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

Majority
The debate was therefore resumed by
Mr. LOWE (who was again received with loud cries of
" Adjourn"). He really could scarcely recognise his bill
from the description which he had heard of it from hon.
members during the debate. The bill did not attempt to
interfere with the law of partnership properly so called.
Partership (which was only a contraction of " part-
ownership" really applied to cases only where there was a
joint ownership, a delectus personce, and where the par-
ties trusted one another ; but he did not think that that
definition applied to cases where a party lent money, and
stipulated that he should be paid by a share of the pro-
fits. The existing law merely took one single incident,
and that perhaps the least characteristic of the three,
and made it the sole criterion. With regard to the law
of partnership, properly so called, he thought the sub-
ject ought to undergo a searching inquiry by a com-
mittee of that house, and he should be very glad next
session to undertake such an investigation. (Cheers.)
The law of commandite was a modification of the law of
partnership properly so called, and it had nothing what-
ever to do with this bill. Whether we should adopt a
law of command ite, or the American system, which was
only a bungling law of cotantandite, was a question
which be was not then attempting to solve. All that he
was doing was to aek the house to get rid of the per-
verse ingenuity which had been used in interpreting the
laws of partnership in this cenntry, and to say that a
mere stipulation to receive ,a share of the profits of a busi-
ness should not constitute a person lending money to the
firm a partner. He proposed that a man should not be
rendered a partner either by lending money to another
on condition that be should receive a share of the profits,
or by contributing his services on the same terms—or by
lending money on the understanding that he should be
paid tin annuity out of the profits. (hear.) The great
objection to the bill was that it provided no safeguards.
The bill proposed to do away with a great injustice ; it
proposed to alter an interpretation of the law by which
persene had often found themselves involved in liabilities
of which they had not dreamed ; and there was nothing
in the removal of an injustice which called for the im-
position of safeguards. The truth was, the distinction
that was made between the liberty to lend money at any
rate of interest without becoming a partner, and the ne-
cessity of becoming a partner if the remuneration were
in proportion to the profits, was a mere commercial
superstition. (Loud cheers.) The matter was merely
that of a loan, but a loan not on a fixed rate of interest,
but a rate of interest depending on profits. He believed
that the bill was already the law of the land, though it
was not established by judicial decision. A bank had
been recently established upon the principle that the de-
positors should take a share of the profits ; and the opinion
of high legal authority had been taken, whether such an
arrangement would make the depositors liable as share-
holder,. That opinion was, that there would be no
such liability. Ile mentioned this to show that the bill
was not that wild speculative attempt at leeislation—
that innovation upon the existing law—which some
hon. gentlemen seemed to think it.
Mr. HINDLEY confessed that, baying listened to
the speech of the right hon. gentleman in defence of the
bill, he did not understand it ; and, believing that many
others were in the same position, he urged that the de-
bate should he adjourned.
Mr. KIRK opposed the bill, which be said was an in-
novation upon the principle, that those who embarked
in trade and took the profits should be accountable for
the losses.
Mr. HORSFALL was the more determined to vote
against the second reading now that the right hon. gen•
tleman had stated there would be a further alteration of
the law of partnership next year. If any change in the
law were neceasai y there c eild be no reason why it
should not be postponed until next year, when the sub-
ject might be considered as a whole, and dealt with by
ono measure.
The house divided—
For the second reading 97
Against it
Majority
The bill was accordingly read a second time, and
ordered to be committed on Friday next.
SIR W. FENWICK WILLIAMS' ANNUITY
BILL.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved
the second reading of the bill, which he explained was
for the purpose of carrying into effect the resolution of
the House of Commons,. passed in consequence of the
message from the Crown, to the effect that an annuity of
1,0001. a year should be granted to Sir W. Williams for
his gallant conduct in the defence of Kars.
Mr. WHITESIDE expressed a hope that the other
British officers who were united in the deferce of Kars
would not be forgotten.
The motion was then agreed to, and the bill was read a
second time, and ordered to he committed this day.
ANNUITIES (No. 2) BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES WINDING-UP •
ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
On the motion for postponing this bill to Friday next,
Mr. S. FITZGERALD called attention to the import-
ance of this bill, which he said was not merely intended
to meet the case of a particular Irish bank by a sort of
cx post facto legislation, but it was a bill that affected the
whole system of credit in regard to joint-stook banks,
both in England and Ireland, and suggested that the
second reading should be fixed for some distant day, of
which due notice should be given, is order that it
might be fully discussed.
Mr. MALINS believed the bill which bad come down
from the lords was a useful one, and would secure to
debtors more than they could get-under the existing law.
It was not intended to screen the shareholders of a par-
ticular bank, nor would it have any such effect.
Mr. WHITESIDE believed this was a bill to screen
the shareholders of the bank of the late Mr. John
Sadleir—once a Lord of the Treasury.
Sir G. GREY said Friday was named merely in order
that then a day might be positively fixed for its coming on.
After some further conversation, bill
thewas postponed
until Friday night.
PUBLIC HEALTH SUPPLEMENTAL BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
PAWNBROKERS BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
REFORMATORY SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
EXCISE ACTS.
This bill passed through committee.
REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS
BILL.
This bill was committed pro forma for the purpose of
inserting amendments.
BURIAL ACTS.
On the motion of Mr. MASSEY leave was given to
bring in a bill to amend the burial acts.
The house then atliourned at 2/o'clock.