The Sun.
London, England, 1858-07-14 00:00:00

EDINBURGH POST-OFFICE.

On the motion of Lord COLCHESTER, the new General
Post-office (Edinburgh) Bill was read a second time.
JOINT-STOCK BANKING COMPANIES BILL.

Earl GRANVILLE, in moving the second reading of
this bill, said the object of it was to apply to joint stock
banking companies that principle of limited liability
which Parliament had already conceded to other joint
stock companies. It was not necessary that he should en-
ter into any argument on the subject. Lord O►erstone
had admitted that if the principle of limited liability
were once conceded to joint stock companies in general,
there could be no valid reason for refusing to extend it to
banking companies, and the same admission was made by
his noble friend near him (Lord Monteagle.) It was an
undoubted fact that the joint stock banks of London and
many of those in the country were conducted with great
prudence ; and he saw no reason why, when there was to
be full publicity on the suleject, the shareholders should
not, if they pleased, have the advantage of limited lia-
bility. It would then be for the public to determine
whether they would deal with those whose liability was
limited, or with others who were differently situated.
Lord M.ONTEA.GLE said the noble earl had over-
looked the great distinction between banking companies
and joint stock companies in general, namely, that the
former received the money of others on deposit. There
was also this peculiarity in joint stock banks, that they
were founded by the creation of shares, and that these
shares were frequently deposited as security,eo that if they
were not [mid op in full the public were liable to be de-
ceived as to the extent of their security. Ile asked the
noble lord opposite to pause before he passed this bill.
The Earl of DERBY said it was not without hesita-
tion and difficulty that he felt himself so pressed by the
arguments in favour of this bill as not to refuse his as-
eeet, to the second reading. IL: agreed with his noble
friend as to the danger from over-credit and the undue
practice of banking, but they knew that some of the
greatest frauds perpetrated of late years arose from un-
due credit given to the shareholders of banks themselves.
(Hear, hear.) The main reason why he assented to the
second reading of the bill was, that he could not draw
any distinction between credit given to banks or other
commercial bodies in proportion to the limited or
unlimited liability of the parties. It was a ques-
tion for the public to determine, whether they con'ioered
the security of banks with limited liability suffieient.
That could only be tested by experience. Pressed by
the arguments io favour of the bill and by the assent of
the 'louse of Commons to the extension or the principle
which had already received the sanction of their lord-
ships' house with regard tomther than banking traasar-
time, be coati not take upon himself to refuse hie assent
to the second reading of the bill.
Lord WENSLEYDALE did not rise for the purpose
of opposing the second reading of the bill, which was in
conformity with the liberal principles which prevailed in
recent times, but he thought that joint-stock banks
ought to be required to expose a little more of their
affairs than the mere number of their eubscribere. He
thought a clause should be introduced obliging them to
exhibit the state of their credit and the extent of their
obligations.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY said he deplored
what had taken place in the Scotch banks, but it should
be recollected that a 1 those were banks of unlimited lia•
bility. He believed that where banks were limited the
public would feel it more incumbent on them to- inquire
into the idea's of the bank, and that in this way to a
certain extent limited liability would be a security against
false c infidence. TSe colonial banks were banks of
lim iced iiabielty, and he had not heard of any failures
amongst them. The only protection for she public was
that they should not remove the obligation which rested
on every one to look after his own interests.
The hill was then read a second time.
CONFIRMATION OF EX ECUTOR,i, &c., BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

The Duke of MONTROSE moved the second reading
of this bill, and in doing so stated that there was a gene-
ral feeling in Scoth.nd in favour of improvidg the state
of the uoicnrsities in that country.
The Earl of ABERDEEN said that he felt grateful
to her Majesty's Government, and especially to the late
Lord Advocate, ter having brought forward this bill.
The bill generally was approved of ir. Scotland, because
it was hoped that it woud remedy defects which bad
long been complained of ; but, though generally ap-
proved of, sonic cf its provisions met with great opposi-
tion. In that part of Scotland with which be was more
particularly connected he never recollected witnessing
anything I.ke the degree of excitement—so strong a
feeling and so perfectly unanimous, as existed on this
subject. He did not mean to say that their objections
were well founded, but, at all events, a very moderate
degree of alteration in the bill would meet the views of
those parties. He himse:f approved, not only of the
principle of the bill, but of the union of the two 'col.
leges ; but he thought that the system of tuition which
existed in both ought to I e preserved.
Earl STANHOPE agreed with the noble earl who
had just spoken that the bill was capable of some amend.
thentoti Metres he approved of it generally. --
The Bishop of LONDON considered that great
thanks were due to Government for having proposed a
measure calculated to confer such great benefit on the
people of Scotland.
The Earl of DERBY said it was satisfactory to the
Government to find that the objections to the bill lay in
the narrowest possible compass. One of the clauses ob-
jected to bad not been proposed by the Government,
but introduced in the other house. As to the union of
the two Aberdeen colleges, the Government bad no wish
but to puma that course which would be most advan-
tageous to the people. It had been admitted that, but
for the feeling of the inhabitants of Aberdeen against it,
the union was in itself desirable. Commissioners had in-
variably reported in favour of this union. But the bill,
in point of fact, gave a permissive power to the commis.
sinners to be appointed to do all that was desired by Lord
Stanhope ; and tLe view he took was by to means unani-
mous with the people of Aberdeen ; for he bad presented
a petition from the Senatus Acaletnicus of the Mariechal
College against retaining the separation of the faculties
of arts. As a power was reserved to her Miijo,ty in coun-
cil to confirm or otherwise the proceedings f the com-
missioners, ho was inclined to adhere to the bill as it
stand. He ohj eted to the petitioners being beard by
c-unsel against the bill ; for be had never yet known a
case where any advantage arose to the petitioners from
such a. course, or where tke speeches of counsel had
altered the opinion of any of their lordships.
The bill was then read a second time.
The Earl of ABERDEEN briefly explained why he
wished that petitioners should be heard by counsel, but
declined to press his motion to that effect.
STANHOPE AND WOLSINGLIA.M RECTORIES