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

LONDON, WEDNESDAY 'EVENING, JU-N4,1 28; 1854.

IMPERIAL PARLIAAIENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY.)

The house met at 5 o'clock.
Lord,RROUGHAM presented the usual annual petir
tion from Robert-Owen in favour of a general system of
education. •

- .
. AMERICAN FISHERIES.
1 Earl FITZWILLIAM said there was a rumour that
a treaty was in negotiation or actually signed between
l*England and the United. States with regard to the
fisheries on. the -coast of Canada. Ile 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
factOriesfor the purpose of curing fish on the coast of
the British colony. He considered that such a proposi-
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 lam 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,l really have
not yet had time to • give it all the attention which
impalrtirrice deseryei. (Hear.) But even if 'I had I
should not think it proper,' at the-present time to enter
into any discussion of the provisions of the treaty which
has net 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 not to be neglected of endeavouring
to settle those numerous questions which, for years past,
have been so embarrassing to the two Governments.
(Licari) One of those questions especially—that relating
to the fisheries—has given rise to annually. increasing
'causes of contention, and has sometimes threatened col-
lisions, .which I believe have only been averted for the
last tivo '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-
4tntrance 'Alia& ha* Oxyle--oharacterised the-officers. .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
had attended his endeavours. (Hear, hear.)i ;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 'but 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, arid has re-
ceived, the entire .approbation of the Governthent. But
Lord Elgin; as Governor-General of Canada, 'and of the
British possessions-- in North' America, posseised quali-
fications for conducting this particular negotiation, which
were necessarily peculiar to himself. Lord Elgin was
met by Mr. Marcy,. on the part of the United States
Government, in a spirit of the most friendly candour.
(Hear, hear.)__ Ancl,indeed, if ithad 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 Anierican 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
p 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 firinly 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-
ings of mutual confidence and good-will. (Hear.)
In reply to a question from the Earl of HARROWBY, •
The Earl of CLA.RENDON 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
ntunbers_ were :--
For the second reading ...... 34
Against it ll
Majority —23
The bill was cons,quently was read the second time.
ENCUMBERED ESTATES (WEST INDIA) BILL.
On the motion for going into committee on this bill,
Lord ST. LEONA.RDS. suggested the insertion of a
number of clauses; the object of which was to assimilate
the bill more closely to the provision's -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. A's he be-
lieved it was not the intention of the noble lord to thwart
the progress of the bill, he thought the best return he
dotild4nake for his exertions would be to postpone the
committee on the hill 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? 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 ; hut he thought that the principle of giving re-
wards ought to be more extended. A man who went to the
Cape Of Good Hope had 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
somethilg„-of war,_ he could assure their lordships
that OeLtpegpie of England were little aware of the hor-
rors, the fatigues, and the dangers. which soldiers must
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, lie 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, heat:)
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 sto:diers 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

that brave army, who was now on his way to this
country.
The Earl Uof ELLENBOROGt, '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.

went to the development of the commercial prosperity of
the country—occasioning an unnatural diversion of capital
into the channel of chartered and incorporated companies,
to -which cause ho believed he might attribute the railway
mania, which proved so unfortunate some •years ago, An
alteration of the law would enable men.of capital to assist
men without capital, but possessing ability, honesty, and
industry, to set .up in trade, and in propess of time to be-
come capitalists themselves. (Hear, hear.) As it was, he
had been informed by gentlemen engaged in commerce and
sitting in that house, that they would be glad 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
ptirtner 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 investment 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. For 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 corn-
-panic.* mould succeed or they would fail. If they suc-
ceeded, it would be by supplying the public at a cheaper
rate than at present : if so, the public would be benefited.
‘lf they failed no injury would be done to the fair trader.
One 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 for a country, economically
speaking, to be too rich ; nor did he understand why
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 coninicntdite 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 hold that 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 conmandite,
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, Russia, and Atherica. He 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, beymad
a certain amount. _ _ _

Lord GODERICH seconded the motion, and contended
that all our great works were carried on for the benefit of
the wealthy daises, the humbler capitalist having no
means of advantageously investing his gains. He thought'
that gteat 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.
:Zs was sure that when the- time arrived for taking any
course' with respect to the la .w of partnership, no objec-
fleas 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•
vary, for the protection of great capitalists that a restriction
should be 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 protect 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 easilypromoted, by which
social improvenient 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 waa intrusted_by his colleagues with power to bind
the *hole 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 restricte.l 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
ecolintry 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, andin many
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
,far many years been in operation in Ireland an act of the
Trish House 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 ether 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 hake 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
in proportion to the number of their shares. He mentioned
this to show that the committee of 1851 were right in
thinking that this subject required further investigation ;
and in order to impress upon the house the importance of
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 his 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
hadsno 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 take place. He
must again, impress upon the house the impossibility 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 contmandite. 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 arrangements 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
house generally had had an opportunity of becoming con-
versant with the report of the commissioners and the evi-
dence which they had collected. He must, however, re-
mind the house that although it might be true th 4 out
'of 0 witnesses examined, 37 were in favour of p. law
liiniting 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 inselvency,tany pastprofits
of the concern should be brought to account, or the, liabi-
lity of the partners should be limited to the amount of the
capital originally embarked by them ? Whether there
should or should not ho an open registry of all the share-
' holders ? And whether, supposing 25, 50, or 75 per cont.
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
to be taken for the protection of the public against the
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 pf 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

[Plum SD.

. .
Glasgow,. Lord Overstone, Mr. Prescott., Mr. William
Brown, M.P., and many others. It would clearly be pre-
cipitate to ask the house to agree to this resolution before
they had had time to weigh these authorities. The same
conclusion was enforced by a consideration of the history
of this question. In 1837 a committee which sat at the,
instance of Mr. Poulett Thompson reported that the opi-
nions of those best able to form an opinion -on this diffi-
cult subject were divided, but that by far the greater
number of theaelhey had examined were against an alte-
ration of the present law. Accordingly, no steps were
taken to• introduce any changes. The next time the sub.(
ject came under consideration was in an incidental man-
ner, before the joint stock companies committee, in 1814;
they, however, came to no decision. In 1850 a committee
was appointed to consider the subject, but they separated
without coming' to any fcirmal resolution. In 1851 a com-
mittee was again appointed. In the report, they referred
to the great difficulties of the subject, and recommended
the appointment of a commission of adequate legal and
commercial knowledge, not only to consider the p ropriety
i n
eminentl y
of consolidating
the existing law, but also to suggest such
changes as might be required by. existing circumstances.
sSindced Such aovcoer by mmissoionne
wofaath moataeeeor d glawyers appointed.lt
wastn ptl eh
e*
United Kingdom—the Master of the Rolls in Ireland. It
contained two of the most eminent members of the English
and Scotch bench—Mr. Justice Cressvrell and Lord Cui"
riehill ; as well as two other distinguished law ers Mr:
Anderson and_Mr. Bramwell • a member of the lank— •
direc-
tion, the President of the Manchester Chamber of
Commerce; and a gentleman also of great legal kuovded.p
but now engaged in commerce—Mr. Slater., The oonsmU
eionereiri-theirreport stated that they liadhoen much em-
,barrased by the great contrariety of opinion entertained
by those who favoured them with answer to the questions;
t m
.that gentlemen of. great experience and talent had arrived
at conclusions diametrically oppoille, and in supporting
them had ,displayed reasoning power of the highest order.
The house would certainly not refuse to consider such
opinions, collected at their own desire.' (dean) ' Now of
the eight commissioners, six had decided in favour of the
existing law. Three had, not signed the report—Mr. An-
derson, Who, although in the main agreeing with the other
commissioners, differed with them iu respect to the per-
mission of loans, the interest of which should vary with the
profits ; and Mr. Bramwell and Mr. Kirton Hudg*in, who
were in favour of establishing by. Parliamentary enactment
a preatunptive-limitation of liability, -or that which was
known as commanclite partnership.. A committee had been
appointed in 1837, which reported that it was inexpedient
to alter the law. In 1811 the subject was again considered
by a committee appointed•on the motion of Mr., gleamy;
and in 1851 a committee, again appointed under the same
auspices, recommended that a partial change . should be
made in the law, and also that a commission of inquiry ,
should be instituted. For himself, during the; time_ he...
had held the invidious power of granting charterS, he had
fulfilled the pledge he gave to the house, by keeping the
subject as free as possible for the deliberations of Parlia-
ment, when the report of_ the commissioners should be
Ka before them. Besides recommending that the law of
joint-stock companies should occupy the attention of the
Government, the commissioners also recommended the re-
peal of the laws of usury, and in conformity with that re-
'commendation his right hon. friend had-given notice of a
motion for leave to introduce a bill on that subject. In
conclusion, he could only say that he, should- be most
happy that' the House of Commons should be enabled to
improve the law as it existed in this country, ,but they
must all feel that the true way. to accomplish reforms of
every kind, and particularly commercial reforms, was to
carry along with 'them the confideuce of -thoie whose in-
terests wereat Stake, and whose property would be affected
by the changes contemplated. Under ofir present law, let
its defects be what they might, this at least had happened,
that our industry -had been extended to an 'unparalleled
degree, and our credit raised higher:than was the.case in
any other country, for no other could be pointed out-in -
which the rate of interest was so lOW; and capital could be
obtained on such moderate terms. If we could, by tem-
perate legislation, add to the stability of our commercial
system, to its expansive power, and to the security on
which that power was founded and directed, let them not
hesitate to enter on that, course, and.to show the commu-
nity that when they had to deal with subjects confessedly
difficult in the opinion of the most able men, the method
they adopted was to inquire first, and then, having ob-
tained the evidence, to deliberate on it, and finally to ap-
proach it, not by way of abstract resolution—at all times
an unsatisfactory mode of proceeding—but by embodying
their conclusions in the provisions of a bill, which when
carried into law might enhance the prosperity of the
country, and secure that it should remain the central /:Oin't
to which the commerce of all nations would gravitate.
Mr. LUCAS urged the special case of the condition of
of Ireland, and moved the addition, of words to the effect
that the modification of the partnership law was especially
necessary in that country.
Mr. COBDEN said the arguments against limited liabi-
lity were founded -on the fallacy that those, people Who
had capital to dispose . —and who, he ventured to say,
were among the 'slay:, a - people in the world—,could-nat—
be trusted to discri -,'•
.between a good investment and
a bad one: In see . o to-protect such persons by law they
were engaged in a.woric of complete supererogation. An-
other fallacy-was, that they were going to pass a law to force
people to trust firms founded on the principle df limited
liability,. • Nothing of the kind was contemplated. He did
not believe that firms established on the principle of limited
liability would have less credit than firms established
on the principle - of unlimited HARRY. In reading
over the -evidence. in the blue book he had been struck—
and he mentioned it without any intention of casting_a
slur upon the 'Class referred to—that the questions had
generally been addressed to men of business of the large
capitalist.class, and yet even of. that class notone half of
them gave, opinions in favour of the principle of unlimited
liability. In another class—the young men in shops and
in warehouses, of whom there were in London alone per-
haps not less than 100,000—he doubted whether a unani-
mity of feeling Would not be found fa favour of the prin-
ciple which gave them a better opportunity of entering
into business than they now possessed. Among skilled
artisans he believed there was a unanimous feeling in
favour of the alteration now sought for. In a social point
of view, he took the deepest interest in this-question. In
the committee of 1851 Mr. Wynne Ellis stated that on
several occasions he had been asked by deserving young
men strugglingin the world to enter into partnership with
them on the principle of limited liability, but - that he
had been deterred from giving his name, because he
dared not to risk his whole capital. He believed that
similar instances hail occurred in other large towns. In
all such cases the law of unlimited liability was a great
obstacle to young men rising in the world. With respect
to the arguments in favour of maintaining the present state-
of the law, he was surprised on reading the evidence to
find coming from men—whom he had considered sound in
political economy--opinions not only adverse to sound
political economy, but supported with a feebleness' of ar-
gument which could only come from men who rd a bad
cause to support. They had ventured to pre ict what
would be the consequences of an alteration of the,law, but'
he had looked in vain for any argument against limited
liability. When he found men arguing in the future tense
as to what would be or might be, he was always inclined
to think that they had not good grounds for their argu-
ment. It was said that limited liability might _do in
France, Germany, and Holland—countries which had not
so much capital as' England. Re could not understand
that mode of arguing. He did not admit that the prin-
ciples of political economy were like certain fruits and
flowers, only suited for certain climates. If those prin-
ciples were tree they were applicable at all times. But
the obvious answer to that question was, that if the prin-
ciple of limited liability slid not suit it would not be
adopted. A.ll that was asked for was, that the law should be
. .
permissive. It was no argument to say that we had a greater
abundance of capital. No one supposed that a future gene-
ration might not possess a greater abundance of capital.
If a fixed amount of capital was to be maintained there
would be an end to all change in their mercantile laws.
Such a doctrine might snit a stationary people like the
Chinese, but if this country was to be progressive, that ar-
gument could have no effect. He would not refer this
question to the arbitrament of any one class, for no class
could be trusted to legislate for its own interest. In
legislating on this question, therefore, they ought not to
look exclusively to the opinions of the great capitalists in
this country, because they, were unconsciously warped by
their own feelings of self-interest. If the alteration now
proposed was carried] out, capitalists would find employ-
ment for capital for which they were
now seeking em-
ployment elsewhere, and
might
obtain 10 per cent.' in-
stead of 3i, from the Exchequer Bonds. The present law
did not permit a free marriage between capital and in-
dustry and skill, and the bands were forbidden by this
law of unlimited liability. If there was a blot in our
social system, it was the tendency which capital had to
accumulate in great masses in a few hands. He believed
that the law of unlimited liability stood in the way of the
diffusion, as well as of the creation, of capital, and that
social considerations rendered it desirable that they should
bridge over the gulf which separates capital and industry.
He hoped, therefore, that the Government would give the
sanction of their authority to the change propose& (Hear,
hear.) ,
Mr MALINS predicted, from the present state of opi-
nion on the subject, that the anomalous condition of the
law would soon be remedied by legislation -in the spirit
of the proposed resolution. He regretted to gather from
Mr. Cardwell's tone that he was opposed to an alteration
of the law, and he bore professional testimony to the great
mischiefs it occasioned. .
Mr. GLYN admitted that the commercial law of [the
country was in a most anomalous state, but the evidence
which had been taken did not satisfy him that the house
had information enough before them to justify them in
making the proposed change. He observed that the pro-
visions which all the foreign witnesses had concurred in
saying must be taken against fraud, if the change were
made, would render the new system so odious as to defeat
its object. He also urged that the change would necessitate
an-immense difference in our system of commercial trans-
actions, and he thought that the discussion should be
entered upon with the fullest knowledge, but he added
that he advanced these considerations in no desire to delay
a measure which would be a decided improvement in com-
mercial legislation.
Mr. G. PHILLIMORE ridiculed the idea that the
house had not sufficient information upon a subject which
had been under discussion so many years. It was most
important, lie said, to show the lower classes that we
`were most anxious to legislate for their benefit. In answer
to Mr. Glynn, he said that it was not the contemplated
n eh-
societie et contotandite but the societie ano
Ynte at re-
gilired the penal legislation alluded: to.._
kr. LEVESON GOWER, in an effective
speech, supported the resolution, ex re d- maid"
p .sse his opinion
that the p_resent age tended to association,
-Which was only beginning to be lation, the' power of
appreciated, and insisted
upon the advantage of extending the benefits of .
tion to honest and_pincle s -
n men instead of to gamblers.
' • Irr. DIGBY SEYMOUR, argued that the 'anew h of
Mr. Cardwell, and the proposed abolition of the usury
laws, indicated steps in
advance on the part of the overa
ment. He supported the •
resolution
1 - Mr- KENNAL briefs p
x i ea.
the advantages given
by the Stannary laws yin the lan
ecase of the Cornish mules.
Mr. W. BROWN said he considered that limited lia-
bility would be injurious to the credit of the country and
to the interests of the lower classes. . '
Mr. SOTHERON thought that harm rather than good
was done by the affirming abstract propositions, and being
himself favourable to the object of the mover of the reso-
lution, he suggested that, instead 9f the resolution itself,
a bill should We brought in authorising loans for business

urposes, on the prinoiple of the Frellaill, of Partnership
en commanaite.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said be hoped the hon.
and learned member for Plymouth would not press his re-
solution to a division. He felt that he should make this
appeal with the greater force when he said that he was
htmsella decided friend-to-limited-liabilityr----At the.same
time the question was now brought forward for the first•
time in the house, at least in thiParliament, and there was
a report founded on lengthened- evidence which they bad
not had an opportunity of reading. He would also put it
to hi/I:Laud:there was no merit in carryin.:;_an absts act re-
solution. If a measure of this kind was brought in, every-
body felt, after the discussion which had taken place, it
would be necessary to sturouncl such a provision with a
variety of safeguards to prevent frauds. He would there-
fore put it to his hon. friend that his object had been fully
attained by the discussion which had taken place, and that
it would be really useless, to carry the resolution. It was a
matter that deserved and would receive the ankions con-
sideration of the Government. -
Mr. NAPIER said if the motion were pressed to a divi-
sion he should be in a great difficulty. He joined in re-
commending the hon. and learned gentleman to_withdraw
his motion.

Lord PALMERSTON said he merely rose to idd bis re-
quest that his hon. friend would not press this motion to a
division, He thought he ought to be satisfied with the ex-
pression of opinion which had been given. It was one, no
doubt, on which great difference of opinion prevailed, and
it was fair to say that the large capitalists were of one
opinion, and that the bulk of the small capitalists were of
another. A commission was appointed at the recommenda-
tion, he thought, of a committee of that house, to inquire
into .the matter. The commission had only recently re-
ported, and he was sure the house would feel that her Ma-
jesty's Government would not have acted in a becoming
manner if they had at once reached a conclusion without
giving to the report of the commission that due considera-
tion to which it was entitled. It; therefore, could not be
expected that the Government should be prepared at the
present moment to declare the result which they had come
to, or were likely to come to; and he thought it hardly
fair to ask them to agree to an abstract resolution without
giving them time to consider not only the evidence, but
the report of the commission. Re was sure the house
would give Government credit for a great anxiety to cor-
rect those defects which everybody admitted existed in the
law as it stood in this matter, and he trusted that credit
would be allowed them for a sincere desire to propose any
change of the law for the development of national indus-
try, and give to the under classes of society a better means
of applying their savings, and a greater inducement to
make savings in the course of their limited transactions.
There was also another consideration for not pressing the
motion to a division, which was that in the early part of
the day it was understood that the hon. member would
merely elicit opinions and that there should be no division.
Mr. RICARDO could not agree with what had fallen
from the noble lord. He had never seen the house so una-
nimous on any question, and he trusted they "would have
an opportunity of putting their unanimity on record. He
trusted the hon, and learned member would press his mo-
tion to a division.
Mr. CAIRNS also expressed a hope that the motion
would be passed, and said If it were carried it would
strengthen the hands of Goiernment hereafter in intro-
ducing a bill.
Mr. HORSFALL said like the hon. and learned member
for the. University of Dublin, he should be in a difficulty
if the motion were passed. The report having been pre-
aented-only .a few days ago, if he voted at all it would be
not on the merits of the question, but in order to prevent
the house from pledging is self to an abstract resolution.
Mr. T. HANKEY regretted that the Government
should have requested the withdrawal of this motion, and
believing that the change to which it was preparatory
would be conducive to the best interests of the commercial
community, he trusted that the time was not far distant
when that change would be made.
Mr. CROSSLEY had not at all made up his mind on the
subject, though he had listened attentively to the debate.
He hoped, therefore, that the hon. and learned member
would not divide • ut, if he did, he should divide with
him. (taught er.)
Mr. SPOONER thought that an abstract resolution
was always objectionable, and as there appeared to be a
desire on the part of hon. gentlemen on the Ministerial
side to press for a division; he should move the previous
question.

The SPEAKER said it was not competent to the hon.
member to do so, is there was an amendment before the
house.

Mr. J. BALL observed that four members of the com-
mission out of eight were in favbnr of allowing special
loans.

Mr. COLLIER replied. He was extremely satisfied with
the manner in which his resolution had been received. It
appeared to him almost immaterial whether he divided
or not, as the opinion of the house had been most unmis-
takeably expressed iu the course of • the debate. He
felt the force of the appeal made to him by the Home Se-
weary and the Attorney-General, who had intimated their
concurrence in his views and their readiness to legislate;
and, if permitted to do so, he should withdraw his motion.
Mr. JOHN MACGREGOR thought a discusiion would
have much greater weight with the country than a
sion. no).
The question was then put, and the resolution was agreed
to, with the addition of the words proposed by Mr. Lucas.
RUSSO-DUTCH LOAN.
Lord D. STUART, adverting to a notice of motion which
he had on the paper on this subject, said at that late hour (a
quarter to 12) he should despair of securing the attention of
the house. He had waited the whole evening in the vain
hope of bringing it on, and he now reluctantly consented to
postpone. His hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury
.having intimated to him that he had a reasonable chance
of introducing it on Tuesday, the 11th July, he had agreed
to postpone it till that day; but he did so on the under•
standing that if he should be unable to obtain any other
opportunity, he would introduce it onthe motion for going
into commi. tee of supply.
Mr. BOWYER, in withdrawing a motion, complained that
independent members had at present no opportunity of in-
troducing the motions which they had ple,ced on the table.

THE CLAIMS OF CAPTAIN. DICKENSON.
' Admiral WALCOT r moved for a select committee to in-
quire into the claims of Capt. Dickenson, on behalf
of himself, the officers, and crews of her Majesty's vessels
employed on the subject of salvage, connected with
the recovery of treasure in the wreck of her Majesty's ship
Thetis, off Cape Frio, on the coast of Biazil. The gallant
-admiral said it still a,peared to him most unfair that the
Admiralty should have deducted 13,970/. from the hard
earnings of a meritorious officer, end the seamen under
him. He was astonished to hear the right hon. baronet
the First Lord of the Admiralty observe the other eveniug
that it was inexpedient to re-open a question upon which
successive Boards of Admiralty hadgiven adverse decisions.
If wrong had been done, the lapse of 20 years was no rea•
son why it should not be redressed.
Mr. BROTHERTON moved the adjournment of the
house.
The house divided--
For the adjournment.,..
Against
The house then adjourned

46

36 -10

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.

CARLISLE RACES-.--TIIESDAY;

The CDMBERLAND PLATE. *Twice round and a distance.
Arribas, 3 yrs
La Belle, 4 yrs. .
Axwell, 4 yrs....

broke down.
Only th et e ran.
TRADESMEN'S PLATE. One mile and a half.
Colsterdale, 6 yrs.
Patience, 4 yrs.