The Sun.
London, England, 1856-02-09 00:00:00

ROYAL STRAND TIIMATRE.

Under the direction of Mr: PAyna.
THIS EVENING,

II.I.IILEQUIN DT..A.CIC-F.YED SUE; or, 401 In the Downs and
Davy Jones's Locker.

Aria which,
r: N Tit ' WIDOW.

Fallon-el by
THE PET ON-FR OP ROCS-ELLE; or, Tans and Onta.
To conclude with

A PLAQUE 0' BOTIf YOUR !MUSES ; or, The Doable•barrelled

Gun Trick.

tSTLIMS ROYAL AMPITITEIEATRE.

Lessee and Manacer, Mr. Wm. Cooke.

TIM; EVEN [NO,
Tha popular equestrian Spectacle called ROOKWOOD; or, TUE-
PIN's trIDE to YORK.
After which the SCRNEg in the CIRCLE. The wonderthl per-
formance of the Stupendous Sagacious Elephants, whose instinct and
docility have astonished every one.
To conclude with a grand Equestrian Comic Pantomime called
lIARLWQU[N AND ST. GEORGE AND THE DRAGON; or, the
Seven Champions of Christendom.
Rox-ofßce open from Eleven till Four. Rage Manager. Mr. W.
West. Equestrian Director. SI w. Cooke, kin.

ISIIIMA STANLEY'S SEVEN AGES OF WOMAN,
Every Evening at S, and on Saturdays at 3.
?roaonnced by the unanimous voice of the press, and by nightly
Inzreasing audiences, to be the Greatest Artistica' Triumph of the
day.

SAINT MARTIN'S HALL, Long-acre.
Area, Is. Reserved Chairs, 2s. GI.

HUM WATER. AT LONDON BRIDGE.

Tau DAY—A(Im. 57 min. aft. 3—Evening 19 rain. aft. 4
Tfl-11101tROW—Morn. 41 min. aft. 4 —Evening 1 min. aft. 5

TUE WEATHER—SUN OFFICE, FEB. 9.
TIIRRIIOItETER, I I Tlll4 SnADE.
56—htghent since noon yesterday.
50—lowest thin morning and daring the night.
57—this tiny at noon.

BAROMETER, 30'01.
WIND, S.S. W. to S.W.—Light, with fine, mild weather.

C • •'-fr '-;::?-,F-'------,:V.---,... i• '
,C
.e,-,--..i--7,- • ,::--,;;;'::: 4 -

LONDON, SA.TURDA.Y, FEBRUARY 9, 1856.

The Partnership Amendment Bill was last
night read a second time, without any division.
Sonic carping and querulous objections were taken
to the excellent measure, but none of its Oppo-
nents ventured to take the opinion of the House
thereon. The feeling in its favour was so de-
cisive that any test would merely have shown the
futility and weaknesi of resistance. The voice of
public opinion has spoken out clearly and intel-
ligibly in support of the great principle o'
" unrestricted competition, freedom of contract,
and tho right of unlimited association." The
nation has earnestly and emphatically protested
against the judge-made law, established sixty
years since by the erroneous judgment in WAUGH
0. CARVER. The trade and Commerce of England
flourished before 1793, althong,h the scourge of
" unlimited liability " was not kept in pickle for
every person who, in kindness to a friend or re-
lative, or for the sake of applying a portion of
his capital in what promised to be a remunerative
investment, advanced money on the stipulation of
obtaining a share of the profits. Since then they
have also prospered, despite the onerous restric-
tions; but thousands of families have had reason
to deplore the evils resulting from the unwise
and impolitic prohibition.
The nation wants " free trade in money," re-
quires that capitalists should be enabled to apply
a portion of their wealth in what seem to be
favourable channels, without being bound to the
extent of theirlast acre and their lastpound. It was
justly remarked that the abrogation of all these
obstacles was " the necessary complement to the
repeal of the Usury Laws." When men could
advance money to a trader at 40, 50, or even 60
per cent., and prove their claims not only for the
principal, but also for the exorbitant and ruinous
interest for which they had stipulated, it would
be hard indeed to deprive others of the opportu-
nity of making more equitable contracts by bar-
gaining for a share of the profits.
These are, however, interestel parties, who,
ike their great prototype, ALEXANDER the " cap.,
persmith," are willing still to raise the cry of
" Great is DIANA of the Ephesians," who seek to
perpetuate the craft by which they live at the ex-
pense of the industrial population of the country.
Mr. SPOONER thought it " more plausible than
just to exclaim against the unfairness' of making
dormant partner liable, not only in the a
proportion of the capital invested, but to the
full extent of his fortune." He thought " that
a man entering into a partnership, and advancing
fur its purposes a large sum of money, might be
the cause of credit being given to it, although
his name should never appear in its transactions.
The capital he advanced might enable the
business to be conducted in such a manner as to
• establish the reputation of the house, and attract
the confidence of the public." Was there ever a
fallacy more transparent and easy of detection ?
What possible difference could there be .in that
respect between the money lender, who advanced
money at a fixed rate of interest, and the "dor.