The Sun.
London, England, 1856-06-17 00:00:00

OUR RELATIONS WITH AMERICA.

The Earl of DERBY rose to ask a question of the
noble earl the Secretary of Slate for Foreign Affairs on
the subject of our relations with America. The noble
earl stated that he had waited till the last moment in the
expectation that the noble earl would have volunteered

some information upon a subject of such great import•
ance as that to which he had - alluded. It was impos-
sible to overrate the gravity of the position in which we
stood, or the serious responsibility that rested upon the

Government in regard to the course they may think it

necessary to take ender the circumstances. He therefore
aeked th• noble earl whether, since the house last met, the
Government had come to any conclusion as to the ad•
♦ies they should give to her Majesty on the subject,
and if so, whether the noble lord was now prepared to
state the grounds of their conclusions ? (Hear, hear.)
The Earl of CLARENDON—My lords, it is the in-
tention of her Majesty's Government, at the earliest pos-
sible moment, to lay upon the table of the house the
papers which have been communicated to us by the
American Government. Those papers had been laid be-
fore the Senate at Washington, and are now in the pos-

session of the Government of this country. They are
now in the printer's hands, and will be laid
before your lordships as soon as the answer
of her Majesty's Government to these despatches is pre-
pared. Your lordships must, however, be aware, that
the answer will require some time and mature conside-
ration. In consequence of the answer not boing as yet
prepared he refrained from taking the initiative in laying
before the house the desired information. I (continued
his lordship) feel, nevertheless, that it is the duty of the
Government to satisfy the public mind as speedily as
possible upon so important a subject. I therefore do
not hesitate to take this occasion for announcing to your
lordships that it is not the intention of her Majesty's
Ministers to advise a course which would have the effect
of suspending diplomatic relations with this country and
America. (Hear, hear.)
The Earl of DERBY said—ln the absence of the
papers in question, it would no doubt be premature to
enter into any discussion upon this question. He re-
joiced, personally, at the announcement made by the
noble earl, for this reason, that although he deeply re-
gretted the course taken by the Government of the
United States, nevertheless he felt it impossible to vin-
dicate the conduct of our Minister in America, and he be-
lieved therefore that the American Government had a j ust
cause of complaint against us. Although it was no doubt
painful and humiliating on the part of this country to
submit to the removal of our Minister from America,
and at the same time to recognise the authority of the
American Minister in this country, yet, believing the
American Government had just cause of complaint
against Mr. Crampton and our consuls, he rejoiced at
the determination of the Government to maintain diplo-
matic relations with America.

The Earl of CLARENDON could not help remark•
ing upon the most positive judgment upon Mr. Cramp-
ton's conduct by the noble earl. He could only appeal
to their lordships, and through their lordships to the
country, not to join the noble earl in thus prejudging the
conduct of Mr. Crampton.
The Earl of DERBY said he had formed his judg-
ment upon the papers he had already read, and which
had been laid before their lordships by command of the
Queen.

The subject then dropped.
JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES BILL.

Lord OVERSTONE presented petitions from the
Chamber of Commerce, of Glasgow, against the Joint-
stock Companies Bill. The noble lord stated these pe-
titions expressed the opinions of persons eminently qua-
lified to pronounce an opinion on the subject, and they
stated that the principle of the bill would be subversive
of the best interests of commerce, and they protested
against itis adoption by the Legislature of the country.
The petitioners regarded the system as one calculated to
call into existence every description of fraud and trickery,
and ultimately completely to destroy the high commer-
cial character and ()relit of the country. Thepetitionera
also stated that at the time of the appointment of the
Royal Commission to inquire into and report upon the
principle of limited liability, the commercial interests of
Manchester, desired to have some person placed upon it
intimately acquainted with the working of commerce,
and Mr. Beesley, the president of the Chamber of Com-
merce of Manchester, was selected to act upon the corn
mission, and that gentleman bad expressed a most de-
cided opposition to the opinions recommended by the re-
port of that commission. He trusted that in the discus.
sions which would take place on this bill, some members
of her Majesty's Government would endeavour to ex-
plain why it was that they had ventured to recommend
to the house any measure which would destroy the time-
honoured principle upon which the stability of private
concerns had so long existed, and transfer their business
to the hands of irresponsible companies of five or seven
persons possessing the privilege of limited liability. The
noble lord also presented a petition from the Society for
the Protection of Trade at Preston, embodying the same
opinions as those expressed in the petitions of Manches-
ter and Glasgow.

Lord WYNFORD said that he did not anticipate that
tho bill to be brought before their lordships would en-
counter any very serious objection from the noble lord
who had just addressed the house, as upon previous occa
sione he had expressed very strong opinions respecting
bills before the house, but had followed up his opinion
by any act of strenuous opposition.

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY then moved the
second reading of the Limited Liability Bill. In corn•
mencing his address the noble lord stated that the par-
ties from whom the noble lord had just presented peti-
tions bad not taken any et.p to express their opinions
on the bill during its progress through the other house,
and it was probable that the petitions referred to only
expressed the opinions of a very small body of persons
in the towns whence they had emanated. The present
bill was one which had been introduced by the Govern-
ment in pursuance of a pledge given in the last session,
when a bill was passed which it was thought required
some amendment, and which was considered by some of
their lordships to have passed through the house with-
out that amount of consideration and discussion which

the great importance of the subject deserved. So late as
the year 1825, joint-stock companies wore regarded as an
evasion of the law by large numbers of persons, and were
regarded with suspicion by some great commercial autho-
rities. Legislation, however, proceeded to give a species
of limited liability to these companie-', and in the Joint-
Stock Companies Act of 1545, which it was now pro-
posed to repeal, and to substitute the present bill for it,
a number of provisions were enacted for the purpose of
protecting the public, and insuring the responsibility
and solvency of the joint-stock companies, so far as it
was thought at that time these objects could be obtained
by legislation. The working of this act had, however,
shown that it possessed many imperfections which called
for removal, He had coins to the conclusion that
the restrictions which were at present on limited
liability did far more harm than good, and perpe-
trated fraud under the joint-stock system. In strict
justice they had no right to interfere with any man in
the investment of his capital. The bill therefore gave no
privilege, but merely established a right to remove re-
strictions which ought not to exist. The question of
limited liability was practically decided last year, and
no honourable member of the House of Commons
ventured to oppose this bill, which was merely to
carry out that principle which was last year affirmed by
the Legislature. The noblelord then proceeded to explain
the general provisions of the bill. Power was given by
the bill to one-fifth of the members of a joint-stock com-
pany to apply to the Board of Trade to appoint an in-
spector. He was satisfied tbat the apprehensions which
were entertained with regard to this bill were utterly fal-
lacious. He thought there was less chance of fraudulent
schemes being brought forward under this limited system
than under the unlimited system, because the public
would enter into a full inquiry before they joined a
scheme which might be brought forward by any com-
pany, while inquiry under the unlimited system was sel-
dom made as it ought to be. He moved the second
reading.

Lord MONTEAGLE war glad to find that that sense-
less and absurd argument, that this bill was founded upon
the principles of free trade, had not been made use of on
the present occasion. This bill was opposed to the prin-
ciple of free trade, because free trade admitted of no re-
strictions, whereas this bill was all restrictions. This was
the third of a series, and contained all the evils of the
previous bill without any of their safeguards. This bill
went to augment the evils of the previous bill to an in-
calculable extent. He believed that if there was a class
in the community likely to suffer by this bill it was the
humbler class, who with their small savings might be en-
trapped into fraudulent enterprise over which they would
have no contrul whatever. As to the bill extending mann-
factwes, the principal manufactures it would produce
would be that of shares in fraudulent gambling. They
had prohibited lotteries, and he would ask it this bill
would not in effect sanction them ? The joint-stock sys-
tem had been productive of the most frightful system of
gambling. Did they not remember the time when men,
women, and he believed children, were demoralised in
this country by the railway mania of 1845. If this bill
-passed, why then gambling shops in the shape of joint-
stock companies would spring up at the corner of
every street. Under these circumstances, if he

stood alone, he should say not content to the second
reading of the bill, hoping, however, that his anticipa.
tions might be unfounded.
The Duke of ARGYLL contended that there was
very intimate connection between the principles of this
bill and those of free trade. The doctrine of free trade
was that you ought not by artificial means to prevent is
person investing his property in any way he pleased. The
report of the royal commissioners, to which allusion had
been made, was directly in opposition to the principle
which had been contended for by the advocates of the
old system. He contended that those who were the ad.
vocates of the bill now before the house were the most
consistent in the course they adopted ; for while the
opponents of the measure stated that no new legislation
was necessary, as the principle now contended for existed

the promoters of the measure asked why objection wars
taken to a suggestion which rendered the matter per-
fectly certain. (Hear.) It had been urged by the two
noble lords who bad spoken against the measure that it
would be dangerous to the community to allow this bill
to pass, inasmuch as it would be encouraging undue
speculation, and yet they seemed to admit that the law
threw no impediment in the way of speculators at pre-
sent. If there really was no great principle at stake, he
could hardly see what objection there was to making
any alterations that might be required in committee.
(Hear.) The noble lord (Lord Monteagle) had himself
admitted that this was a question for the public and not
for the Legislature. (The noble duke quoted from
speeches made by the noble lord in proof of this state-
ment.) The noble lord had admitted also that at pre-
sent there was sufficient security. (Hear, hear.) Again,
it must be remembered that, in consequence of the re-
peal of the usury laws, some change in the commercial
arrangements of the country was indispensable ; and,
under the altered circumstances of the case, persons
with small capital should be allowed to invest their
money without the risks to which they had hitherto
been subjected. He found, by reference to the publica-
tions of Mr. Bellenden Tier and other opponents of the
measure, that the magnitude and risk of undertakings
were grounds upon which a charter of limited liability
should be granted ; but he could not conceive any argu-
ment which was more untenable. The main argument,
however, which was relied upon by the opponents of the
measure was, that it gave an unnatural and improper
stimulus to speculation. Of all the arguments advanced
against the measure that, he conceived, was the worst.
If the State were able to distinguish between good and
bad speculations, its duty would be to encourage one
and discourage another. But there was no department
of the Government which could discharge that import.
ant duty towards the public. At present charters were
net concluded or witheld upon any risk or any apparent
want of success, and the law certainly threw obstacles
in the way of good as well as bad undertakings. (Hear.)
The noble lord (Lord Monteagle) had contended that a
man who entered into these undertakings should be li-
able to the whole extent of his bargain. He (the Duke
of Argyll) admitted that ; but the noble lord seemed to
go farther than that, and to have in his mind some ab-
stract law upon which he relied.

Lord MOINTTEA.GLE : For the whole of his property.
The Duke of ARGYLL—Then why not for his life
(Oh, oh, from Lord Monteagle ?) Such things had been
known in this country under the laws of premunire. The
noble lord, moreover, bad said that this measure would
destroy all prudence, but he (the Duke of Argyll) took a
very different view of the matter. Under the old sys-
tem, if a man with small capital saw the noble lord's
name in connection with an undertaking, he naturally
said, " Oh, the noble lord is a man of immense wealth
and great prudence ; he is liable to the full extent of his
property, and I may safely invest my savings." But if
he saw the name of the noble lord now in connection
with such an undertaking, he would say, "The noble
lord is only liable for £3,000 or £4,000, with which he
13 well afford to play ducks and drakes, but I cannot
lose my ravings, and I must be cautious." The bill,
therefore, cut at the root of all confidence. (Hear, hear.)
Then, again, it was said that there was abundance of
capital in the country, and this was alleges as an argu-
ment against the measure. But what the advocates of
the bill contended for was, that there were not sufficient
facilities for investment. He really hoped the bill would
be allowed to pass its second reading without opposition ;
for he believed that by passing it their lordships would
be adopting that which was beat for the entire com-
munity. (Hear, hear.)

After some Observations from Lord OVERSTONE
and Lord DENMAN, which were inaudible,
The LORD CHANCELLOR said it was unreasonable
to oppose a bill which contained 116 clauses, and con-
taining so many important principles, merely because
one part of it granted greater facilities than were con-
ceded under the present law. The proper course would
be to alter the clause in committee.

Their lordships then divided, and the numbers were—
Contents,
Non-contents,

Majority,
The bill was then read a second time

. -13

Sir William Fenwick Williams' Annuity Bill was read
a second time.

The report of amendments on the Whichwood Forest
Bill was brought up and agreed to.
Their lordships adjourned at twenty-five minutes be-
fore eight o'clock.

HO USE 01' COMM 0 NS,.--(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at the usual hour.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The Lorin' Amendment! to the Stockton and Mid-
dleborough New Road and Bridge Bill were considered
and agreed to.

Tue-following bills were read a third time and passed :
Bagenalstown aid Wexford Railway, Blenheim Estate,
and Uttoxeter and Blyth Marsh Road.
The following bills were considered and ordered to be
read a third time :—Aberdeen, Peterhead, and Fraser-
burgh Railway, Birkenhead Improvement Commis-
sioners, Bournemouth Improvement and Pier, Forest
of Dean Central Railway, and Renfrewshire Roads.