The Sun.
London, England, 1854-06-28 00:00:00

/; ~; ,

.if

40,), 0 •. . -
t4':47l4At.at, ep,
'
fie' 111
•
Y/ r•.• •
I •
ar..4r: •
•
;0
ss
ti,..:4P
• 4.04-`.,
7;
• -
-_ •
11R
;14.
• •'' 21tIt
',,' 4
`lO.
1..
"tg
as 4

LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, J UNE 28, 1854.

IMPERIAL PARLIAM ENT.

that brave army, who was now on his way to this
country. '

HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.)
The house met at 5 o'cicck.
Lord BROUGHAM presented the usual annual peti-
tion from Robert Owen in favour of a general system of
ed cation.

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH .rejoiced greatly to
hear the statement of the noble duke, and he thought
that it was a good omen at the commencement of his
military administration. (Hear, hear.)
Their lordships then adjourned.

AMERICAN FISHERIES.
Earl FITZWILLIA.M said there was a rumour that
a treaty was in negociation or actually signed between
England and the United States- with regard to the
fisheries on the coast of Canada. - He wished to en-
quire whether this was true, and whether as re-
ported there was any proposition in it by which
American traders would be allowed to establish
facto-ries for the purpose of curing fish on the coast 'of
the British colony. He considered that such a-proposiT
tion as this would be a serious injury not only,to the
colony, but to the general interests of this country. •
The Earl of CLARENDON—My lords, I am happy
to say that the treaty, to which my noble friend has just
alluded, has been negotiated and, concluded between this
country and the United States. (Hear.) That treaty
only reached my hands yesterday afternoon having been
forwarded, by Lord Elgin from Quebec, and I really have
not yet had time to give it all the attention which its
importance deserves. (Hear.) But even if L had I
should not think it proper, at the-present time, to enter
into any discussion of the provisions of the treaty which
has' not yet been approved by the Senate of the United
States, and has not been ratified in this country; (Hear.)
My lords, it appeared to her Majesty's Government that
the return of Lord Elgin to Canada afforded an oppor-
tunity which ought Hot to be neglected of endeavouring
to settle those numerous questions which, for years past,
have been so embarrassing to the two Governments.
(Hear.) One of those questions especially—that relating
to the fisheries—has given rise to annually increasing
causes of contention, and has sometimes threatened col-
ileums, which -I believe have only been averted for the
last two years by the firmness and moderation of Sir
George Seymour and of the British and American naval
commanders, and by that spirit of friendship and for-
bearance which has always characterised the officera of
both navies. (Hear.) But, my lords, your lordships
are also aware that there are other questions which have
given rise to embarrassing discussions between the Go-
vernments of the two countries—questions which involve
the commercial relations of our North American posses-
sions with the United States ; and those questions,
which involve very divergent interests, have become so
complicated as to render their solution a matter of ex-
treme difficulty. (Hear.) But her Majesty's Govern-
ment thought that no man was more entitled to the
confidence of those colonies than Lord Elgin, in conse-
quence of his untiring energy and great exertions for the
promotion of their interests, and of the success which
bad attended his endeavours. (Hear, hear.) It was,
therefore, probable that any arrangement which Lord
Elgin might make on their behalf would be viewed by
the colonists with favour. And here let me mention—
for-it is Sbut an act of justice`—that, in confiding this
important trust to Lord Elgin, no want of confidence
was exhibited or intended towards Mr. Crampton.
(Hear, hear.) His conduct has merited, and has re-
ceived, the entire approbation of the Government. But
Lord Elgin, as Governor-General of Canada, and of the
British possessions in North America, possessed quali-
fications for conducting thisparticular negotiation, which
were necessarily peculiar to himself. Lord Elgin was
met by Mr. Marcy, on the part of tho United States
Government, in a spirit of the most friendly candour.
(Hear, hear.) And, indeed, if it had not been so, it would
have been impossible for him to have - gone through the
preliminary discussions. which were the necessary foun-
dation of the treaty. That treaty, however, has been
concluded, and I can inform my noble friend, with re-
ference to the particular treaty about which he has
asked me, that it contains no new provision whatever
for enabling American citizens to establish factoriesupon
the British territories. (Hear, hear.) As far as I have
been able to institute a comparison; the words are
nearly the same, and the principle is quite the same, as
in the treaty of 1818 ; because although some con-
cessions have been made upon the part of the colo-
nists, and although they have not obtained all the
o ivileges which they had claimed, I nevertheless believe,
and my opinion is •strengthened by that of Lord
Elgin, that the treaty will prove of signal benefit to the
colonists, and will tend in a great measure to promote
and advance their prosperity. (Hear, hear.) I believe'
also that the United States will derive—as they will be
entitled to derive—reCiprocal advantages, and will be
benefited to a great extent by the facilities which will
be given for the development of their natural resources.
(Hear.) I trust, therefore, that nothing will occur to mar
the completion of this great work, which I firmly be-
lieve, more than any other event of recent times, will
contribute to remove all differences between two coun-
tries whose similarity of language and affinity of race,
whose enterprise and industry, ought to unite them in
the bonds of cordial friendship, and to perpetuate feel.
legs of mutual confidence and good-will. (Hear.)
In reply to a question from the Earl of HAEROWBY,
The Earl of CLARENDON said that no progress had
been made in inducing the United States to open the
trade between New York and California to foreign
vessels.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE, in answer to the Earl
of DERBY, stated that the assent of the colonial legis-
latures would be necessary to give effect to the pro-
visions of the treaty.
ENCLOSING OF HAMPSTEAD HEATH.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE moved the second
reading of the Finchley-road Bill, and assured their
lordships that there was not a particle of truth in the
representation that it was the object of the bill to pro-
cure an-enclosure of Hampstead Heath. A glance at
the map which accompanied the bill would suffice to
show that the measure had not, and could not possibly
have any such operation.. It had no more to do with
Hampstead Heath than with Regent's-park.
•
Lord BROUGHAM moved that the bill be read a
second time this day six months.
After some conversation a division. took place. The
numbers were :
For the second reading 34
Against it •
Majority
The bill was consequently was read the second time.
ENCUMBERED ESTATES (WEST INDIA) BILL.
On the motion for going into committee on this bill,
Lord ST. LEONARDS suggested the insertion of a
number of clauses, the object of which was to assimilate
the bill more closely to the provisions of the Encum-
bered Estates Act for Ireland, and to give protection to
the rights of the resident owners of property. -
The Duke of NEWCASTLE thought that their lord-
ships and the public were greatly indebted to the noble
and learned lord for having devoted his time and great
talents to the consideration of the measure. As he be-
lieved it was not the intention of the noble lord to thwart
couldthe
foofr thebie b iel
xl ,e
rhueo tolls thought
would tbhee t
ob eps
ot
erteptouoren
tbh
ee
committee on the bill until Friday next, in order that
the amendments might be printed and laid fully before
the house.
The committee on the bill was accordingly postponed
until Friday next.
LORD LOVAT'S RESTITUTION BILL.
On the motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR, a bill, which
had been introduced by the present Lord Lovat with
the consent of her Majesty, having for its object the
reversal of the attainder upon Simon Lord Lovat in
the last century, was read a second time.
WITNESSES BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
MEDALS FOR THE KAFFIR WAR.
The Duke of RICHMOND rose to inquire if it was the
intention of the Government to recommend that medalsb e
conferred upon officers, non-commissioned officers, and
private soldiers who served in the late campaigns in South
Africa 1 In putting this question to the noble duke oppo-
site, he begged to disclaim the slightest party or politi-
cal ,
feeling, but he was induced to take this step, because
that it would be in accordance with the wish of the great
mass of the people that some proof should
.be given of
their grateful sentiments towards the brave men who
had fought the battles of the country, whether by sea or
by land. Of late years it had been the custom to give
distinctions to the captains of the ships or the command-
ing officer of the regiments engaged, by conferring upon
them the Order of the Bath, and by promoting the first
lieutenants, or giving brevet majorities to the senior
captains. But he (the Duke of Richmond) was anxious'
that some inducement should be held out to respectable
men to enter the two services. He knew that much
had been done of late to ameliorate the condition both
of our soldiers and our sailors, but much more remained
yet to be done. He thought that while granting distinc-
tions to the commanding officers, they ought not to for-
get those men who, by their conduct under every priva-
tion and danger, had quitted this country to conquer,
and had placed those distinctions- within the reach of
their leaders. Medals had been very properly granted to
the soldiers who had served in the East Indies and in
China ; but he thought that the principle of giving re•
wards ought to be more extended. A man who went to the
Cape of Good Hope bad to endure dangers and privations
with which few armies had ever had to contend ; with
the conviction, moreover, that if separated by a few yards
from his comrades and wounded, torture and death would
be his certain portion. As one that had himself known
something of war, he could assure .their lordshipi
that the people of England were little aware of the her:
rors, the fatigues, and the dangers which soldiers muse
undergo in every active campaign. (Hear, hear.) A
man came home after the war with his constitution de;
stroyed, and not having served sufficiently long to en-
title him to a pension, he was discharged with perhaps a
year's pay. Such a man and his friends would be proud
and comparatively happy if he could only show upon his,
breast some token of his Sovereign's and his country's
approbation. (Hear, hear.)
The Duke of NEWCASTLE entirely agreed with
what had fallen from his noble friend, and was happy to
inform him that it was the intention of her Majesty to
confer medals upon the soldiers engaged in the Kaffir war.
(Cheers.) The delay which had arisen was owing solely to
the circumstance that he had thought it desirable first to
speak to Lord Cathcart, the distinguished commander of

HOUSE. OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.)
The house resumed at six o'clock. -
• THE EASTERN QUESTION.
-11 e. LAYARD said—On Friday. last, sir, I gave notice
that. I should, on Thursday next, submit a resolution to
the notice of the house. ,At that time I did not pledge
myself to any .particular words for that resolution, but in
order that there should be no misunderstanding, I stated
that•my intention was to elicit the . opinions of the house
with reference to certain language held by the noble earl
at the.head-of_the Government with regard to our present
relations with Russia. I understand that, in consequence
of that-notice, the noble earl stated -hia intention to make"
some exPlanation of that language,
,and- that that explana-
tion has been since given ; and I trust that it will have
the effebt of retrieving fromthe public mind a very general
(what I hope may be called) misapprehension, and of affirm-.
ing that -Policy which has been so ably, and in such an
English spirit, shadowed forth by the noble lord the Presi-
dent'df the- Council incr by the noble earl the "Secretary of
State for Foreign Affa,ll. I therefore think that I shall
be acting most intonforrnity with the feelings of the house
if I withdraw my notice, as it was directed- against :the
speech whichwas the subject of that explanation. (Hear,
hear.)- .But.in doing so, I hope the house will allow me to
express irly conviction; looking to the present critical aspect
of public. affairs, and especially if the new's received yes-
terday should be true, that before tVe separate for the re-
cess some discussion should take place in this house on
hthe
state our foreign relations. Ido not wish to obtrude
myself upon the house by undertaking such a duty ; but
if nobody else in this house will do so, I shall myself
bring the subject forward. I shall proceed in no .hostile
spirit towards her Majesty's Ge„tprrunent ; but it is my
conviction, I repeat, •that there ought to be some expres-
sion .of-opinion on the part of this house before Parliament
prorogues • and I will leave the naming of the day for that
purpose to noble lord the member for London..

, . ..
ment to the development of the commercial prosperity of
the country—oceasioning an unnatural diversion of capital
into the channel of chartered and incorporated companies,
to which cause he believed he might attribute 'the rail Way
mania, which proved seamferiunate some years ago. An
alteration of the' law would enable men of capital' to assist
men without cepital, but possessing ability, honesty, and
industry, to set up in trade, and in process of time to be-
come capitalists themselves. (Hear, hear.) As it was, he
had been infdimed by gentlemen engaged in commerce and.
sitting in that house, that they would be gad to aid enter-
prising workmen, but had been deterred from doing so by
the state of the law; that all they could do, therefore,
was to advance money on a fixed rate of interest which"
very 'often the workmen could not afford to pay. Another
result of an alteration of the law would be, that a retiring
partner would be able to leave a certain amount of money
in business without being haunted by a dread of the con-
sequences of incurring an unlimited liability. And fur-
ther, it would open up to persons of small capital channels
for itive4treent which were now closed to them. The ques-
tion before the house was but the free trade question over
again in another shape. ' And he appealed to gentlemen
opposite, and to those landowners who had been deprived
of protection, whether they thought it fair that, they having
been deprived of protection, protection should be afforded to
capitalists. -Fur-his own part; he knew:not why capitalists
should be protected rather than any other class of the com-
munity. (Hear, hear.) Either these limited liability com-
panies would succeed or they would - fail. If they suc-
ceeded, it would ho' by supplying the public at a cheaper
rate than at present : if so, the public would be benefited.
If they failed no injury would be done to the fair trader.
Ono of the arguments of the.opponents of limited liability
was this. They said that in a poor country, where there
was little capital, it might be that the principle ought to
be adopted ; but that this country was already rich enough,
had capital enough, and that it did not apply to this
country. The argument, if worth anything, must suppose
that there was once a period when the system of liability
would have been applicable to this country—namely, be-
fore it came rich enough. (Hear, hear.) And when did
this country become rich enough to render the system in-
applicable here? 'He did not understand it to be con-
tended that it was possible foe a country, . economically
speaking, to be too rich ; nor did he understand why a
principle which had the effect of developing the resources
of one country should have a different operation in
another.. It was.the opinion of Mr. John Stuart Mill,
one of the greatest political economists since the days of
Adam Smith, that the liberty of entering into partner-
ships •of limited liability, similar to the conmandite part-
nerships of France and other countries, was an important
element in the general freedom of commercial transactions
and-a valuable aid to undertakings of general usefulness;
and that no one could condemn those partnerships with-
out being prepared to' hollthat a business ought not to be
carried on with borrowed capital. The doctrine which we
maintained was at variance with the civil law, and that it
rested only upon a questionable decision, about 60years ago.
Explaining the principle of partnership en conman,elite,
by which registered partners were unlimitedly liable,
while others were liable, only to the amount of their
subscription, he adverted to its acceptance and bene-
ficial working in Florence, Genoa, . Venice, France,
Holland, Germany, Reggie., and America. Ho addressed
himself at some length to a refutation of various
objections to the ;system of limited liability, which he con-
tended was in conformity with the principles of political
economy, and rested upon the same basis as free trade in
other things than capital, and he moved a resolution to
the effect-that the present law of partnership was unsatis-
factory, and should be so far modified as to permit persons
to contribute to the capital of trading concerns on terms
of sharing their profits without incurring liability beyond
a certain amount.
Lord GODERICII seconded the motion, and contended
that all our great works were carried on for the benefit of
the wealthy classes, the humbler capitalist having no
means of advantageously investing his gains. He thought
that great social benefits would be derived from the pro-
posed change. "-
Mr. CARDWELL said that he could assure his noble
friend'that he was both willing and anxious fully to con-
sider all the arguments and statements contained in the
report of the commissioners which now lay ,on the
table. Certainly, when the committee of 1851, after in-
quiring into this subject during two successive years, ab-
stained from reporting to the house any positive opinion
upon it, but recommended that the Government should ap-
point a commission composed of persons of great legal and
commercial knoWledge for its further elucidation, he un-
derstood that it was the bounden duty of those to whom
the report of the commission was made to consider the
subject most 'carefully and respectfully in all its bearings.
He was sure that when the time arrived for taking any
course with respect to the law of partnership, no objec-
tions would be made to any change upon grounds an-
tagonistic to the principles of unrestricted competition.
He was sure the house would not be told that it was neces-
sary for the protection of great capitalists that a restriction
should li) imposed• upon the aggregation of small capitals ;
or that they would be told that a system which would pro-
mote the welfare of industrious young men should be put
down to pro'tect those who, having been more fortunate in
life, had a greater capital in command. The only question
would be, "What is the mode by. which free competition
may be most effectually promoted; by which the advance of
young men in life may' be most easilypromated, by which
social improvement may be most advanced, and by which
the rights.and interests of scientific and ingenious men effect-
ing improvements may be best promoted ? ' Before entering
upon this subject, he would beg the house to consider what
the law of partnership in this country really was. The
law was, that when persons were engaged in trading in
partnership there was a general presumption that each
partner was intrusted by his colleagues with power to bind
the whole partnership in their commercial transactions.
The law, however, did not prevent partners limiting their
liabilities as between themselves ; nor did it even prevent
them introducing into their contracts with their creditors
terms by which their liability was limited, and the right
of the creditors to payment was testricted to a particular
fund. This power, too, was not inoperative, but was in
pretty constant operation amongst the large companies in
the city of London. The point in which the law of this
country really differed from that of foreign countries was,
that we had not by legislative enactment established those
modes of creating a presumptive notice of limited liability
to creditors, which existed there. In France, and in mapy
of the United States of America, there were . laws which
enacted that by complying with certain regulations per-
sons were taken to have given notice to all the world of the
nature and limitation of their liability. There had also
for many years been in operation in Ireland an act of the
Irish Rouse of Commons enabling persons to carry on trade
in that country under a limitation of liability. Under these
circumstances, the object of .the commission had been to
obtain evidence from France, America, and other coun-
tries in which this system was in operation, in order
that' we might be enabled to determine whether it
would be advantageous to establish in this country a simi-
lar mode of creating a presumption of limited liability.
That would be the point for the consideration of the house;
not whether a person should have a right to make any
contract as he thought fit with his creditors. He could not,
however, presume to say that he had yet been able to give
to a document of such importance as the report of the com-
missioners, which had only been in his hands for a week,
that amount of attention which would justify him in now
pronouncing a decisive opinion upon its contents. It was
said that the experience of America was wholly in favour of
an enactment by which a presumptive limitation of liability
should arise. He would, however, remind the house that
although the then American Secretary of Legation in this
country gave strong evidence to that effect' before the com-
mittee of 1851, when his evidence was printed he appended
to it a statement that since he left America an enactment
had been passed by which shareholders in a bank were
made liable for the redemption of unpaid bills of the bank
a hnids t
thinkingi no s
order
r dh
tohewra
tt tohat t
this
impress he
subject
tuhier ehd 00.
tif s le 85
.further
thl. e were
importance
right
iof investigation;in
in proportion to the number of their shares. He mentioned
t
approaching this subject with deliberation, and of carefully
considering any conclusion to which they might come, in
order that they should not hereafter be exposed to a charge
of having acted precipitately. An hon. gentleman had
given notice of hie intention to add to the present resolu--
tion. a rider calling attention to the claims of Ireland to
have such a law as he had been describing. Ire-
land had, however, for' many years, had such a
law, but it had not been put in operation. He
had no doubt that that was in consequence of the framing
of the law, and that this required amendment. But no-
body had yet come forward on behalf of Ireland to specify
the manner in which this alteration should
impossibility
place. He
must again impress upon the house the of
legislating upon this subject in a satisfactory manner, un-
til they had all the requisite materials before them, so that
they might guard against the dangers that might be in-
volved in this proposition. It must not be forgotten that
the majority of the commissioners were opposed to any
change in the law, and that one of their body (Lord Carrie
hill) had: addressed to them an elaborate argument, in
which he intended to. show that neither in regard to the
convenience of persons engaged 'in trade, nor on the ground
of security against fraud, and still less on the ground of
free trade,' could 'the system- proposed by the hon. and
learned member for Plymouth be recommended for adop-
tion. It had been contended, on the authority of Mr.
Mill, that considerations of natural justice, and the prin-
ciples of free trade, required the adoption of a system of
partnership en conmandite. He must, however, remind
them that those whose names were most familiar to the
house as great free trade authorities were divided in
opinion on this subject; and that if Mr. Mill was on
the one side, Mr. Tooke was on the other. (Hear, hear.)
In fact, persons of the most pronounced opinions in favour
of free trade—not only lawyers, but political economists—
viewed this matter as quite distinct from free trade, and
as simply involving the question, What shall be the effect
of certain arrangement's between parties entered into
with public notice upon their contracts with those with
whom they have dealings ? He abstained from arguing the
question on either side, because he thought it would be
'premature to do so before either he or the members of the
htooubs ee
taken
thehadtio
protection
eacn opportunity
versant with the report of the commissioners and the err-
deuce which they had collected. He must, however, re-
mind the house that although it might be true that out
of 69 witnesses examined, 37 were in favour of a law
limiting liability, they were divided in opinion on questions
of such importance as these :—Whether it was desirable
that the law now in operation in France, or that of Ame-
rica, or some amendment of that of Ireland, should be
adopted ? Whether, in case of insolvency, any past profits
of the concern should be brought to-D.ocount, or the liabi-
lity of the partners should be limited to the amount of the W
capital originally embarked by them ? Whether there
should or should not be an open registry of all the share-
holders ? And whether, supposing 2e, 50, or 75 per cent.
of the capital of a concern was lost, it should be wound
up for the' benefit of the creditors. In fact, among the 37
witnesses in favour of this system there were all imagin-
able differences of opinion as to the securities that ought
disastrous consequences that must necessarily ensue if it
should happen that commercial failure upon a large scale
resulted from an alteration in the law. It was clearly
the duty of the Legislature to come to a definite opinion
upon these points before consenting to an alteration in the
law. ' Nor should it be forgotten that amongst those in
favour of the maintenance of the present law were some
very high authorities, such as the Commercial Association of