The LORD CHANCELLOR adopted Earl Grey's
words, and the clause was amended accardiugly.
Clause 2 was agreed to.
In clause 8 a similar amendment, and some verbal
alterations were made, and the clause as amended was
ordered to stand part of the bill.
On clause 4,
Lord CAMPBELL moved the insertion of words com-
pelling the bills of exchange, promissory notes, and
cheques of the companies under the bill, to be noted with
the words " limited liability."
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY agreed to the
amendment.
Clause 4, as amended, was agreed to.
On clause 5,
Earl GREY moved an amendment, the effect of which
was to provide that 20 per cent. of a reserve fund should
be kept as a security for the creditors.
Earl GRANVILLE objected to it.
Lord CAMPBELL said it was contrary to the prin-
ciple of the bill.
The amendment was negatived without a division.
On clause 6,
Earl GREY said it was unnecessary to provide an inde-
pendent audit for the accounts of the companies, in order
to prevent the issue of delusive reports. He proposed a
proviso to the effect that the commissioners for auditing
the public accounts should be empowered to appoint
auditors to examine the accounts of the companies under
this bill.
Earl GRANVILLE said it would be impossible to
have any system of audit such as the noble earl contem-
plated.
Lord MONTEAGLE thought there would be consi-
derable difficulty in carrying out the audit effectually,
but the experiment was worth trying.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY objected to the
appointment on the ground of the expense which it would
entail upon the companies formed under the act.
Earl GREY denied that the expenses of an indepen-
dent auditcr appointed by the Government would be
greater than that.
_which would attend the appointment
of auditors by the companies themselves.
Lord CAMPBELL thought if there was to be an audit
it was imperative that it should be of an independent cha-
racter, and the appointment of auditors by a public
department would not involve any greater difficulty
or expense than would be incurred by the appointment
of auditors by the companies themselves.
After some further conversation the committee di-
vided, when there were—
For the proviso lO
Against l3
Majority 8
The clause was then agreed to.
Earl GREY then adverted to the slender attendance
of peers, and moved that the house should resume.
Earl GRANVILLE opposed the motion, which was sup-
ported by Lord MONTRAGLE.
Ear] GREY said that he should press the motion, for
he felt it was impossible to give the bill that deliberate
consideration which was requisite. He believed that
the last proviso was rejected by the Government, not
because they thought some such provision was undesir-
able, but because they feared its adoption would prevent
the measure being passed in the limited period of the
session which still remained.
Earl GRANVILLE denied that any reason of the
kind alluded to had influenced the Government in oppos-
ing the proviso in question. He opposed it because he
believed it would not work advantageously, and in that
opinion he was supported by high authority. _
After some further conversation, the committtee
di-
vided, when there were— • 2
Contents . ........... . . .
Non-contents
..
19
..
Majority against reporting progress —lO
The 7th and Bth clauses were agreed to. _
Earl GREY then moved the insertion 9f a clause to

the effect that ifthe directors of any joint-stock company
should declare a dividend after the company was insol-
vent, or the payment of which would render the com-
pany insolvent, they wei e to be liable for the debts of the
company to the whole extent of their property.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY opposed the clause
on the ground that it createJ a diffirence in the liability
of ',bar, holders and directors.

Earl GREY a,iii tbit a sintili.provision vas in force
in all other countries in whiCh the-principle ol:
lir:bility wag in force.

Lord DENMAN supported the clause.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he did not see
any objection to the clause, which was agreed to.
Earl GREY then proposed the addition of another
clause, declaring that no note of band given by a share-
holder should be considered as,payment of-capital stock
—that no loan should be made to a shareholder—and
that any officer of a :company making one: should be
liable to the full extent of his- property. - - -
This clause also was agreed to.
---Earl GREY then moved the adoption of another
clause, enacting that no company should be allowed at
one time to contract liabilities to a greater amount than
their capital.
After a shortconversation, the clause was withdrawn.
Earl GREY then moved another clause, adopted, like
the former ones, from the laws-of-the State of Massachu-
sett-, subjecting the directors cr officers of any company
to unlimited liability in case they were guilty,of wilful
false representation in any notice or account given or
rendered by them in pursuance of the provisions of this.
or any other act.
The LORD CHANCELLOR did not object to the prin,
ciple of the clause, but thought that the wording would
require alteration.
Earl GREY withdrew the clause, stating his intention
to propose it in an amended form on the bringing up of
the report.
Clauses 9 and 10 were agreed to.
Lord MONTEAGLE moved a clause directing' the
winding up of the 'affairs of any company which had
lost three-fourths of its subscribed capital.
The LORD CHANCELLOR opposed the clause as
unnecessary. The Winding-up Act would meet the case.
The clause was agreed to, as were clauses 11 and 12.
Clauses 13 and 14 were struck out
The preamble was agreed to, and the house resumed.
Lord REDESDALE hoped that sufficient time would
be given for the consideration of the report, and with
that view he proposed that the bill should be reported
on Monday.
Earl GREY agreed in every word that had fallen from
his noble friend.

After a few words from Lord CAMPBELL,
Earl GRANVILLE suggested that the third reading
of the bill should be fixed for Monday, and they would
then have ample time to consider the amendments.
Earl GREY protested against an important commer-
cial measure of this kind being forced through the house
without time for consideration.
Earl GRANVILLE considered that no bill had re-
ceived more consideration during the session. No bill
had been more fully discussed in detail, or with more
ability.

It was then agreed that the bill should be reported to-
morrow (this day).
The Sale of Beer Bill was read a third time.
The Militia Ballot Suspension Bill was read a third
time and passed. _

The Consolidated Fund Appropriation Bill and the
Exchequer-bills (7,000,000/.) Bill were rend a second
time.

The remaining orders were disposed of, and their
lordships adjourned at one o'clock.

HOUSE OF COTTONS-(YESTERDAY.)
PETITIONS.

Petitions were presented by Mr. Kennedy, from the board
of guardians of the Bailieborough Union, in the county of
Cavan, Ireland, complaining that legal provision for the
ministrations and religious instruction of the Catholic in-
mates of the Bailieborough workhouse held during the past
9 months been withheld, in consequence of the commis-
sioners for administering the laws for relief of the poor in
Ireland refusing to sanction the grant of adequate salary
to secure the services of a Catholic chaplain, during which
time the Catholic inmates had been loft dependent for
divine service and clerical instruction o the voluntary at-
tendance afforded by the late chaplain; by Mr. Hamilton,
from the parish of kilroan, county of Cork, in support of
any measure for closing public-houses on the Sabbath-
day; by Mr. Brady, from Dr. Crisp, in.favour of a gra-
duated income tax ; by Mr. C. Villiers, signed by 10,000
mechanics, coal porters, cabmen, and other working
men, complaining of the adulteration of malt liquor
(especially porter), and praying 'the interference
of the Legislature to prevent the same ; by Mr.
Robert Phillimore, from Mr. Forbes, complaining of the
limitation as to numbers of sheets of .puNications sent by
post ; by Mr. Gregson, from the inhabitants of Bacup, ,
-praying for the prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquors
the whole of Sunday, and from the Rev. Richard Greaves,
praying for a revision of the Canons of tho Church.
THE ARCTIC EXPEDITION.
In answer to Colonel FREEsrux,
Sir C. WOOD said ho had only just received the report
of the Arctic Expedition Committee, bat had not yet had
time to read it. He was not prepared..to say whether 'it
was intended to grant a decoration to the officers and men
engaged therein.