The Sun.
London, England, 1856-07-15 00:00:00

presumed he had never seriously intended to press' on OS
attention of the house.

Lord J. RUSSELL said that his observations had been en
tirely addressed to the subject of the occupation of one coun •
try by the troops of another. He lied never prop sed any
interference between any sovereign and his people. Ho had
said that be could not admire that Government whose policy
was such that it required a foreign armed force to support it.
rho right honourable gentleman the member for Bucking-
hamshire had not at all addressed himself to the subject of
foreign intervention. He supposed that the right hon.
gentleman had prepared his observations before he had
heard those of his (Lord J. Russell's) own. With regard to
the speech of his noble friend the Prime Minister, he must sal
that it had given great satisfaction to the honourable mem-
ber for Dundalk (Ir. Bowyer), and it had curiously enough
given complete satisfaction to himself (Lord J: Russell). It
was satisfactory, because it was an indication that the Go-
vernment did not intmd to abandon attempts to carry out the
objects he had proposed. It hart been urged that there had
been secret societies in Italy, and therefore that foreign occu-
pation was necessary. On the other hand it was
said, that because there was fOreign occupation
there were secret societies, and thus they might go on argu-
ing for ever in a cit cle. (Hear, hear.) He trusted that Pope
Pius IX. would in due time return to that system of govern-
ment which he adopted in the early. years of his sovereignty,
and which he believed had been productive of very great
benefits. The noble lord having adverted to some of the
objections which had been raised in reference to the details
of his opening speech, expressed a hope that benefit would
arise from the discussion that had taken place.
The SPEAKER then put the question that the motion
be withdrawn.

Lord J. RUSSELL—Not withdrawn ! Let it be negatived.
The motion wrs then negatived without a division.

PARTNERS`HIP AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
This bill was read a third time.
On tbe motion that it do pass,
Mr. J.' G. PHILLI VIORE moved the following addition to
clause
.3 :—" Provided also, that no such loan shall be
deemed to be protected by this act unless the lender thereof
shall, within fourteen days after the same shall have bean
advance, cause to be inserted in his own name in the
Gazette of London, Edinburgh, or Dublin, according as the
principal place of business of the borrower may be in England,
Scotland, or Ireland, a statement of such advance, exhibiting
the amount thereof, the person to whom and the term for
which the sum is made, the portion of the profits which the
lender stipulates to receive on account thereof, and the nature
of the business by which such profits are intended to be ae"
quired."

- Mr. WILKINSON trusted the hon. and learned gentleman
would not press the amendment. It was no doubt very de-
sirable to prevent fraud, but if such provisions were- intro'
duced they would so clog the bia as to make it entirely inoPe'
rative. •

Mr. MUNTZ supported the proviso, on the ground that
the bill as at present framed would lead to.collusions of every
kind.

Mr. PELLATT thought that if the proviso were agreed to,
persons in business would never be able to obtain any loans
at all.

- Mr. SPOONER was afraid that the bill as it stood would
enable persons to obtain fictitious credit, and therefore he
thought the proviso useful.
Mr. RbEBUCK objected to the clause.
Mr. GLYN thought the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Lowe)
would do well to withdraw a bill which was evidently open to
so many objections. In another session it might be advents'
geously considered.
Mr. W. BIGGS opposed the proviso, which ho thou;bt
would give no security to the public.
Mr. JOHN M'GREGOR would give this bill his utmost
support if he thought it would pass this session ; but he be
hewed that it would be better if the Government would With
draw it for the present session
Mr. LOWE wished the hon, gentleman behind him (51r,a
egisg
Glyn), who had so great a fondness for rration,
register every bill he transacted. If the principle was ge°
iu one case it would be so in another. (Hear, )bear)
li;
The question was whether this lending on profits was reauJ
a partnership. He contended that it was not, aud the huge
ought not therefore to fetter such loans with the incidents °f
a partnership. If it was not a partnership, why had thei
house five times approved the principle that it was net
There was no occasion whatever for making loans of thig
character public ; it was like all other loans, secret in the
character, and they ought not to be treated on differee.t
grounds. If the clause was passed by the committee, rt
would be better to reject the whole bill at once ; and, enteur;
taming these opinions, he certainly could not ebusent to th,,",
introduction of the clause. If the clause were passed, '''s
bill would be nothing but one vast pitfall and snare (110411
Mr. CARD WELL said that when the hon. member sin"
of the " pitfall " which the clause contained tho answer
that it was taken almost word for word from the Act of) 55
saehusetts. The house had already adopted a clause treats
loans as partnerships, and all that was now required was tilf:
insert a clause to give effect to the principle adopted by t';
house. The question as to whether loans of this character
involved partnership was not a new one, and the laws
Italy, Italy, France, and America had always treated these-les;
in the same meaner, and the greatest commentators of tb,e;
countries had invariably insisted on the necessity of an
-see $
rate system or registration of such loans. He contended t4:14
the proposed amendment would not be a clog on the
would, on the contrary, tend to make the bill more effeeti"
and afford greater security to the public. (Hear)
Mr. LINDSAY was at a loss to understand why the le:
should allow a man to receive 50 per cent. for his wen
without any interference, but should step in and say t"te
such person should not advance money on a fluctuating.%
of interest, far that was really the object of this clause.
.P",
clatise, if agreed to, would be perfectly unworkable and
less, aud would defeat the principle and objects of the' to,
He hoped if the clause were carried that tho right hon. gen`46
man the President of the Board of Trade would withdraw
bill.
Mr. T. BARING contended that the clause would net b°
inoperative if it were agreed to, and as a proof of it, 11°2;
ferred to the action of the law in Massachusetts and
York. He felt strongly that publicity was indispensable „
the working of the principle embodied iu the bill, and .
more he looked to the provisions of the bill, the more deep',
he felt that it was the duty of the house to watch the oPe'd-,
tions and effect of the Limited Liability Act already pa,5110.
Every other country had surrounded the laws of limited
Wl
bility with numerous precautions and safeguards. The 1.70
object of the bill was not to help the poor man, but it 14
re .11y to enable the rich man to grasp as much profit as. Ira
could, with the risk of losing as little as possible. He shou 0
most certainly, on the motion that the bill do pass, take t1:11
sense of the house upon it, for it was perfectly devoid of ‘,s,
benefit alike to rich and poor, with the exception of loco-
ing a spirit of gambling and speculation.
' Lord PALMERSTON said he was perfectly at a 1
ob
to understand what was the astounding difference betwe"4
,
money lent at a fixed rate of interest, and money lent'e°,,,,
sbare of profits: and why in the one case, registratl;s
and publicity were thought necessary in order to preTejs
fraud, and not considered requisite in the other ? (Hear.) 0
ep2eared to him that the principle which lay at the betto t
of the opposition to this bill, wee the one which ho thouglilo
had died out, and which was_ that of limiting transactions ,
much as possible, which had. interfered in the assize of bred
and which was evident in the laws made against forestaGil,
and regrating. He trusted that the house would come to
eision fairly and openly ou the whole principle of the bill.
to
Mr. W. BROWN thought there never was a more dauger° a
measure introduced into Parliament than the present one,
it was entirely uncalled for .by the wants of the country, 3'lof
woulkilpassed, tend to shake and destroy the confidence
the public in the great monetary. transactions of the country'
(Hear.) Our credit, as merchants, stood high, over all ti'2,
world ; but, under the oper#ion of this bill, it would soon e'
impaired and destroyed.Tl~e bill w is really in effeot On° to
enable per Sons to commit fraudi under act of Parliament.
Mr. HENLEY contended,-that, as the clause had alreSl
been inserted into .the bill, making loans advanced turoutig
share of profits part of the assets, it- would be necessary to
introduce soma provision for affording information a 1
the character of the assets. He should support the clan
g%
the ground that it merely carried out the principles of 1.
other clauses already agreed to. (Hear.)
Mr. MALI NS was glad to hear from the right honoure9.o°
gentleman that it was his intention to withdraw the 10
if this clause were sanctioned by the committee, for it,/
one calculated to destroy the character of the measure
After some remarks from Mr. Brown, Mr: Gregsoni au
Mr. Bass,
71e house divided, when there appeared—
.' - For the proviso lOB
Against it lO2
Majority against the Government --G
Mr. LOWE said that in consequence of the decision J a
come to, the Government intended to abandon the bill. (1/10
cheers.) Shire he had introduced the bill he bad received t
t,
opinion of Mr„lßaron Bramwell, Mr. Justice Willer the
other
the Ata,
torney-General, the Solicitor-General, Sir F. Kelly, an
learned gentlemen-, that in all loans where the lenders receil";
a dividend according to the rate of profits they were not HO:
as partners. The effect of the decision just come to was°
deprive these contracts' hi One of their safeguards. (Hear.)
Mr. DI:4RAELI said that-as a new principle had been intro:
duced into legislation by the statement referred to, he hot
practice would be followed out., and the ease and oPilli°
qurted laid upon the table of the house.
Mr. LOWE said he had no objection to do so; the case he
referred to was that of the Union Bank. ' -
Mr. MALINS inquired if the opinions referred to of the tai
learned judges were not given when they were practising 3
the bar ? (Hear, and laughter.)
After some remarks from Mr. HENLEY in opposition r,
extrajudicial statements being made in that house, the 04
ject dropped.
•