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

reading of this bill, believing that the safeguards which
were studiously excluded from this bill were e.sentially
necessary. The repeal of the usury laws had rendered
any alteration of the law of partnership less necessary.
Nor did he see the force of the argument that this bill
was necessary on account of the bill which had already
passed. He did not thick that any partnership ought to
1 exist in which each of the partners had not the same in-
terest as any individual might have in tha business. . Be-
lieving that the bill could not be so modified in commit-
tee as to make it a desirable bill, and that the bill re-
lating to joint-stock companies was sufficient for every
purpose that could be required—that such a bill would
not tend to raise the mercantile character of this
country, which was, iu fact, the clearing-house of the
world,—he was opposed to its becoming law. There
was nothing in the bill to afford any security,—nothing
to prevent a man from withdrawing his money from a
concern the moment he found that it was going down.
There was no precedent for this bill in any other country;
it was not the Code Napoleon, nor the law of America,
nor of any country. It was not even the same bill as
that of last year, nor that of February last. (Hear,
he ir.) After so many changes on the part of the right
hon, gentleman the house might well pause before pas-
t sing it. Were it not that it was rather late in tha ses-
sion, the best course would be to send the bill to a select
committee.
Mr. BAXTER supported the bill, and said that many
of the objections to it were precisely those that had
been urged against all reforms in England. (Hear,
hear.) It was said the bill would open a wide door to
fraud, by allowing parties to carry on business on the
faith of capital that had long been withdrawn. .But was
not this generally the case at present ? Did not parties
retiring from a business get, their capital, out of it as soon
as possible, instead of allowing it to remain for the as-
sistance of the continuing partners ? This was almost
the necessary effact of limited liability ; under a different
system wealthy parties on retiring won't,' have no objec-
tion to allow their capital to remain. Every one knew
instances of persons who had indiscreetly allowed their
names to continue in a firm, bad been made liable for its
losses after they had left it, and had been ruined in con-
sequence. (Hear, hear.) It was said that this was an
untried and unprecedented scheme ; but it had long been
the law in the Hanse Towns and in other commercial
communities. In one respect the bill went too far ; it
proposed to put the person who first lent his money in
the position of a creditor. (Hear, hear.) The principle
seemed to be that a man must be either a partner cr
not a partner ; but th; Legislature h id never paid great
attention to abstract principles, and the fate of the right
hon. gentleman's Local DUOS Bills ought to have taught
him caution and prudence in these matters. It was
most desirable that the public should have some know-
ledge of the state of the partnerships with won they
dealt; and the Attorney-General had advocate' this in
his speech in support of the bill of last year. C.nsider•
ing the bill capable of amendment in committee, lie
should vote for the second reading, with a view to its
being considered in committee.
Mr. MASTERMAN said he concurred with Mr.
Hastie in opposing the further progress of this bill,
which he thought calculated to impose on the mercan-
tile community. He did not see that those wlio got good
interest for their money required further protection than
they had at present. If the bill passed it would prove
very injurious to the mercantile community.
Mr. KIRK moved that the debate be adjourned.
Mr. W. BROWN seconded the motion.
Mr. LOWE rose to speak, but was greeted with such
loud cries of "Adjourn" that he did not, persist.
The house then divided on the amendment—
.. 75
110

Ayes..
Noes..