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

The remaining clauses (►,here are 110 in the bill) were
then szreed to.

Sir F. KELLY brought up some new clauses, which
were added to the bill.
The schedules having been agreed to,
The Chairman reported the bill, with amendments, to
the house.
The house then resumed.
PeN RTNERSIIIPS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
On the motion that this bill he read a second time,
Mr. ARCHIBA.LD lIASTIE, in moving that it be
read a second time that day six months, thought that it
was incumbent upon the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Lowe)
to have shown that there was a want of capital in this
country ; but he had not done so, having introduced the
rue sure 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 fact
that the panics arose from overtrading, and from the re-
dundancy of capital in the hands of few. At present there
was no want of capital, and there was no man of genius
and honesty but could get persons to join him in a
reasonahle and bones fide speculation. In the face of this
redundancy the Board of Trade brought forward bills of
a nature t. stimulate speculations which might "end in
the ruin of a large number of persons, and which would
probably ht, most injurious to the labouring classes. It
was the ditty 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 commi,sioners appointed to examine and take evi-
dence on the expediency of the Joint Stock Companies
nod Limited Liability Bills had reported in opposition
to the principle of the bills. Glasgow, which was a most
important commercial city, had 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 al5) pre-
sented a petitirn against the measure. The Cuamber
of Commerce of that town lead deliberately resolved that
the bill of the right bon. gentleman would be 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 respect 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 neer-
chants—artisans in the factory would never rise to be
manufacturers. Nevertheless it had been most 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 they would overthrow the commercial credit of
the country. The hon. gentleman. concluded by moving
that the bill he 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 limited lia-
bility ; and some of the most eminent And experienced
gentlemen examined before them—such as Mr. Jones
Lloyd (Lord Overstone) 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 f be a general rush towards speculation. He hoped,
therefore, that as the honagentleman 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)i-- but that was no
reason why 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 partic-ilarly 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 why 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 shoeld vote in favour of the second
read* ei the bill.
Mr. T. DARING said ho should oppose the second