The Sun.
London, England, 1865-06-14 00:00:00

hoped that due attention will be paid to the subject
Suring the recess, and that next year something
decisive will be done in the right direction, for
sufficient time has been wasted already.

Sir W. FRASER called attention last night to the
state of the metropolis as regarded the paving,
lighting, and cleansing. In this he was fully justi-
fied, and his remarks on the subject were very
pertinent. Great improvement might with advan-
tage be made in this respect, and it seems strange
that so little attention has been paid to the matter
before now. Sir W. FRASER referred more parti-
cularly to the government of the districts of the me-
tropolis by district boards. The local boards have
the paving, cleansing, and lighting of the metro-
polis entirely in their hands. Nothing could better
have explained the necessity that exists for some
change in this matter than the circumstance cited
by the hon. baronet, that St. James's-street had one
kind of pavement on one side and a different kind
on the other. When people sought the cause of
this anomaly, they were told that one side of the
street was in one parish and the other in another
parish quite distinct. This management is carried
so far that in some cases it is possible to find streets
in which there are five different descriptions of
paving; and in one parish, where there are two
leading thoroughfares, the vestrymen belonging to
one are opposed to any improvement in the other,
because they say that it would injure the traffic and
custom of their own street. Surely a condition of
things that allows such freaks and fancies to
take place ought to be altered as speedily as
possible. It is always a pity when any-
thing that materially affects the welfare and
community is placed in the hands of a few preju-
diced and partial persons, instead of being entrusted
to the direction of those who are above petty consi-
derations and not influenced by selfish motives.
Sir W. FRASER also called the attention of the house
to the manner in which the lighting of London was
managed. The gas supplied was of the worst de-
scription, and the other arrangements were also
incomplete and imperfect. As for the cleansing of
the metropolis that also requires alteration, for this
is left in the hands of the local board. Last winter
there was a considerable fall of rain and snow, and
yet no effort was made to remove the slush. Now
that we have dry weather, the dust renders the
streets almost intolerable to foot passengers. This
dust is very injurious to those who imbibe it, which
should certainly be an additional incentive to those
who have authority to do all in their power to re-
move the great nuisance. Sir W. FRASER truly
said that London was unlike any other city of an-
cient or modern times, for no others had their inha-
bitants so closely packed together. Many must
agree with the hon. baronet in his desire to see this
great capital of our country improved. We should
emulate the French EMPEROR who boasted that he
had beautified his metropolis. We could not hope
to do in London what OCTAVIUS did at Rome.
He found it brick and could not leave it marble.

We are glad to find so sound and sensible a mea-
sure as the Partnership Amendment Bill has passed
the second reading in the Upper House. There was
a very animated debate in the Commons, when the
measure was brought under discussion, and a strong
feeling of opposition was manifested, thotigh the
general sense of the House eventually carried the
day. In the Lords, however, the subject was not
very long under consideration, and the solitary dis-
sentient was answered by three advocates on the
other side. Lord ST. LEONAItDS opposed the bill,
both in principle and detail, and he went so far
as to object in toto to the principle of limited
liability, which he said was a dangerous
thing, and had already affected the character
of our trading. The noble lord's principal
argument against the bill was in reality one
directly in its favour. He said that if a man
entered into trade he did so with a view to profit ;
he gave to it his whole mind, time, and energies,
and it was on this foundation of individual exertion
that the prosperity of the country rested. He con-
sidered that a measure which permitted a participa-
tion in profits without any share in the personal
exertions, which made the prosperity of trade, was
most destructive to the trading credit of the country.
But the existing law gives no sort of guarantee
that every member of a firm shall give his whole
time and energy to labour on its behalf. How often
do we hear of sleeping partners, who, according to
the present state of things, are equally liable with
their more active coadjutors for the obligations of
the firm. Lord ST. LEONARDS said that by this
bill if a man sold half his business and reserved
the other half, he would not share the liability as
he ought in fairness to do, but would escape alto-
gether. But the noble lord objects to this question
of " fairness" being applied. The other may, since
if the limited liability principle is not to be adopted,
one member of a firm or a company may escape
entirely in a catastrophe while his partner is ruined.
The one man's wealth and the other man's poverty,
or the one's prudence and the other's improvidence,
are all brought to the same dead level irrespective
of the real claims upon them. The present law on
the matter of partnership is, as Lord WESTBURY very
truly said, most unjust and repugnant to the prin-
ciples of English legislation. The law, as con-
structed nearly a century back, decided that in any
case where individuals shared the profits of an un-
dertaking they should be partners in the eye of the
law, though they may have arrived at a contrary
agreement between themselves. Great care has
in other cases, observed Lord WESTBURY, been
taken to prevent fraud, and a man's money or goods,
if handed to a trader, were liable to be seized for
that trader's debts, but that was a very different
thing from making a man liable, not only to the
full amount he had lent to a trader, but to the last
farthing he had in the world. Under the ruling of
Lord MANSFIELD, acted on by the judges, the law
invented a contract which did not exist, and then
made parties to that supposed contract liable for
fulfilment of engagements which they had never
intended to undertake." The consequence of such
a construction of the law is that men resort to all
sorts of quibbles and devices to evade the law. If
a trader agree to give his creditor a share in the
gross receipts of his trade the creditor escapes all
liability, but if he gives him a share in the profits,
the creditor becomes a partner and runs the risk of
being answerable for the debts of the firm. There
is another aspect in which the new measure is very
advantageous. It will enable the widow and chil-
dren of a deceased partner to share the profits of
the firm without increasing any dangerous liability,
and it will also empower an employer to give a
trustworthy clerk or foreman a share in the profits
of his trade, which would form a powerful tic be-
tween employer and employed. The protection of
the community against fraud will be the same as
ever. There is no actual safeguard withdrawn, for
every one knows that under the present arrange-
ments a creditor may claim the most ruinous in-
terest from an embarassed trader, interest which
shall not only absorb all his profits but drain his
resources, while, on the moment that bankruptcy
is seen approaching, the exorbitant creditor may
step in, withdraw his money, and leave the
other sufferers to their fate. This drama is
often played out in our commercial circles,
and it is one of the strong arguments