The Sun.
London, England, 1852-02-18 00:00:00

wished to see them under proper regulation and restrie-
tion. He had looked into the law on the subject, and he
found the Joint-Stock Companies Act imposed the great-
est obstacles to the due working end proper extension
of these societies. If the Act only had relition to this
point, he should have himself proposed an elteration
its provision;. But he found, if ho did to, it would be
necessary to go a stop further, and to give positive en-
couragement by such legislation as would alter the prin-
ciples of the law of partnership, and enable such associa.
tiens to sue and be sued. He gave ne opinion on that
point, but he must say it apeeared to him a grave step
fur Parliament to take—teat of giving sanction to prin-
ciples of that description. lie was most anxious to have
the question fairly considered by a Commission, and
when the labours of that Commission were ceded, tor the
improvements or alterations they might recommend to be
adopted; or, if no alteration was expedient, then to con-
sider the question settled. The next complaint was es
to the expense of charters. The complaint, ho was happy
to stay, was in course of diminution, and he should be
glad to assist in further reducing an expense which he
admitted was too great. With regard to the other modes
of disposing of savings, he believed ho need not go into
that question. There was one mode of investment of
sevings—the acquisition of land—which he was glad to
sett was gaining ground among the working-classes. He
rejoiced to see this feeling, and he would readily give
any other facilities that might be needed to promote nod
facilitate it. He admitted the Joint-Stock Companies Act
required alteration. It had done some good; but it must
be admitted it was cumbrous in its machinery, and did
not in some cases effect its purpose. He believed that
great improvements might be made in the law of part-
nership, but he thought a Commission from the Crown
would be better than a Committee; and he hoped, there-
fore, his Hon. Friend would be satisfied with the assur-
ance which had been given on the subject, and not press
his motion.
Mr. MOFFATT would remark that thelevidence before
the Committee was in favour of a limitation of liability,
as it existed in most continental countries.
Mr. HEADL A.M. agreed with the Right Hon. Gentle-
man in his expressions of sympathy for the labours of
the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury, and he hoped he
might congratulate the country that something practical
would be the result. After the statement fruits the
Right Lion. Gentleman that a Commission should be
appointed to investigate the question he would nut go
into it, but he must say the law as it stood was most de-
fective, nerd required amendment. At present the
Court of Chancery was the only court to which share-
holders could resort to bring their directors to account;
and even if they did succeed in that court, the expenses
ware so heavy as to make a resort to that court an act
of improvidence. He was glad to hear the whole subject
was to be investigated, ss he could not but anticipate
great benefit from the inquiry.
Mr. J. A. SMITH did not believe that anything
would be more dangerous to the best interests of the
working-classes than an attempt to direct their invest-
ments to objects which, though pecuniarily productive,
must be at the same time attended with eonsiderable
risk and probable harm. The want of a tribunal to re-
fer to in disputes inter se was the grievance put into the
first place by all the witnesses examined before the
Committee last year; and this being so, he begged to
direct the attention of the Government to it with the
view of suggesting a remedy.
Mr. COLIDEN would not refer to the establishment
of a legal tribunal to settle disputes among partners.
There was no doubt a want of such tribunals, but that
question he would leave to legal men. The other ques-
tion—that of limited liability—was a question for com-
mercial men. As far as regarded liability of partners,
he had not been able to discover any valid reason why
we should be different to all the rest of the world, and
have unlimited liability instead of limited liability. Why
should railway companies have privileges which were
denied to smaller joint-stock undertakings? He con-
sidered working men laboured under great delusion in
supposing they could have larger profits if they
combined the characters of labourers and ca-
pitalists. It would be found that labouring men
got more profit in a concern managed by one
capitalist, than they would get if they were partners in
the concern. But at the same time he was for giving
working men all reasonable facilities for carrying on
their business in the form of co-operative associations.
With respect to the question of limited partnership, be
thought great good would arise from allowing persons
to put a sum of money into a working concern, and
making them only liable to the extent of that amount;
whereas, under the present law, if a person did advance
money in the character of a partner he became liable to
discharge the debts of the concern, as Lord Eldon said,
to his last shilling and his last acre. Many clever men
would be induced to embark money in business if lia-
bility was limited. It had been said that the public
would be deceived by limited liability on the part of
some wealthy partner; but this argument would not
stand the test of investigation. In America, ho be-
lieved, it was the practice for houses to publish
their partners and the amount each advanced. The
creditors thus knew what they were about, and how far
they were justified in giving credit. Ho could not
see any objection to such a system in this country.
He believed if the system was adopted it would
be the means of diffusing capital. The great want
at present was sufficient means of diffusing capital. As
the law at present existed it stood in the way of trans-
actions between man and man—between the marriage of
skill and capital. Leave parties to make their own bar-
gains, they would manage better than any law could do
for them. If you had limited partnership and full pub-
licity of the terms, the public would have no realion to
complain if they lost their money by undue confidence
and credit. What was wanted in this country were means
of spreading capital, and of bringing it into profitable ope-
ration. All who had given evidence against the principle
of limited liability had given an opinion, but no reason,
for their evidence. He feared these parties .gave a pre-
judiced or an arbitrnry opinion. He considered capitalists
took a wrong view of their interest in this question. By
the present law capital became dammed up, and when it
did overflow the restrictions, it did so only to inflict do-
vastetion and ruin on other interests. He considered the
proposal to refer the question to a Commission was the
best possible suggestion, and he hoped, therefore., his
Hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury would not press
his motion, which only carried the question into a more
vague field.
Mr. SOTHERON said the real point was to obtain
from the House some means of adjusting disputes when
they arose, not as to the mode in which savings abould
be invested.

-- -
Mr. E WART thought the question for consideration
was, whether a limited or an unlimited liability was best?
Ile had no doubt that the Commission proposed by the
President of the Board of Trade would have a practical
effect, and he trusted that it would conduce to the pros
perity of the country.
Mr. T. BARING would not have trespassed om the
attention of the House, but for the observations of the

HOD. Member for the West Riding.-------- Member
thought that the HOLM ought to decide in favour of
limited liability fur commercial partnerships, and had
prejudged the question which the proposed Commission
would have to decide, by asserting that the great mass of
the mercnants of the country were in favour of that view
ho himself had expressed. The question was a very
difficult one, and a great deal might be said on both
sides. The Hon. Member had referred to the evidence
taken before the Committee, and had asserted that he
had found all the opinions given by those whom he had
called the great men on the other side of Temple-bar
unsupported by a single argument. But when the Hon.
Member talked of the arbitrary dictation of employing
capital he should have recollected that he was touching
upon rather a tender point, and ought not to
have forgotten that he himself had belonged to a so-
ciety which had prescribed the use of capital for par-
ticular purposes.—(Hear.) The Hon. Member said he
could not imagine an argument against limited liability.
Limited liability might be advisable in one country and
not at all suited to another. It might do in France,
where the spirit of enterprise and capital were limited,
and where people would not embark in any speculation
without knowing the extent of their liability. But in
this country there was surely no want of either capital
or of enterprise. Competition in this country had so re-
duced the profits of commerce and manufactures that he
doubted whether a greater proof than that could be af-
forded of the distribution of capital in this country.—
(Hear.) The lion. Member said that he sought to
marry capital to enterprise—that he sought to unite the
rich capitalist to a speculative better half. He feared
the fruits of so illegitimate a union would not be so fa-
vourable to trade as the Hon. Gentleman supposed. The
Hon. Member seemed to suppose that he alone was right,
and that nobody else could have reason on their aide.
His belief was that the question was a very open one,
and might well be considered. This result might follow
if trade were carried on with a limited responsibility—
great
companies,
like the commercial societies in Ho!-
land
. might spring up
uand crush smaller traders
Ur- TRELAVyNYsaid that the custom of 'limited
responsibility existed to some extent in Cornwall in re-
lation to certain
was an n holders of mining shares. The sub-
jectotent one, and was closely connected
with other subjects,
such as thelaw relating to banking.
He did not see anyor La: harm in removing the restric-
tionsot
apeople
complained
approve. trust persons they did n were not obliged to
anxious that the labouring He was particularly
should not suppose
adopting the principle
they could defeat capitalists by
of co-operation.
Mr. SLANEY thanked the House for their attention,
and said he should withdraw his motion.
Motion accordingly withdrawn.
DU a ON CARRIAGES,
Mr. AGLIONBY having presented a petition nume-
rously signed from Newcastle-on-Tyne, complaining af
the present tax on carriages,
Sir DE LACY EVANS rose, pursuant to notice, to
move for leave to bring is a Bill to reduce the duty
on carriages. Ho proposed to reduce the duty to 31.
on tour-wheeled carriages with two horses; to 21. on
four-wheeled carriages with one horse ;
.onourableand to 1/.
on two-wheeled carriages. The _Right H
Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite
aware of the complaints which existed on the sub-
ject of the motion. To take only one point as an
instance of the unsatisfactory nature of the tax, he might,
refer to the duty on four-tie heeled carriages let for hire
throughout the whole kingdom. The number of car-
riages lot for hire was last year only 507—this year,
461; and the amount of the tax on them was last year,
3,o4ll.—this year, 2,7601. Deducting from that amount
of 2,7601. the expense of collection and other items, he
questioned whether the net produce of the tax on Car-
riages lent for hire last year exceeded 1,5001. There
must he some cause for the fallieg.off in the amount
of the tax from year to year. The tax on carriages lent
for hire was 6/. a year. It had been ascertained that the
average period for which carriages wore lent did not ex-
ceed three months in the year, so that, in fnct,\the
cooihmskor paid a tax at the ra'e of 244 a year on ever
cartaige lent fur hire. After ail, it Was no, the coace
makers who paid the tax, it was the public.i2The tax
on carriages lent for hire was the only annual tax on the