The Sun.
London, England, 1863-03-25 00:00:00

1 fining what a partnership was. But with regard to theex.-
tension of the principle of limited liability he objected to it
altogether. He trusted the hon. member for Birmingham
would no:, think he was pursuing a discourteous procedure
in moving that the bill be read a second time that day sin
months. (A laugh.) It appeared to him that th© hort,
member for Birmingham had not quite accurately stated the
conclusion arrived at by the committee of 1854, for upon
the point of the approval of the principle of limited liability
that committee divici.o in the proportion of 6 to 2 against
the princii_le. But, though the decision of the committee
was adverse to the principle, he admitted that it did not
deter the Government from adopting it ; for the right hon.
gentleman the member for Kilmarnock, with the sanction
of the Government, had subsequently introduced a bill
extending the principle to banking companies. As re-
garded past legislation, he had not a wor to say in ap-
proval or disapproval. But they were now called upon to
take a great step in advance, and to apply a principle which
was special to all companies, and that was such a change
that he was entitled to ask what was the amount of
success which had attended the principle of limited lia-
bility. Well, what was the fact as regarded the exten-
sion of the principle to banking companies ? That, since
the passing of the Act in 1856 to the present time, only
two out of all the old-established banks availed themselves
of it. The hon. member then read returns showing
the number of joint-stock companies which had been
established under the principle, and how many had been
abandoned, and contended there was nothing in the working
of the system to warrant them in further extending it.
There was much loose talk about the success of the system
in France; but as far as any evidence before them went to
prove the working of the principle, it showed quite the oppo-
site result. He could show a similar result as regarded the
working of the principle in the United States. The system
had also been condemned in America, where bankruptcy
was more prevalent than in this country. In Belgium,
Holland, and in many places in Germany, limited liability
was looked upon with disfavour. He condemned the per-
fect freedom of contract that was now contended for, and
he urged that there was an obligation on the State to pre-
vent fraud. This proposal differed from the present law in
many important considerations. There was no provision
in this bill for the protection of the public, and by it a part-
ner might sign away the property of the concern, and bind
the company to a greater extent than his own limited lia-
bility. The hon. member concluded by moving that the
bill be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. GREGSON seconded the amendment.

Mr. M. GIBSON said it was unnecessary to go into the
details of the bill, as the hon. member who moved it had
consented to refer it to a select committee; but with regard
to the general proposition, that a man who advanced money
to a trading concern, and who was paid not a fixed rate of
interest, but a rate of interest which fluctuated with the
profits of the business, should be held to be a partner, that
he considered to be open to very great doubt. He inclined to
the opinion that such an advance of money ought not to
constitute a man a partner, but that neither ought to be al-
lowed to take part in the working of the concern. It was the
principle of the French commandite law, that the commandi-
teur should have no share in the management. He considered
the provision of the bill which required the compulsory re-
gistration of all partnerships altogether impracticable.
However, he thought there were some other provisions
which were worthy of the consideration of the house, and
therefore he did not hesitate to recommend that the bill
should be read a second time.

Mr. MALINS supported the bill, and contended that the

limited liability principle in this country had been attended
with such signal success that it was advisable to extend it
also to private partnerships.
Mr. T. BARING diaapproved of the bill and warned the
house that its adoption would be attended with danger. It
would upset the whole system of trade and credit, and was
of a character that if at all attempted it should have been
introduced as a Government measure.

Mr. BAZLEY said he had been a member of the Royal
Commission of 1853, and he was then opposed to the prin-
ciple contained in the present bill, and all his subsequent
experience had tended to convince him still more strongly
that he was right in the course he then took.
Sir H. CAIRNS considered the principle of the bill wag
bad and its provisions impracticable, for no registration
office could get through the business of registering every
petty loan made to private traders all over the kingdom.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the present confused
state of the law of partnership rendered some alteration very
desirable, and therefore he thought the bill should be read
a second time, and its defects altered in committee.

Mr. WHITESIDE suggested that as they were spend-
ing a " humdrum session," the right hon. gentleman the
President of the Board of Trade should take the bill under
his spocial care.

Mr. JACKSON thought the bill, if passed, would up-
root the whole trade of the country. It was credit which
had mainly created the commercial wealth and greatness of
this country, but this bill would destroy credit and prevent
the progress of the company,
Mr. SEELEY said the bill might prove injurious to
large capitalists, but the public at large would be benefited
by it.
Mr. Alderman SYDNEY opposed the bill as unneces-
sary and uncalled for.
The house then divided. The numbers were—
For the second reading
Against it
Majority —l7 LIZ
The bill was read a second time.
CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL.
On the report of this bill,

Mr. VANCE moved the omission of the 11th clause, and
the insertion of the following :—" Any person who shall be
convicted of briuery at any election shall be incapable of
being elected or sitting in Parliament at any time during
the then existing Parliament,"

Mr. WHITESIDE called attention to the wording of
the 11th clause. If a member was declared duly elected,
and he was afterwards convicted of bribery before a judge
and jury, he would have to resign. This he thought would
be acting unjustly towards the member.

Sir G. GREY said they had decided on punishing the
constituencies for bribery, and the question was whether
candidates were to be allowed to g,) free. The clause was
similar to the present law, and no doubt it would have the
effect described.

Mr. AYRTON considered the principle of the clause an
extravagant one. It would subvert the privilege of that house
in respect to the validity of elections by constituting the
judges a court of appeal by a side proceeding.
Mr. PULLEN ultimately consented to withdraw the
clause, and the bill was then ordered to be read a third time.