The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-03 00:00:00

IRISH TEMPORALITIES BILL.

Mr. SHAW said, he saw that his Hon. Friend, the
Member for Roscommon, had placed the name of his
Hon. Colleague (Mr. Hamilton) on the back of the Bill
which the Hon. Gentleman had got leave to bring in
last night on the subject of the Irish Temporalities.
Now, as he knew that his Hon. Colleague was opposed
to- the Bill—(Laughter)—he begged to move that the
order be discharged till another name be substituted.

Mr. F. FRENCH said, that the Bill was brought to
him by an influential body of church tenants ; but as
he knew that it would raise the suspicions of the friends
of the Church if it came from his (Mr. F. French's) side
of the House, he advised them to procure the name
either of Mr. Hamilton or of the Right Hon. Gentleman
himself.—(Laughter.) They promised to commu-
nicate with Mr. Hamilton on the subject ' - but
he had never heard from them on the subject.—(Laugh-
ter.) He had never heard till the present moment that
Mr. Hamilton objected to the Bill.—(Laughter.) It was
a matter of perfect indifference to him whose name was
on the Bill, but he thought it would be more in accord-
ance with fair play and Parliamentary usage if the Right
Hon. Gentleman allowed Mr. Hamilton to make his
own disclaimer.
Mr. SHAW wished to ask the Hon. Member for Ros-
common; if his Hon. Colleague (Mr. Hamilton) had
given him permission to put his (Mr. Hamilton's) name
on the Bill.

Mr. FRENCH would, in return, ask the Eight Hon.
Gentleman if his Hon. Colleague had authorised him to
state that he desired that his name should not be placed
on the Bill.

Mr. SHAW—Certainly not. My colleague told me
that he understood the Hon. Gentleman opposite in-
tended to bring in a Bill on the subject, and •he assured
me he meant to give it every opposition in his power—
(A laugh)—to prevent it, if possible, from being read a
first time—(Loud laughter)—because be considered it
bad in principle.—(Continued laughter.)
Mr. FRENCH said that the only principle of the Bill
to which the Hon. Gentleman was opposed, was one that
he (Mr. French) himself was opposed to—namely, that
which proposed to invest the proceeds of the sales of
ecclesiastical property in the public funds. That clause
had been struck out, and it was now proposed that the
proceeds should be invested in the purchase of land in
fee simple.

The conversation here dropped, but it was understood
that some other name was substituted on the Bill for that
of Mr. Hamilton.
JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES.

Mr. GLADSTONE rose to move for a Committee of
the whole House, to consider the state of the law of
partnership, with a view to providing for, the following
purposes, viz., " For the registration of joint-stock
companies, and for conferring on suelscompauies certain
privileges of corporate bodies, subject to the payment of
certain fees, and on certain conditions.and regulations,
and for preventing the establishment of fraudulent com-
panies. For the regulation of joint-stock companies.
For facilitating and improving the remedies 'at law
and in equity, in reference to joint-stock companies,
their members, directors, and other officers, whether
inter se or in relation to persons not being members
thereof, and for winding up the affairs of companies
unable to meet their pecuniary engagements ; and for
enabling private partnerships to register the names of their
partners, and to sue and be sued in the name of their firm."
In bringing forward that motion he felt that he was
proposing to deal with a most " important subject
and one well worthy the attentive consideration
of that House, but he would not trouble the
House at any great length on the present occa-
sion. It would be useless for him to do se unless the
House were in possession of certain details which were
not yet before it, but which would be presented to them
shortly, when he would enter; more at length into the
subject. The measure which he proposed to introduce was
founded on the report of the Select Committee which had sat
for the purpose of investigating the subject. The mea-
sure did not deal with joint-stock 'companies. He
Proposed to consider the subject in two different man-
ners : first, as to the formation of fraudulent companiei
for the purpose of entrapping innocent and inexpe-
rienced parties, who are induced to enter them by seeing
respectable names attached to such companies, and who
consequently frequently suffer loss, and in many cases
ruin. The other was the formation of companies which,
although not dishonest, were ill-constructed and unwisely
conceived. In order to apply a remedy in those cases,
it was not intended by the present measure to give any
undiscriminating encouragement to joint-stock com-
panies, nor to impose upon them any burdens or re-
straints, other than were necessary for the public ad •
vantage. And with - regard to those burdens
and restraints themselves, they would be at-
tended with benefit of a 'very decided nature,
overbalancing any attendant inconvenience. He
should propose to the House, in the first place, to apply
to joint-stock companies that which was a most whole-
some remedy—that of publicity, by bringing public
opinion and public responsibility to bear upon the foun-
dation of •those companies. And for that purpose he
should ask leave of the Committee for which he meant
to move, to bring in a Bill for the registration of joint-
stock companies. But in registering those companies,
it would be necessary that there should be a recognition
of them in courts of law. That was a very important
change, and though it would not alter the course of law,
it would greatly accelerate its administration in these re-
spects, for ,at the present time joint-stock companies
were under the necessity of extracting piecemeal, from
courts of justice, the recognition of their -claims. He
should propose that those companies, upon being regis-
tered, should subject themselves to the inspection both
as to the persons who conducted, and likewise the mode
in which they conducted them, and they. should acquire
in all cases the power of suing and being sued, and of
doing certain legal acts, for the purposes for
which they were associated, with as much facility
as could be done by an individual. At the
presentj moment joint-stock companies could not
appoint any member of their body. in whose name
they could sue or be sued. In giving them that
boon, he gave a still greater boon to the public, for those
companies frequently availed themselves of that inabi-
lity to their own advantage. Independent of the regis-
tration, he should also provide by another Bill for the
constitution of joint-stock companies. Now that they
were proposing to make 01 joint-stock companies, in some
sense, recognised by the State, it seemed obviously to fol-
low that thy should take those securities with respect to
joint-stock companies at large, which, heretofore, it
had been usual to take in those particular isolated cases
in which they had been the subject of statutory enact-
ment. Then he proposed to meet also another great
deficiency in the present state of those associations, viz.,
the insufficiency of legal remedies both as applicable to
shareholders and to the public. There was no depart-
ment of the subject into which it would be less conve-
nient to enter at that early stage of the Bill. The reso-
lutions of the Committee on Joint-Stock Companies re-
cently laid on the table of the House, would explain the
course which it was proposed to take, for the purpose
of improving and 'facilitating the remedies at law and
equity. Lastly, it was his- duty to move for leave
to bring in a Bill to modify the law relating to private
partnerships. It was very well known that at present
private partnerships .laboured, though not to the same
extent, under similar difficulties to those which attached
to joint-stock companies. Although there was really no
ground for exercising over them the restraints which the
Legislature ought to exercise over large associations of
persons acting as joint-stock companies, yet private
partieS were in the condition of not being able either to
appoint any person, or to use the 'common name under
which they acted, for the legal purpose of suing those
against whom they had claims. Now'it was obvious, he
thought, that if the House were to confer on joint-stock
companies the power of suing and of being sued, and
were to withhold that power from private partners,
there- would be a very great danger of their
acting in contrariety to the principle which had
obtained almost universal sanction with regard
to the regulation of the commercial concerns of this
l'country—the - principle that wherever you could effect
commercial objects by means of private partnerships you
should attain them by such means ; that you did only
resort to those larger associations in which the prin-

ciple of responsibility and individual control were much
weaker in those exceptional cases in which, either from
the amount of capital required, or the extent of risk, or
from some other cause, they could not in any other way
work out the purpose. On this ground, therefore, he
should move, lastly, for leave to bring in a Bill to enable
private persons associating in legal partnership to sue
and be sued. • He would not now enter into any further
detail, but he would now move that the House resolve
itself into a Committee of the whole House, to consider
the state of the law of partnership for the purposes
which he had described.
The House then went into Committee on.the Bill.
Mr. HAWES would not offer any opposition to the
introduction of the Bill, which he believed was one of
great importance, and from which . the commercial corn-
munity would derive great advantage. He would re-
serve for a future occasion what he had to say on the
details of the measure. • He hoped, however, that the
House would not interfere further than the Committee
had recommended.
Mr. HASTIE asked whether it was intended to in-
clude joint-stock banks in the Bill?.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that the measure was
founded upon the recommendation of the Committee,
from the inquiries of which joint-stock banks were ex-
cluded.
Mr. TUFNELL wished to know whether it was the
intention of Government, in their proposed Bill, to
limit the responsibility of shareholders?
Mr.. GLADSTONE said there certainly was no in-
tention to limit that responsibility.
Leave was then given to introduce the Bills asked for
by the Right Lion. Gentleman; and the House resumed.