The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-22 00:00:00

PE RIAL PARLIAMENt
(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS•
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Twelve o'clock.
The Ayre Bridge Bill was read a third time
passed.

POOR-LAWS. fcr
Mr. M. SUTTON moved the order of the &Let
bringing up the report on the Poor-law Amencaa'
Bill, for the purpose of postponement.
Captain PECHELL complained of the course takenti
the. Government in postponing this measure. He theue
it was unfair to Hon. Members who had that morel
attended in their places, believing that this Bill wool
be
The on. the
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER salt
Bill had been postponed to suit the convenience of Owl
Hon. Members.
•
Mr. HAWES deprecated the custom of postp ,e
Bills of great importance to the latest period of
session. said
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
_,hts
the Government had done all they could to accoisoaMe;
Hon. Members, and he thought it was unfair in the fee.
Gentleman to complain of the course they had nor
The Railways Bill had been fixed on Friday nig"'
twelve o'clock to-day.
Captain PECHELL did not think this expanat:°o7
satisfactory. The Right Hon. Gentleman had gotou
his difficulty by stating that which was not the fact.
aged
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER c
upon the Hon. Member for an explanation.
Captain PECHELL said the Right Hon.
had stated that the Railways Bill was to be brought °no
twelve o'clock. This was not the fact, for it was roe
down in the order for one o'clock. He thought fir
Chancellor of the Exchequer owed him an apology
the course he had taken. I owe
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER-Thlll
the Hon. Gentleman no apology, and therefore Dm
tender him none. • Gentian/
The Bill was then postponed till Wednesday.
After a pause the
Capt. PECHELL rose and said, he wished to ask it
Speaker what business they • had to proceed with, 9suer.
was useless to appeal to the Chancellor of the Excheflos
The SPEAKER said the next order on the PaPerre-
put down for one o'clock, and at one o'clock he r
sumed they would proceed with that order. t the
Capt. PECHELL said he would move, then, tha w
House do now adjourn. He did this, in order aelli
protest against the course which the G overnment had iskes.7rit,
They had not discussed the Bill in a factious We.
nor attempted to delay the Bill, by dividing on reanYe
casions on which they might have done so. The. Bill scold
on the paper for twelve o'clock, and now they were Wor
they could do no business till one ; and the Chanci„c• to
of. the Exchequer, when called on, could say rleist",j. to
either by way of explanation or apology. He wiLs'e the
know if the Right Hon. Baronet could explain
Bill had been delayed ; and having stated thus Illuv't
would withdraw his motion. •lit
Sir R. PEEL said that it was notified on Friday aej
that the Joint-stock Companies Bill would be proce hl 4
with to-day, and he regretted if any inconvenience tye
been occasioned to Hon. Gentlemen by any error in
notice.paper.
nblie
Mr. HAWES said, the mode in which the pO.
business had recently been conducted was utterly le reo.
sistent with the proper discussion of public inesslithe
They had but just received notice of amendments inf
Joint-stock Companies Bill •, he might be told 1711,
were but verbal amendments, but these amendments°
often very material in their effect.
Sir R. PEEL said these amendments were introdl.4
for the purpose of giving effect to the views and wish
of parties affected by the measure.
The conversation then dropped.
MARINE EXPLOSION AT BRIGHTON. boo
Captain PECHELL said he had seen in the.Pll
journals an account of proceedings that bad 0000
place in the Channel, opposite Brighton ; a 14tfor
officer (Captain Warner) had succeeded in totally de,t;ioi.
ing a merchant-vessel anchored off that port. vc-se
dering all the circumstances that- had taken igace fp
a former occasion, when the Right Hon. Gentleni
gave some explanation of the correspondence he,A
t,vrego
the Government and the gallant officer, he wished
know whether what had just taken place was -:or
with the knowledge or sanction of the Government'o
whether it had received any authentic information v"
respect to it ?
Sir R. PEEL said he had not seen any other sec bye
of the proceeding than that which appeared in the pow
papers. The experiment had not been made at the
v.„O
pense of her Majesty's Government, or in conseque"
ers
of any communication with it. Her Majesty's Gev„tairc
meet had had a former communication with CBrer"
Warner, and had proposed to allow the gallant offie est
certain sum for the purpose of making the experiTA of
under the superintendence of officers from the Bone
Ordnance, but Captain Warner declined the offer on
count of the insufficiency of the sum proposed to beaTio
lowed by the Treasury, and he understood that on al-
occasion the vessel had been provided and the elPe ot,
meet made at the expense of private individuals, and
under the sanction or control of the Government• a re'
Capt. PECHELL asked if the Government ha
ceived any official report of the experiment ?
Sir R. PEEL had seen no account of it except to,'
the public journals.
JOINT-STOCK BANKS BILL.
of
On the motion for reading the order of the day f
going into a Committee on the Joint-Stock Banks Bfr
being pat,
.10
Sir W. CLAY gave notice of his intention tbsto,
would move to strike out that portion of the Bill votio
conferred the power of unlimited liability, and off,
shareholders should be liable for their own shares ore&
He went on to show that all their experience Proof
that unlimited liability had not afforded that Bei ileep
which was expected from it, while all their exper;eol
both as regarded the banks of England and Ireland,
the Scotch banks, was in favour of limited liability tlie!
Sir R. PEEL hoped the House would not adel",et.•
extensive alteration proposed by the Mon. Bad
He did not see why an exception should be Ing All
favour of banks from the law, which was applicable t° ho
partnerships.—(Hear, hear.) Apart from authoriti; o'
thought that reason was opposed to the propositie.ot
the Hon. Baronet. But surely all authority was etfor,
him. A Committee had sat on the subject of bar"'", otea
three sessions, in 1836, 1837, 1838, which had expii-icen
the subject. A great deal of evidence had been sln
on the subject of unlimited liability, and it was, 04
favour of such a system. If the shareholders were •no
subject to unlimited liability, he feared that pers00?000
large property and high name would have applies;
made to them to become partners. It would be ss'orst;
them, " Become a shareholder for 1001., in the Who:,
event you cannot be responsible for more than tea OP
Now he feared that local influence would be us tip
this way, and would be sometimes used wind°
cess, so that the bank would have the Wild'
ence of a high name without the respPir3-, bee!
He admitted that unlimited responsibility had 11°"0060'
always a security, but he hoped it would be 00
the regulations of the present Bill. For those r itiOG
he hoped the House would not agree to the gr 01345
of the Hon. Baronet.
Mr. HAWES said the question was whether tn.- od-
or limited security afforded the best securityfor ssuee,
banking. The Right Hon. Gentleman was rnieros'
when he said that all authority was in favour 0 Drib
limited responsibility, for there was very high an,tk„°itecl
on both sides of the question. He thought that a limited
liability on the part of the shareholders, and an unii-aerif
one on the part of the Directors, would answer wro
purpose, and afford ample security. The artvie 001'
limited liability on the part of the shareholders
be a great inducement to men of fortune to join "'
and this would prove of great benefit to the publiff,'
Mr. MORISON thought the principle of "- ,ee
responsibility was most injurious. To show this, het'o
only refer to America, where the system had been 14. 1119,
to work very disadvantageously. He felt dist"ci
present system was in an unsatisfactory state, Ise
would ultimately be found necessary to alter and revive'
Mr..P. M. STEWART doubted whether ant ft the
Gentleman connected with any bank would supP°,'
proposition of the Hon. Baronet, nor did he thin" ,0010,
the proposition of the Hon. Member for Lambeth king'"
tend to increased security in our system of 130 pso
He thought the principle of limited liability was e
one, and he hoped, therefore, that it would Ile
adopted in this country.
Mr. TURNER opposed the amendment.
The amendment was then negatived without 90
sion, and the House went into Committee on the

The first clause was agreed to. ----
On clause 2 being put, t
Mr. GLADSTONEisaid there had been a distioctotili.-
derstanding that the Joint:Stock Companies 13illsg-ferl
be proceeded with after the Railways BilL g
sink
gentlemen, on that understanding, had rem' tbe,
in town for the purpose of attending
Committee, and he therefore suggested that Ilttier)
Honourable Friend (the Chancellor of the E%cm:ta an'
should consent to report progress for the pre6e" colir
resume the consideration of his measure after the
mittee on the Railways Bill. Trvit 61/14
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEC/v-'4 it
he was ready to adopt any course that would 51.1"
roc,convenience of the House.
After a short conversation, it was resolved to P,tosed,.
with the Railways Bill ; and the House having o_so tog°
the Chairman reported progress, and obtained leaps
again this day.