The Sun.
London, England, 1856-05-27 00:00:00

LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 27 , 1856.

IMPERIAL PARLIAME NT.

HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY).

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.
The Earl of HARDWICKE presented a petition from
a place in Kent, against the abolition of Church rates ' •
and also two petitions on the subject of our commercial
relations with Russia.
. THE POST-OFFICE DEPARTMENT.

.
The Marquis of CLANRICARD E called the atten-
tion of the Postmaster-General to the condition of the
clerks in country post-offices. A committee which sat
some time ago recommended a revision of those offices
with a view of placing the salaries of the clerks in those
offices on a more satisfactory footing. Those clerks
had very difficult duties to discharge, and the salaries
received for such duties were very small, and the men
were now in an, unhappy state of " hope deferred." He
therefore wished to ask whether the recommendation of
the committee would be carried out, and whether it was
likely that the postoffices, throughout the country would
soon be revised ?
The Duke of ARGYLL said that there were about
200 of those post-offices altogether to which the recom-
mendation of the committee referred. The revision of those
offices was now going on. About 103 of the largest of them
had been already revised, and the salaries put ou a more
equitable footing than before existed. There still re-
mained about 90 offices which had not yet been reached.
The revision was still going on with as much expedition
as was possible under the circumstances. He thought
the country postmasters ought to have the appointment
of their clerks, as they were responsible for the acts of
their subordinates. He assured the noble marquis that
the whole of the subject was being proceeded with with
the greatest possible speed.
THE INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE.

The Earl of ALBENIARLE rose, to move for a re-
turn showing the yearly amount of all salaries paid to
the covenanted civil servants of the Hon. East India
Company under the several Governments of Bengal, the
North-Western Provinces, Madras, Bombay, and the
Straits Settlement, distinguishing each, together with
the number of persons under each of the above
Governments receiving such salaries in the re-
spective years 1820, 1830, 1840, 1850, and the
latest year for which the return can be furnished :
a return showing the yearly amount of all pensions paid
in England or India to the covenanted civil servants of
the Hon. East India Company under the several Go-
vernments of Bengal, the North-Western Provinces,
Madras, Bombay, and the Straits Settlements, distin-
guishing pensions of 1,0001. a-year from those of a lesser
amount, in the respect ye years of 1820, 1830, 1840,
1850, and the latest year for which the same can be
furnished : a return showing the yearly amount of all
salaries paid to the uncovenanted civil servants of
the Honourable East India Company, together with
the number of persons receiving such salaries, in the first
year of the establishment of such civil uncoveaanted
service, for the last' year for which the same can be fur-
nished ; a return showing the amount of pensions of un-
covenanted civil servants, and the number of persons
drawing the same for the years 1840, 1850, and- the
latest year for which the same can be furnished : a re-
turn showing the amount of all civil salaries paid to
military officers, and the number of persons receving
such salaries for the respective years 1844 and 1854 :
a return showing the number of natives of India, being
Mahomedane or Hindome in the civil service of the Hon
East India Company, drawing salaries of 5,000 rupees a
year or upwards, together with the sum total of such sa-
laries for the respective years 1844 and 1854: a return
showing the amount of absentee allowances paid to the
covenanted civil servants of the Hon. East India Com-
pany in the respective years 1820, 1830, 1840, 1850, and
the latest year for which the same can be furnished :
a return showing the amount of the annuities of the
Madras civil fund of the year 1818, and the number of
persons receiving such annuities for the respective years
1820, 1830, 1840, 1850, and the latest years for which
the same can bo furnished : copies of all minutes of
Council, documents, and correspondence between the
Governor-General and Court of Directors, as well as
between the several Governments of India among them-
selves or their subordinate officers, which led to the
establishment of pensions and absentee allowances
of the covenanted civil service of the Hon. East
India Company ; and also to call the attention of the
house to the recommendation of the Madras Torture
Commissioners, that a greater number of European
fuctionaries should be employed in the civil service
with the view to the suppression of torture ; and to sub-
mit to the judgment of the house whether an efficient
European civil agency be compatible with the present
lavish remuneration of civil services in India, consider-
ing the deficient and falling condition of the revenues of
that country and the proved poverty of its people.
Earl GRANVILLE said that her Majesty:a Govern-
ment were always ready to give every facility for inquir-
ing into the finances and condition of India, but he
begged the house to consider the great inconvenience
which would be given to the departments if these enor-
mous returns were ordered. The Government were
bound to exercise a wise discretion, and not to over-
whelm Parliament with printed documents not absolutely
necessary for its information. His noble friend had al-
ready moved for several returns,'which would take a long
time to prepare. Indeed he was told that those already
ordered would require the labour of the whole fcrce of
the establishment for' months to come. The noble earl
had avowed his opinion that it was hopeless to attempt
to make the ends of Indian finance meet, and considering

the great inconvenience which would result to the depart-
ments he hoped the motion for the returns would not be
pressed. He suggested that the better course• for the
noble earl to take would be to withdraw the motion and
to put himself in communication with the department
of the Board of Control for the purpose of obtaining the
information he desired. _ _

The sufwestion was acquiesced in, and the motion
was withdrawn. _ _

The Whichwood Forest Bill was read a second time.
The Marriage Law Amending Bill was read a third
time and pa.sed.
The Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill wai read a se-
cond time.
LORDS' APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

The LORD CHANCELLOR laid on the table a bill,
framed according to the report of the committee for the
better discharging of the business of the appellate juris-
diction of that house.
Tho bill was read a first time.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMAO NS.—(YEsrzitDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at the usual hour.
P ftl vA.TE BUSINESS.

The following bilk were real a third time and passed :
—Ely Tidal H arbour and Railway ; Glaaßow Paving ;
London, T►lbury, and Southend Railway (Extension and
Branches) ; and Vale of Clwyd Railway Bills.
The order of tho day for the reading of the Aberdeen
and Scottish Midland Junction Railway Companies
Amalgamation Bill was discharged and the bill ordered
to be recommitted.

THE MILITIA.
In reply to a question from Mr. GROGAN,
Mr. F. PEEL said that when the militia was disem-
bodied no person connected with the militia would con-
tinue to receive pay but those on the permanent staff of
the Adjutant and the Quartermaster-General at the time
of the disembodiment.
PERCUSSION CAPS (CRIMEA.).

In anew er to a queition from Col. NORTH,
Mr. MONSEL L said that no report had been re-
ceived upon 6,000,000 of waterproof percussion caps sent
to the Crimea, but when it was it should be laid on the
table of the house. The number mentioned by the gal.
lant officer was larger than was really the case.
THE COAST GUARD AT FOWEY.
Mr. PALK asked the First Lord of the Admiralty,
whether the gallant conduct of Commander Norcock,
Inspecting Commander of the Fowey district, and two
Coast Guardsmen named William Pappin and Charles
Henwood, and a man of the name of Johns, son of a
Fowey pilot, in conducting the descent of a boat
down a cliff 200 feet in height, launching her, and under
circumstances of great danger rowing to and saving the
sole surviver of a vessel wrecked close to Fowey, had
been brought before the notice of the Lords of the
Admiralty ?
Sir C. WOOD said it had, and that measures were
being taken to reward them for their gallant conduct.
PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Sir J. FERGUSSON asked the Lord• Advocate, whe-
ther, by the Parochial Schools (Scotland) Bill, in the
event of the person elected to the office of schoolmaster
being a member of the Established Church, the exa-
mination before the Presbytery would still be necessary;
and whether the judicial powers of the presbyteries
over schoolmasters accused of heretical teaching, and
their visitation and examination of the schools, would
be retained ?
The LORD ADVOCATE said that no doubt there
must be such an examination as that alluded to under
the bill, and with regard to the latter portion of the
answer the bill would not touch on it.

companies being formed with unlimited powers of pur-
chasing lands, not baying first procured a licence from
the Board of Trade. .

The elapse was then agreed tb ; as were also clauses
14, 15, IG, 17, 'and 18,
On clause 19,
Mr. SPOONEtt contended that persons ought not to
be allowed ,to transfer shares who had not paid up their
calls.
Mr. LOWE said that the rid already contained pro-
visions authorising cdmpanie3 to refuse transfer where
they might think proper to do so. _ •

The clause was then agreed to, as were also clauses
20 and 21.

- ,
On clause 22, which provided-for the keeping of a list
of shareholders, - - -

Mr. HEN. Lilr took objection to the words being
struck out from the end of the clause which empowered
persons to take copies or extracts of the list of share
holders. -

Mr. LOWE said the reason which induced him to
strike out those words was that 'a representation had
been made to him that such a power might be made the
means of annoyance to the company.
Mr. HENLEY thought that that objection might be
met by requiring a fee of is., or some other small sum,
to be paid by all psrsons requiting such copy or extracts.
Mr. MALINS concurred with the right hon. gentle-
man upon the propriety of so amending the clause.
Mr. LOWE said he would consider the suggestion.
The clause:was then agreed to, as were also clauses
23 up•to 28.
On Clause 29;
Mr. GLYN proposed, after the word " promis3ory
notes," to insert the word "endorsements."

Sir F. KELLY thought the ward iritsolly unnecessary.
Where the company were partners to any of those docu-
ments their corporate .seal would be sufficient to mark
their liabilit
Mr. LOWE suggested the possibility of recasting those
clauses so as to meet the objections raised against them.
The subsequent clauses provide for the application of the
corporate seal. As to " letters" being included in the
clause he received several strong representations that the
retention of the word would lead to intolerable vexation
to the company.

Mr. HENLEY supposed that all that would be con-
tended for was that the word "limited " should be at-
tached to the or linsry title of the company.
Mr. W. BROWN hoped that the right hoe. gentle-
man would not object to include the word "letters "in
the clause, which he thought was most important.
Mr. LOWE was of opinion that if " letters " were re-
tained the company would be exposed to fraud from a
malicious gervnnt.

Mr. SPOONER said that ihe objection could he easily
met by requiring the wual head of tho company to all
their letters. He helievei the end,rsement would not
be required under this aot. He thought the prepsition
of the hon. member for Kerrial should be attended to.
The amendment was then agreed to.
Mr. KIRK suggested that the words "order for
money or goods" should be inserted after the words
"promissory notes."
Mr. MALINS thouzlit the word "contract" would
be better than " order."

The arnendmept was agreed to.
Mr. BROWN ninved tha,r the word "letters" should
be inserted oft'r the word "invoice."

Mr. MOFFATT opposed the amendment. If it were
adopted every scrap of paper ►night be tortured into a
" letter," and thus great inconvenience would result to
joint-stock comoanies without any benefit to the public.
Mr. MALINS concurred with the hon. gentleman
who bad last addressed the committee. The word "let-
ters" would imnoQe a difficulty without giving an advan-
tage. No official of the company could write a letter if
this amendment were adopted without exposing the com-
pany to inconvenie,,ee.
Mr. WALPOLE thought that persons, abroad or at
home, should know when they were dea►ing with a com-
pany, and when with an individual, otherwise a man
might think he was dealing with a company when
he was dealing with an unauthorised person. O❑
the other hand, he thought it would be wrong to have
a company' exposed to the inconvenience which might
accrue to it from any unauthorised person writing a
letter for a vexatious purpose—merely to involve a con-
cern in difficulty.
Mr. ATHERTON thought it was a protection to a
company that no binding form could be attributed to a
letter forming the basis of a contract unless ruch letter
have the full signature of the cnmpa-v.
Mr. HENLEY supported the introduction of the
word "letters," being of opinion that there would be no
sufficient protection to foreign correspondents if EOMO
such word was not introduced.
Mr. MOFFATT thought the word uncalled for.
After some further discussion,
The house divided on the question that the word let
term" be added.
For the the motion
Agaius t C9
Majority against the motion —33
Au amendment adding the words "and letters of
credit" after the word " receipts," was then agreed to,
and the clause as amended was allowed to stand part of
the bill.
Clause 30 was, after some verbal amendments, agreed
to.

....... .... 3G

On clause 37, which provides that no partnership
should carry on business up m the principle of limited
liability unless the members thereof shall consist of, at
least, six persons.

Mr. HENLEY said be could not understand why the
advantage of limited liability should stop at the mysti-
cal number of seven, or why it should not be extended
to six, or even down to one.

Mr. LOWE —The object of the bill was not to give
limited liability, but to incorporate companies. When the
partnership was very small the Acts of Parliament were
apt to become ambiguous, and it was of importance to
distinguish between what a man was doing in his corpo-
rate and in his individual capacity. It was considered ne-
cessary, therefore, to stop somewhere to avoid that diffi-
culty.
Mr. HENLEY.—The clause did not apply to incorpo-
rations so much as to limited liability. It, in fact, only
lealt with the mystical number of seven, who were to
have the privilege of limited liability, and touched no
one else.

Mr. MALINS was decidedly of opinion that the clause
wasonPn teconsiderableobjeciion. Supposinglirinstance
the number of parties was reduced by death or any other
cause below seven. what woull be the result? Why,
that the limited liability at once ceased. and the remain-
ing members of the nartner,hip were subjected to all the
consequences of unlimited liahility, fie thought there
ought to be a reasonable latitude allowed for diminution
in the number of shareholders. He would suggest, there-
fore, that the word "seven" should be omitted, and the
word " five" inserted in its steal.
Mr. LOWE could not agree to the amen ImPnt.
Mr. J.G. PHILLIMORE res:ornmended the omission
of the clau.e altogether.
Mr. M OTIA.MBERF--4 Imposing there were a trad-
ing corporation of seven members and one died, then the
six remainit.g memher3 would cease to have the privilege
of incorporation and limited liability. It struck him
that that wa, exceelinely unjust. Re would recommend,
therefore, that a certain time should be allowed during
which the remaining six might have the opportunity of
filling up the number, so that the enrporate body should
not expire at once, but have facilities given it for con-
tinuing the limited liability.
Mr. G. BUTT di 1 not see there would be much bene-
fit in retaining the clause. 'lt might as well be struck
out of the bill altogether.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL sail the real operation
of the clause would be this :—lt would compel the com-
pany immediately to fill up its list to the number pre-
scribed by the act. It was absolutely necessary to fix
some limit to the number', or the machinery of the act
would be impracticable. To reconcile the difficulty which
had been started, however, he would suggest that the
clause should stand as it was, but that some little time
should be given, so that when the number on the share
list was reduced below seven it should be imperative
upon the survivors to fill up the number within a given
period—say two months.
Mr. MALINS—No, no ; six months.
Mr. HATEIERTON hoped that six months would be
agreed to.
Several other members on both sides of the house hav-
ing expressed themselves to the same effect, " seven"
was inserted as the minimum number of shareholders,
and
On the motion of Mr. LOWE it was agreed that it
should be imperative upon the survivors to fill up the
list of shareholders within six months after the number
had been reduced below seven.
Mr. MALINS said the more he considered the clause
the more he was satisfied that it ought not to form part
of the bill, inasmuch as it would have the effect of
abridging the operation of the act, and through difficul-
-1 ties in the way, without producing good to any one, the
company or the public. He should therefore oppose the
retention of the olause as part of the bill.
Mr. COLLIER differed from the hon. and learned
gentleman, and thought that without the clause the ope-
ration of the bill would be null and void. Indeed it
seemed a corollary to the third clause already agreed to,
which would be nothing worth without it.
The clause was then agreed to, as were likewise
clauses to 56 inclusive.
Clause 57.
Mr. MALINS said if the clause was intended to be a
complete substitution for the present Winding-up Acts
the machinery would fall. Ile thought the machinery
of those acts ought to have been applied to the bill.
Mr. LOWE said the clauses had been carefully consi-
dered, and he had no doubt would give general satisfac-
tion.
Tho clause was then added to the hill,
Clause 58.
Mr. J. EWART moved that the words " whose no-
minal capital does not exceed 5,0001." should be omitted.
Sir F. KELLY said the question involved in the
bill was a most important one—namely, whether the
winding-up of companies should be carried on in the
Court of Chancery, or in the Court of Bankruptcy.
The affairs of any company whatsoever could be wound
up in the Court of Bankruptcy in one-fifth of the
time and at one-fifth of the expense of winding-tlp
in the Court of Chancery, notwithstanding the
recent great improvements in Chancery procedure,

In Chancery months might elapse before a petition
for winding up could be heard, whereas the Courts
of Bankruptcy could wind up in a very brieflperiod, sit-
ting as they did all through the year, by means of the
excellent machinery at their command. If the winding-
up of all commercial cases was confided to the Courts of
Bankruptcy, there would be no ueneceesary delay and
no unnecessary expense ; while in the Court of Chancery
a great mass of written evidence swelled the costs and
delayed the proceedings. He could not believe that
the official liquidators created by the hill would ever ob-
tain the same degree of confidence as the assignees ap'•
pointed by the Court of Bankruptcy. The chief clerks of
Chancery were now overstocked with business, whereas
the clerks in Bankruptcy were not in any way embar-
rassed in that resp?ct. He believed the bill would be of
the greatest service to the mercantile community if those
clauses were remodelled.
Mr. MALINS said he disapptoved of the transfer of
this business to the Courts of Bankruptcy.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he thought the
Courts of Bankruptcy would be very competent to dis-
charge the business in question. Without entering
into the rival merits of the Courts of Chancery and
Bankruptcy he must point out that if the latter were to
have exclusive jurisdiction in all these matters they
would, in fact, be Courts of Chancery. Great part of
the opprobrium heaped on the Court of Chancery arose
from the contraction of its jurisdiction. So it would he
with the Court of Bankruptcy, which might be very
proper to have jurisdiction over the matters comprised
Hlin the scope of this provision; but would not be com-
petent to deal with all the interests which might be in-
volve 1, unless it was made virtually a Court of Chancery.
His right hon., friend (Mr. Lowe) agreed to the amend-
ment of the hop. and learned gentleman Sir F. Kelly.
The amendment was then agreed' to, as were some
other verbal amendments to carry out the same object.
Clauses 59, 60, 61, and 62 were agreed to.
On clause 63,
Mr. MALINS moved the omission of a word, which
would prevent an ordinary debt from being made a
specialty debt—the omission was the word A specialty."
The amendment was agreed to.
Clauses 64 and 65, as amended, were agreed to.
On clause 67.
Mr. HENLEY wished to know why limited liability
companies should not be made amenable to the hank-
rep' cy laws, by the same acts as would make individuals
bankrupts.
Mr. LOWE did not know there was tae difference re-
ferred to.

Mr. HENLEY thought if companies shut up their
places of business that ought to be an act of bankruptcy,
the same as in cases of individuals. '

sir F. KELLY hoped the hill, before it passed thrlugh
another stage, would have those clalres more partica•
larly considered which had special relation t..) acts which
constituted bankruptcy.
The clause was agreed to.
C!a,,lses 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, .78, 79,
80 and 81 were agreed to.
Oa cla-pe S 2,

Mr. HORSFALL moved to leave out the clause, and
to insert tl:e following clause "For the purpose
of conducting the preceedings in winding up an insol-
vent company, and assisting therein, two persons shall be
appointed to the office of official liquidaeore, one of such
parsons being appointed by the Court, and the other by
the creditors at a meeting held by them for that purpose;
and the Court shall require dee security from every per-
son so appointed ; and the Court and the creditors, as
to the person appointed by them rezpectively, shall fill
up any vacancy occasionel by the death, resignation, or
removal of any other person ,• and the Court may re-
move any person so appointed, either by the Court or
by the creditors, and such removal shall occasion a va-
cancy, to be supplied as before mentioned."
Mr. LOWE could not give way to the hen. gentle-
man, as he did not think that one appointment by the
Court, and the other by the creditors would be a good
plan to adopt, but, on the contrary, one Chit would be
likely to create anarchy and confusion.
After a few wores from Mr. MALIN%
Mr. HORSFALL said there was a very strong feeling
on the part of the community on the subject of official
liquidators, and therefore he hoped the house would
support him in his amendment.
Mr. HENLEY did not think the objection of the
right hon. gentleman had any real force in it.
The committee then divided—
For the amendment
Against • l3l
Majority against the amendment--31
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 85,
Mr. WALPOLE suggested that the appointment of
the solicitor to the winding-np should be invested in the
31-11(4D:I liquidator, instead of in the court. _ _

Mr. LO. WE said that the suggestion should undergo
consideration,

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that great incon-
venience would arise from removing tho appointment
out of the bands of the court.

The remaining clauses (there are 110 in the bill) were
;hen agreed to.

Sir F. KELLY brought up some new clauses, which
wera added to the bill.
The schedules having been agreed to,
The Chairman reported the bill, with amendments, to
the house.
The house then resumed.
PARTNERSHIPS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
On the motion that this bill he read a second time,
Mr. ARCHIB A.L D HASTIE, in moving that it be
read a second time that day six months, thought that it
was incumbent upon the right hon. gentleman (Mr L owe)
to have shown that there was a want of capital in this
country ; but he had not done so, having introduced the
me isure without a single word of explanation. The bill
was one of a description which would create a great mono.
poly of capital in the country„ protecting the capitalist
against that wholesome competition so favourable to the
development of commerce. It was an acknowledged face
that the panics arose from overtrading, and from the re-
dundancy of capital in the hands of few. At present thers
was no want of capital, and therevvas no man of genius
and honesty but could get persons to join him in a
reasonable attd bona fide specutation. In the flee of this
redun lancy the Board of Trade brought forward bills of
a natura to stimulate speculations which might end in
the ruin of a large number of persons, and which would
probably be most injurious to the labouring classes. It
was the duty of the Government rather to check than to
encourage speculation. Who called for the bills ? Was
there a single petition in favour of them ? Not one.
The commissioners appointed to examine and take evi-
dence on the expediency of the Joint Stock Companies
and Limited Liability Bills had reported in opposition
to the principle of the bills. Glasgow, which was a most
important commercial city, bad petitioned against them,
the petition stating that the limitation of liability offered
great facility for fraud, and would give rise to the
most ruinous speculations. Liverpool had. also era,.
Bente,' a petition against the measure. The Caamber
of Commerce of that town had deliberately resolved that
the bill of the right bon. gentleman would ba attended
with the greatest mischief to the interests of
trade, and Manchester had followed in the petition
from thence, stating that the bill was unsound in morals,
and would be unfair in practice with re9pect to partner-
ships in this country or elsewhere. He maintained that
the principle of limited liability went to create a mono-
poly in favour of capitalist. Pass these bills and hence-
forward clerks at the desk would never rise to be mer-
chants—artisans in the factory would never rise to be
manufacturers. Nevertheless it had been meet indus-
triously promulgated that these bills would tend to the
destruction of the monopoly of capital. No doubt they
would protect the reckless, and encourage rash specula.
tion, but ttley would overthrow the commercial credit of
the country. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving
that the bill be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. GREGSON seconded the amendment. He would
remind the house that the recommendations of the com-
missioners were opposed to the principle of limite I lia-
bility ; and some of the most eminent and experienced
gentlemen examined before them—such as Mr. Jones
Lloyd (Lord 0 verstone) and Mr. B. Kerr—were strongly
opposed to it. And, really, at the present moment there
was no reason for giving such an increased stimulus to
trade ; on the contrary, there was reason to believe that
money would shortly become so abundant that there
wOul I be a general rush towards speculation. lie hoped,
therefore, that as the hon. gentleman the Vice-President
of the Board of Trade had passed his Joint-Stock Bill,
he would be content with that for the present, and not
press the measure.
Mr. CARDWELL said he hoped the bill would be
allowed to be read a second time without amendment.
He was quite of opinion that it would require to be
altered in committee—(hear, hear)—but that was no
reason wby the bill should not pass its present stage.
The grounds upon which the present law of partnership
was defended were two. First, it was said that a parti-
cipation in profits ought to make persons liable for the
whole extent of their fortunes because they took away a
portion of the fund upon which creditors relied for re-
payment of their advances ; and, secondly, because it
was a means of checking usurious rates of interest.
Now, he would remind the house that, having repealed
the " usury laws," they got rid of the second ground of
defence, while they materially weakened the first. But
there was another strong reason why the house should
proceed to a careful examination of the law of partner-
ship, which was particularly suggested by what had
taken place that evening—viz., that in the last session of
Parliament they gave to joint-stock companies great
powers as to limited liability. And certainly, if they
gave to companies of seven persons rights of limited
liability, there was a strong analogous reason wby they
should extend the same to smaller partnerships. The
law of America and other countries had been cited in
support of the bill as it stood ; but it would be their
duty, when they went into committee upon it, to exa-
mine into the correctness of that position, and to see
whether the law of America, of France, or of Belgium
did not provide those safeguards in commercial transac-
tions which the .bill did not contain. He certainly was of
opinion that some changes should be introduced into the
bill for the purpose of securing those safeguards. Those
changes, however, were of a nature which might be
made in committee, and looking upon the question in
that point of view, he should vote in favour of the second
reading of the loin.
Mr. W. BARING said he should oppose the second