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

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS BILL.

Messengers froni the Lords appeared at the table with
the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, which was read a first
time.

IRISH TEMPORALITIES BILL.

Mr. SHAW said, he saw that his Hon. Friend, the
Member fOr Roscommon, had placed the name of his
Hon. Colleague Pin 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 waa brought to
him by an influential body or 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.—(Laugliter.) 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 Right 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 inn Bill on the stibject, 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 he 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 such companies 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, 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 as 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,-a4 to the formation of fraudulent companies
for the purr* of entrapping innocent and inexpe-
rienced parties, .who are induced to enter them by seeing
respectabld naines 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-copstructed 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 rid..
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 iipon 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 la ei'y
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-justiee,- the recognition of their claims. He
should propose that those companies, upon being regis-
tered, should subject themielves to the inspection both
as to the persons who conducted, and -likewise the mode
which they conducted them, and they should acquire
in all cases the rower of suing and being sued, and of
doing certain legal acts, for the purposes for
which they were atsociated, with as ration facility
as could be done by an individual. At the
presentl moment joint-stock companies could not
appoint any member of their body in whose name
they could sue oe be sued. In giving them that
boon, he gave a still greaterboon 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 all joint•stock companies, in some
sense, recognised by the State, it seemed obviously, to fol-
low that they 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 retnedies 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 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
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
theamount of capital required, or the extent of risk, or
from some other cause, they could not in any other way
work out th 4, purpose. .On this ground,ntherefore, he
should move, last.ly, 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 com-
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 Hon. Gentleman; and the House resumed.
MENAI BRIDGE.

Mr. GORE moved for a copy of any report of Mr.
Provis to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests
since the Ist day of October, 1843, on the Menai
Bridge.—Agreed to.
HARBOUR OF REFUGE.

Mr. GORE also moved for a copy of all letters of in-
structions to the naval officers and civil engineers ap-
pointed in 1843 to report upon the harbours of Holy-
head and Port Dynllaen, as a packet station between
London and Dublin, and as a harbour of refuge for the
Channel trade.—Agreed to.
GRAND JURY CESS (IRELAND).
Mr. WYSE then moved for copies of the lists re-
turned by the collectors of grand jury cess for the
county of the city of Dublin, to the clerks of the peace
for the said city, containing the names of men qualified
to serve as jurors for the said city for the year 1844,
showing the corrections and adjudications made therein
by the Right Hon. the Recorder of the said city, pur-
suant to the provisions of the Act 3 and 4 Will. IV.,
c. 91. Also, a copy of the general list of jurors, made
out from such lists by the said Recorder. Copy of the
" Jurors' Book for the year 1844," as delivered to the
Sheriff of the city of Dublin, or.to his under sheriff, or
the town clerk. Copy of the " Special Jurors' List,"
made by the said. Sheriff, or his under-sheriff, for the
year 1844. Copies. of all correspondence with Dr by the
clerks of the peace for the said city, in relation to the re-
vision of the jurors' list for the year 1844, and especi-
.
ally between them and the Recorder for the said city,
and Mr. Peirce Mahony. Copies of all affidavits filed in
the Crown side of the Court of Queen's Bendh in Ire-
land, since the Ist day of December, 1843, in the cause
of " The Queen against O'Connell and-others' and of
all protests made to the clerk of the Crown, also filed in
the said cause, atthe striking of the jury in the month
of January last; together with a copy of the challenge
to the jury alTay in the said cause, and of the demurrer
filed in reply to the same. .
Lord ELIOT was understood to say that he could not
consent to the motion.
Mr. SHAW said that as the motion personally con.
cerned him, he hoped the House would' excu e him for
saying a few words on the subject. He thought that
the House had no jurisdiction in the matter. He should
object to the House making any order of the kind. This
was a matter of judicial•adjudication, and if. he submit-
ted to make a return of this kind, there was no return
which he, might not be called on to make. If the House
sanctioned the motion, he should, with all possible re-
spect, refuse to comply with the order.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that if the Right Hon.
Gentleman opposed the motion because there were not
sufficient grounds fur it, he could understand it ; but
when the Right Hon. Gentleman took so unusual a step
of opposing it, because itwas a judicial proceeding, and
that he would refuse to comply with the order of the
House, if it were made, he really thought that the
Right Hon. Gentleman was taking a ground that was
altogether untenable.—(Hear, hear.) He did not say
that the House ought to agree to the motion if the
Right Hon. Gentleman said there, were no sufficient
grounds for making it; but if an order of the House were
made for similar returns from the Court of Queen's
Bench, he felt convinced that the Chief Justice would
comply with the order of the House. He would not un-
dertake to say that.that House had no power to call for
notes of judicial proceedings. Such a doctrine could not
be supported, It would be lowering the authority of
the House to suppose that it could be SQ, and withoutgiv-
ing any opinion as to whether or not the motion ought to
begranted, he must protest against the doctrine of the
Right Hon. Gentleman which denied that the House had
any right to investigate any course of conduct which he,
as a judge, might have thought proper to pursue.
Mr. SHAW said the Noble Lord was mistaken. He
(Mr. Shaw) did not deny the right of the House of Com-
mons to inquire into his conduct, and to address the•
CroWn for his removal , if it chose, but he said they had
no right to his notes which he bad taken judicially.' If
the return were ordered to be made from the Queen's
Bench, he felt "convinced that the judges of that court
would not do it., The Noble Lord must be aware of a
previous case in which Lord Holt had refused to obey
an order of the House of Lords for the production of his
note upon a trial. He told the House of Lords that they
had no control over these notes. He did not deny for
ono Moment the right of the House to investigate his
conduct, but they had no right to call for his judicial
notes and they would be useless, because the House
possehsed no power to reverse or affect his decision in
any Way.
Lotd J. RUSSELL did not mean to contend that
these notes were necessary for the House to' adjudicate,
for it had no power of adjudication on the subject. .But
they might be necessary for the purpose' of investigation.
He would take the celebrated Macclesfield case in which
the House had called for all the notes, papers, and re-
cords }of the court. .

Mr.
for th
anyri

air
Right
the or
which
less to
been e

of disl
statem

Mr.
standu
Sir
were 1
they v
For ir,
privat(
think i
moran

SHAW. admitted tho right of the House to call
records of the court, but he denied that they had
'ht to call for a judge's notes.

G. GREY did not understand tluk objection of the
Hon. Gentleman. It might be necessary to have
Iginal lists and to compare them with the lists
had been ultimately adjudicated on. It was use
overlook the fact that discrepant statements had
lewhere
_made on The subject, that it was matter

,ute, and that these returns would show what
?nt was the correct one.

VYSE'said he must insist on his motion notwith-
g the opposition of the Noble-Lord-.-
. PEEL could not take upon him to define what
he powers of the law respecting Motions, for
ry much depended on the nature of the case.
tance if an Hon. Member were to move for the
memoranda of a, judge in a trial he could not
probable the House would call for those me-
a.

•
Mr. !WARBURTON said a great blunder had been
commi ted, and it was very desirable to know how it had
occurr d. He would advise his Hon. Friend to get
what p pers he could, and if they were not- satisfactory,
to mov for a.Select Committee.
Mr. lUTT said it (lid not appear that any evil would
arise fr in the production of the papers, and the with-
boldin of them would probably create distrust where it
did not now exist.

Mr. VY*E said it was a matter of importance, but if
11
,
the ret rns were granted at all, they should be•granted
as soon as possible.; otherwise the information would be
of no u e. The Hon. Member then withdrew the motion.
- POST-OFFICE.- . •
Mr. AWES then moved for a return of the number
of char eable letters which have passed through- the
London General Post (inwards and outwards) since the
first ge
feral reduction of postage, on the sth day of
it
Decem r, 1839, dividing the time, as far as practicable,
into pe ods of four complete weeks each, ..and distill-
g,uishin , as regards each period, the unpaid, paid, and
stampe andtotpl number of letters ; also, of the. esti-.
. ,

=tea
mediatel
manner.;

,
verage nurnher for four weeks. of the year im.
y preceding the:reduction, distinguished in like
Return .of the number of letters which h-

passed through the London District Post (exclusive of
all General Post letters) for the- same . periods ; and
distinguishing in the same manner as the last return.
A.comparative statement of the number of letters .(in-
chiding 'franks during the existence of the franking
privilegti) delivered in the United Kingdom in one
week df each calendar month, beginning with
November, 1839, and ending with the present time.
An account showing the gross and not Post-otnce, reve-
nue, and, the cos.t of management, for the United King-
dom, for each of, the years ending the sth day of
January! 1839, 1840; 1841, 1842,.1843, and 1844, ex-
cluding from the account, whether of gross revenue -or
cost of management, any advances that may have been
made by the English to the Irish Post-office, and
advances, to the Money Order-office. Account, show-
ing,
as n4arly as it can be given, the gross amount of
postage revenue for England and Wales (exclusive .of
returns for refused letters, &c.), for the month ending
the sth day of January 1840 (during which the four-
penny rate was established) ; and also for the months
ending the sth day of January 1842, the sth day of
January 1843, and the sth day of January 1844. An
account of the payments by the PoSt-offie made during
each of the years ending the sth day of January 1839,1840,
1841, 1842, 1843, and 1844, for the conveyance of the mails
by railway in Great Britain ; distinguishing in each
instance the payments for work done within the year
from payments for work done in previous years. Return
of the number and amount of money orders issued and
paid in England and Wales during each quarter, from
the quarter ending the sth day of April, 1839, to.that
ending the sth day of January, 1844, inclusive. Similar
return as - regards money orders issued and paid in Lon-
don. Return by the Admiralty, showing in detail the
different items which compose the sum of 612,8501,
charged for packets, in return No. 201, of session 1843.
Return of all provincial
Pdst-nffines in which, owing
to the death
ensati or resignation of the deputy-post-
roaster,. compons have lapsed to, the levemie
since September, 1839, s•howing in eath ease the
amount of such compensation, and
the total cost of the
office to the revenue, both before and after its re-arrange-
ment ; the cost after reqtrrangemcnt being stated, first,
as originally proposed by the Post-office, second, as
authorised by the Treasury. Copy, of all .ra'ilway mails
as directed by the Treasury to ho made in August,lB42;
together with an addition, showing the length of each
line as p
me -bill ,er official notice. to the Company, as per Post-'
office to We Com an
o ti and as per actual
,payments by the Post-
py, past twig present ; .also, an ex-
planation of any discrepancy Which may appear in such
return, Annual.returu of foes, perquisitea‘v&c.4 kr Ow