Lords Sitting of 13 June 1865

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Railway Passengers* (149); Defence Act (1860) Amendment* (152); Procurators (Scotland)* (153); Pilotage Order Confirmation* (No. 2) (154); Prisons * (155).
Second Reading—Partnership Amendment* (123); Land Debentures (Ireland)* (113); Militia Ballots Suspension *; Militia Pay.*
Select Committee—On Locomotives on Roads* (108), Lord Harris, Earl De Grey, Earl Ducie, Viscount Strathallan, Lord Calthorpe, and Lord Wenlock, added; and Duke of Sutherland and Lord Stanley of Alderley discharged.
Committee—Public House Closing Act (1864) Amendment* (151);Mortgage Debentures* (107); Local Government Supplemental (No. 3)* (127).
Report—Mortgage Debentures* (107); Local Government Supplemental (No. 3) * (127).
Third Reading —Sewage Utilization * (134).

RAILWAY PASSENGERS BILL—(No. 149.)
  PRESENTED. FIRST READING.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    THE EARL OF DARTMOUTHsaid, he wished to draw the attention of their Lord-
    108
    ships to certain facts connected with the late lamentable railway accidents, which had been elicited from the witnesses examined at the coroner's inquest held on the bodies of those who were killed in the great accident on the Chester and Shrewsbury branch of the Great Western Railway. It appeared from the report of the inquest which appeared in The Times a few days ago that the engine-driver said the only danger signal he saw near the unsafe portion of the line was a small old green flag. That description of signal was not to be compared to the detonating signal in use upon most lines when any extra precaution on the part of the engine-driver was required. He believed that if that plan had been adopted, and proper arrangements made, these disasters would have been avoided. He also wished to point out that the railway companies were adopting the new and most dangerous system of placing passenger carriages instead of luggage vans next to the engines, and also at the end of the train. He did not mean to say that the precautions he had pointed out would altogether prevent such accidents as had already occurred, but the railway companies were bound to adopt every safeguard in their power.
    LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, he quite concurred in the necessity of every proper precaution against such lamentable disasters as those referred to. But he desired to draw attention to the objectionable practice adopted by some companies of locking both doors of the carriages, so that in case of the carriages taking fire, as in the accident near St. Germans, the passengers must inevitably be burnt to death. He had no objection to one door of the carriage being locked, as that might conduce to the safety of the passengers, who otherwise might get out on the wrong side and be killed by a passing train. He would lay on the table a Bill relating to this subject.
    THE EARL OF CARDIGANthought that some means ought to be taken to ensure ready communication between the passengers and the engine-drivers. A few years ago a number of persons were burnt, under the most horrible circumstances, in travelling between Paris and Versailles. If this communication had existed the accident might have been prevented.
    LORD KINNAIRDsaid, he supposed, with Sidney Smith, that until a Bishop was burnt no sufficient precaution would be taken to prevent such accidents. He believed that on the Scotch railways only one door was locked.
    THE EARL OF CARDIGANfeared that it was too much the practice to lock both doors.
    THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEthought the House had a right to know what the intentions of Government were upon this subject. Government certainly ought to bring in a Bill for the better regulation of the railways.
    A Bill for the better Security of Railway Passengers—Was presented by The LORD SAINT LEONARDS; read 1a; to be printed. (No. 149.)

  HER ROYAL HIGHNESS THE PRINCESS OF WALES.

    MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS TO HER MAJESTY.
    EARL GRANVILLE: I feel quite sure that the Motion I am about to make will meet with the hearty concurrence of your Lordships. It is—
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty to congratulate Her Majesty on The Princess of Wales having happily given birth to another Prince, and to assure Her Majesty of the deep Interest felt by the House of Lords in all that concerns the domestic Happiness of Her Majesty and Her Family."
    THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, in the absence of my noble Friend, the Earl of Derby, I beg to express the feelings of this side of the House, and to say how entirely we concur in the Motion which has been proposed by the noble Earl.
    Motion agreed to, Nemine Dissentiente, and the said Address Ordered to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

  IMPRISONMENT OF BRITISH SUBJECTS IN ABYSSINIA.—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that when this subject was under discussion a few evenings ago, the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs stated that from a memorandum received at the Foreign Office it appeared to be Sir William Coghlan's opinion that it would be inexpedient to send a mission to the King of Abyssinia until the prisoners were liberated. At the time he thought that a most extraordinary opinion, inasmuch as the object of the proposed mission was the liberation of the prisoners. He now begged to read a letter, dated June 3, which a gallant Friend of his had received from Sir William Coghlan, from which it would appear that the noble
  110
  Earl had taken an erroneous view of Sir William's memorandum:—
  "I kept no copy of the memorandum which I sent to the Foreign Office, and therefore I cannot say precisely how far I may have exposed myself to be misunderstood. What I intended to say was, that a mission of some dignity should be sent with an answer to the King's letter, and, as there would be an awkwardness in Her Majesty recognizing the fact of the captivity of her subjects, it would be expedient to make no mention of it in the answer, but to leave the Envoy to find it out, and, by the exercise of the large discretion to be accorded to him, to effect their release before he proceeded to the complimentary part of his mission, as he could not make presents and pay compliments while the captives wore kept. That is what I meant, and I believe that to have been the right view at that time. But since the subject has been largely and publicly discussed, my suggestion that it should be left to the Envoy to discover the captivity of our people is no longer compatible. The Queen's letter must now recognize the fact, and the Envoy should be empowered to obtain their release by any means which may appear to him most suitable. It is impossible to prescribe for him a strict line of proceeding; the man sent on a mission of such difficulty and danger must be trusted. That is my present view of the case, and I am ready to act on it whenever called on."
  The postscript followed, which it was evident the writer had not intended to be read to their Lordships; but he would take the liberty of reading it:—
  "P.S.—On looking over what I have written, it seems to me somewhat too free for publication in the House of Lords; but if Lord Chelmsford wishes to make use of it there, I dare say he will be able to extract enough for his purpose. Mr. Rassam's efforts appear to have failed, and there is now nothing for it but to make one from England. There is no disguising the fact that long delay has added to the difficulty, but that difficulty must be encountered and overcome."
  He had felt it right to show how the matter really stood, and he thought the noble Earl would be ready to admit that there had been a mistake.
  EARL RUSSELL: Certainly I did understand Sir William Coghlan's memorandum to be to the effect which I stated on a former occasion; but it appears, from the letter just read by the noble and learned Lord, that I was mistaken. The noble and learned Lord says he thought that it would have been a very extraordinary thing for Sir William Coghlan to be of opinion that a mission should not be sent to Abyssinia before the prisoners were liberated; but I must say that it would appear to me to be a very extraordinary proceeding to send out an English mission to go humbly before the King and ask him to receive presents while our Consul

  111
  and other Europeans are still in custody under the circumstances which have been already detailed to your Lordships. The subject is attended with considerable difficulty; but I shall be ready to adopt any means that may appear feasible for the liberation of the captives.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I wish to ask the noble Earl whether the report is true which I have heard on what I believe to be good authority—namely, that the unfortunate mistake through which the letter of the King was detained for some months did not arise in the Foreign Office, but in the India Office. If this is the fact I think the public ought to know it; for, as respects the dignity of this country, this imprisonment of the Consul is one of the most important events which I remember to have occurred in our diplomatic history. It is true that a Consul does not stand in the rank of an Ambassador, but he occupies an official position to which he is appointed by the Crown, and his person is always considered as sacred as that of an Ambassador. I do not say that the noble Earl has been remiss in this matter; but I do not think he has been as prompt in vindicating the rights of a British subject as the case demands. I would remind your Lordships of some occurrences which have taken place of late years. In 1852, when an ill-mannered boy interfered with the band of an Austrian regiment at Florence and received a would, the sum of £250 which I demanded in compensation for that offence was, by many persons in this country, thought to be an insufficient sum. In 1858, when the French Consul at Jedda was murdered and an attempt was made to assassinate the English Consul, what was done by the Government of Lord Derby? The compensation which was demanded not having been paid, an English ship bombarded the town, and we insisted on and obtained the execution of the murderers. I do not know whether the noble Earl is of opinion that his arm is not long enough to reach Abyssinia. But if so it comes to this—that the Queen cannot be advised to send her servants to places too far away to be reached by the arm of England, because if Ambassadors or Consuls are sent to such places, disgrace may fall upon this country, to say nothing of the cruelties which may be perpetrated upon individuals. I hope the noble Earl will take some action, and will do what he can to show that English
  112
  servants are as safe under the protection of England now as ever they have been.
  EARL RUSSELL: As to inducing the King of Abyssinia by force to give up these captives, the noble Earl knows that the whole country is now disturbed by civil war; that there are three or four different pretenders in possession of different points, all endeavouring to force the King into a corner. Instead of sending one ship we should have to send three or four, with some three or four thousand men, who would have to march through a hot climate before they could reach the King. On the other hand, I believe it is the opinion of those best able to judge, that if we were to send any mission to the King of Abyssinia he would probably imprison the persons composing it, with a view to forcing us to take his part against his rivals.

  PUBLIC-HOUSES CLOSING ACT (1864) AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 126).

    COMMITTEE.
    Moved, That the House be now put into Committee on the said Bill.—(The Marquess of Clanricarde.)
    LORD KINNAIRDsaid, that though he did not intend to oppose the progress of the Bill, he believed it was calculated to do great injustice to the proprietors of those public-houses which should continue to be closed during the night. He should also say that he did not think it would be wise to alter an Act which had only been passed last year, and the effect of which could not yet have been adequately ascertained. In Scotland the public-houses were closed at eleven o'clock, and the Act enforcing that arrangement had operated most beneficially.
    THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that whatever might be the case in Scotland, it had been found that in this country, and more particularly in the metropolis, the people frequenting our markets, and other persons employed during the night-time, were subjected to great hardship and inconvenience by the Act of last year. The Bill was intended to remedy that evil, and he hoped that their Lordships would not refuse to give to it their sanction.
    EARL GRANVILLEthought the original Act had worked very well, and was, therefore, anxious to see it amended in the point where it inflicted a hardship on certain classes. He hoped, however, that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of

    113
    Clanricarde) would consent to the omission of the 5th clause, which gave the power of granting those exceptional licences to magistrates at petty sessions. He trusted that the noble Marquess would consent to the Amendment which he intended to propose.
    LORD REDESDALEsaid, he was not disposed to look with much favour on the measure. The case of compositors might, he thought, be easily met by their employers, who could make the necessary arrangements for their being supplied with refreshments during the night time. He should further say that he believed substantial refreshments were not desirable for people who remained up until three or four o'clock in the morning. With regard to market people, he should observe that he did not see how any houses could be left open for their use without extending the power to all the other establishments in the neighbourhood. He agreed with the noble Lord opposite (Lord Kinnaird) that one year did not afford sufficient time for testing the existing Act, and he believed that its continuance for another year would lead to the removal of many of the inconveniences to which it had given rise. Under all the circumstances of the case he was very much disposed to move that the Bill be committed on that day six months.
    THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, he did not agree with the argument of the noble Lord, who wished to inflict upon certain classes restrictions which he would not think of imposing upon their Lordships. After a long debate and a late division their Lordships would think it hard if they were not permitted to have a glass of sherry and a chop. As to the advantages of going to bed upon light refreshments only, he had no faith in such arguments. The Bill was originally passed to close certain houses in the Haymarket, and was not intended in any way to put down drunkenness. The Bill would remove a great hardship to which a large class of persons was at present exposed, and he saw no reason whatever why it should not pass into law, It appeared that an Amendment was to be moved for the omission of the 5th clause, but as no sufficient notice had been given of the Amendment he hoped it would not then be pressed; and they could more conveniently discuss it in some future stage of the Bill. He objected to the manner in which the noble Earl the President of the Council proposed to move the omission
    114
    of the 5th clause without notice, and thought it would be only right to allow the Bill to pass through Committee now, and to propose the Amendment upon the Report, by which time those interested would become acquainted with the nature of the Amendments.
    EARL DE GREY AND RIPONunderstood that his noble Friend the President of the Council had stated to the noble Marquess some time ago the nature of the Amendments he intended to propose. As, however, his noble Friend would not wish it to be supposed that he intended to take the House by surprise, he could not object to allow the Bill to pass through Committee, and to give notice of Amendments for the third reading.
    LORD REDESDALEsaid, he thought it was a very inconvenient course to propose Amendments on the third reading of a Bill.
    EARL GREYsaid, he entirely agreed in that opinion. They were in such cases unable to see the Bill printed with the Amendments, and they were thus exposed to the risk of falling into serious mistakes.
    LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he thought they were perfectly qualified to consider the proposed Amendment.
    LORD REDESDALEsaid, he would not press his objection to the Bill; but he would suggest that its operation should be limited to a period of two years.
    Motion agreed to.
    House in Committee accordingly.
    Clauses 1 to 14 agreed to.
    Clause 5 (Justices of the Peace to grant Licences).
    EARL GRANVILLE EARL GRANVILLE moved that the clause be omitted from the Bill.
    THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDErefused to assent to the Amendment. If it were struck out now, he should move to re-insert it on the Report.
    THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, that the police had refused to exercise the power of granting the licences which the Act of last year gave them in temporary cases. He therefore could not see why the power should not be left in the hands of the old constituted authorities, the justices of the peace, who are more likely to exercise their powers beneficially to the public. It would be a mockery to give it to the police, who were determined not to exercise it at all.
    EARL GREYsaid, that the House should not pass the Bill hastily through

    115
    Committee; they should consider the measure carefully, and make any Amendments they thought it required, deliberately. He should certainly object to omit the clause now if they were to have it discussed on the Report.
    THE EARL OF MALMESBURYthought the police were not fair judges in such a matter, seeing that the opening of these houses of refreshment would give them more work.
    LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, there was a clause in the Public-house Closing Act which already gave the police the power of granting licences for special occasions; but it was held that that power did not extend to the issuing of licences to market houses opened regularly at untimely hours.
    THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that the reason why the police objected to exercise the power might be that their work would be increased by the opening of public-houses.
    LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that by the Act of last year the police were authorized to grant licences for the opening of public-houses on particular occasions with the sanction of the Secretary of State; but that power had been held not to extend to granting licences to houses that required to be regularly opened, such as those which were required for the convenience of market people and compositors. This Bill had consequently become necessary.
    EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, the police were justified in refusing to apply to general cases an Act which was intended to apply to special cases only. If this Bill passed, however, it would remove that objection; and the police seemed to him a safer body to be entrusted with this power than two justices of the peace, as proposed by the 5th clause. He suggested that it would not be discreet to make an alteration in the system established by the Act of last year until it had had further trial. A case, no doubt, had been made out on behalf of compositors and others employed at very late or very early hours, but that was no reason why this power should be taken out of the hands of the police; and he should resist any attempt to reinstate the clause.
    THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that a division had been taken upon this point in the other House, and that the House, contrary to the wishes of the Government, decided that the power should be confided to the justices of the peace. If the clause were now struck out he
    116
    should move its re-insertion on a future occasion.
    Clause negatived.
    Other clauses agreed to.
    Amendments made; the Report thereof to be received on Tuesday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 151.)

  PARTNERSHIP AMENDMENT BILL.

    (NO. 123.) SECOND READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
    LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY,in moving the second reading of this Bill, observed that its main object was to enable persons to lend money to traders and receive a share of profits without rendering themselves liable to the law of partnership. According to the law as it now stood, a person might lend money to any extent to a trader and receive interest to any extent without being constituted a partner or rendering himself liable to the engagements of the trader if he became bankrupt; but if he lent money on the condition of receiving a share of the profits he became liable to all the engagements contracted by the trader, and subject to all the conditions of partnership. He could see no good reason for the distinction between these two sets of money-lenders, or why they should be treated in a different manner. Since 1855 the principle of limited liability had been very generally applied to all large undertakings in the country, and it had been complained that they had thereby conferred an advantage on partnerships of more than six partners over the private trader. This Bill might, therefore, be considered as a complement to the Limited Liability Acts by placing private traders on the same footing with the great companies. In this respect the private trader would receive a great advantage, and at the same time he thought the creditor would derive greater security than he obtained at present. Besides enabling a person lending money to obtain a share of profits, the Bill proposed to allow a widow or child of a deceased partner to receive a share of profits without becoming a partner, which they could not do at present without rendering themselves liable to the debts of the concern. It would also enable a trader to give a clerk or servant a share of profits as a part of or in addition to a salary without making him a partner. This would operate as an addi-

    117
    tional inducement to the clerk or servant to exert himself in the successful prosecution of the business. These propositions constituted a measure which he believed would be found most useful to many honest and struggling traders, and to the public at large, and one which he trusted their Lordships would not refuse to pass.
    Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
    LORD ST. LEONARDSconsidered this the most important law in reference to the law of debtor and creditor that had ever been presented to their Lordships for consideration. The principles which regulated the obligations of partnership were well known. It was a perfectly established doctrine that if a man took the profits of business he must be content to take the losses too. This law had led to the flourishing state of the country. If a man entered into trade he did so with a view to profit. He gave to that trade the whole energy of his mind, his time, thoughts, and genius. It was on this foundation, the individual exertion of every man, that the prosperity of the country rested. But by this Bill the capitalist, instead of going into business and taking upon himself its cares and labours, would skulk behind some one else and escape all liability while receiving the return for his capital from the gains of the business. His noble Friend said that that measure was a sort of set off to limited liability; but limited liability was a dangerous thing, which had already much altered the character of trading in this country. It was greatly to be desired that the Government would take a comprehensive and statesmanlike view of the whole matter, and consider the general operations of all these limited companies, instead of asking their Lordships to deal with these measures piecemeal and one by one. Mortgage debentures would be floated in millions by these companies, and was it to be supposed that Exchequer Bills could hold their ground against them? It would be most mischievous to encourage partnerships in which men with a certain capital could sweep away the lion's share of the profits without incurring any risk or performing any labour. Wholesale traders took great pains to ascertain the solvency of retail traders, but a man's name might be over his shop door with nothing to indicate that he was not the master, whilst in fact a large portion of the profit might belong, under a private arrangement, to some other
    118
    person. On the other hand, the shopkeeper himself, when he calculated his savings, would feel deeply his having to account to his sleeping partner for a large portion of them. These loans stood upon a different footing. They, to be effective to the lender, could not be concealed, and the borrower is still the master of his own trade. If an excessive rate of interest were taken, it would probably in the end lead to the ruin of both lender and borrower. By this Bill, if a man sold his business and reserved to himself the profits of half, he would not share half the liability, as he ought in fairness to do, but would escape altogether; while, on the other hand, if he retained the whole business in his own hands, he would be liable for the whole of the risks of the concern. That was something so monstrous that the very statement of it ought to make their Lordships hesitate in assenting to the second reading of that measure. A more dangerous blow could not be struck at the trading credit of the country than would be inflicted by such a Bill.
    LORD CRANWORTHsaid, the Bill simply enabled a person to borrow from another a certain sum of money on certain conditions. Who did the present law protect—the lender or the borrower? Not the borrower, for at present one man might borrow and another lend a sum of money at an interest of 5, 10, or 15 per cent, or on any other terms that might be agreed between them. The noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord St. Leonards) seemed to think, however, that this measure would operate hardly on the creditor; but the creditor's remedy would not really be affected by it; it would remain as it was before. If the creditor recovered a judgment against the partnership he could take the partnership assets. Unless this Bill, or a Bill of a similar description, were passed, a very grievous injury would be inflicted on private traders, who had to compete with companies now having the benefit of limited liability.
    LORD WENSLEYDALEwas understood to say he had no objection to the principle of the Bill provided certain alterations were made in some of its clauses. His proposed Amendments would have destroyed the Bill.
    THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he should be sorry if the able arguments of his noble and learned Friend, which, in common with the majority of the House, he had not had the good fortune to hear

    119
    with sufficient distinctness, induced any of their Lordships to vote against the second reading of this Bill, which had been introduced for the purpose of freeing the law of partnership from an anomaly founded upon an erroneous decision pronounced many years ago, and which had led to the most mischievous consequences. It was a principle of almost every system of jurisprudence that partnership depended on the conduct and intention of the parties, and that where there was a contract and agreement between the parties the law should declare the existence of a partnership, but that where there was no such contract and agreement the law should not force a partnership upon parties. There was one exception—where the parties had held themselves out to the public to be partners, the law held them to be partners, whether they had contracted to be so or not. But the principle of the law of England, as construed by a decision given nearly 100 years ago, went to the extent of declaring that in any case where individuals shared the profits of an undertaking they should be partners in the eye of the law, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary which they might have entered into among themselves. This was in consequence of an imported contract under which a person receiving in any form any portion of the profits was held to be liable to his last shilling. Such was the extraordinary rule of law to which the patience of the English people had submitted so long, solely from reverence for what was hallowed by ancient precedent. That principle was a most unjust one, and it was repugnant to the principles of English law. It had, however, taken its rise from the natural tendency of our courts to give validity to a contract if they could possibly do so. A case came before Lord Mansfield in which he found he could not do so in consequence of the very large rate of interest which would have rendered the contract void under the then existing usury laws. In order, therefore, to uphold the agreement between the parties, Lord Mansfield ruled that it should be upheld as a partnership. By general consent the usury laws, the parent of the principle of partnership against which this Bill was directed, had been done away, and it was time now to get rid of their mischievous off-spring. In other cases the law of England had taken great care to prevent fraud. If a man handed over money or goods to a trader, that money or those goods were
    120
    liable to the trader's creditor; but that was a very different thing from making a man liable to not only the full amount which he had lent to a trader, but to the last farthing which he possessed in the world. Under the ruling of Lord Mansfield, acted on by the Judges, the law invented a contract which did not exist, and then made the parties to that supposed contract liable for the fulfilment of engagements which they had never intended to undertake. The ratio decidendi was expressed in a judgment given in 1784: it was in the case of "Grace V. Smith." The Lord Chief Justice said the only question was what constituted a secret partnership: every man who had a share of the profits of trade ought to bear his share of the loss, and if any one took a part of the profits he took a part of the fund on which the creditor trader relied for payment. Now, in the present day, the absurdity of this was obvious to a child in a national school, for he would know enough political economy to understand that the profit or loss was realized after the creditors had been paid. Nor could fraud arise; the law of England had taken care to prevent fraud. If one man handed over his money or his goods by way of loan to a trader, so that he had the visible possession of the money or the goods, the creditor of the trader had a right to seize the goods or money so handed over. But to show the erroneous principles to which the present state of the law gave rise he would read part of a judgment of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Wensleydale) in which he laid down that the person who shared the gross profits was not a partner; and the person who shared the net profits was a partner. Such was the offspring of the old erroneous principle which was about to be swept away. If this distinction was read to any City man, he would toss up his head, and ask what was the difference between gross profits and net profits. But there was another absurdity. Now, where was the difference between the two cases? Again, if a person in trade said to his clerk "I shall give you £500, which you shall take out of the profits," the clerk at once became a partner; but if the employer said to him "I shall give you £500 a year if I make £1,000," not adding words stating that the £500 was to come out of profits, the clerk was not a partner. Such were the artifices which lawyers were obliged to make use of in order to apply this principle of partnership. They were obliged

    121
    to go round and traverse and make use of subtle distinctions, which brought the law into contempt, because it put it at variance with the common sense of mankind. Trade contracts ought not to depend on subtle distinctions, or what was called "Judge-made law," but on the wholesome and well-established principles of the law of England. The object of this Bill was to remove an objectionable exception. It was a Bill of great importance to the community, for, if there were one principle better established in reason and common sense than another, it was that trade should be free; that mercantile contracts should be free; that those contracts, as far as they possibly could be, should be construed in accordance with the intentions of the parties; that they should be upheld by law, and take effect just as they had been intended to take effect. The principle which this Bill would put an end to had a very injurious operation as regarded encouragement to industry and talent. A man might be willing to encourage industry or talent by an advance of £1,000 or £5,000 towards a doubtful enterprize; but he was unable to do so because of the frightful consequences of those decisions staring him in the face. He thought it was time to declare that the law of partnership should be of a more liberal character and more in accordance with the English law generally. It had been the policy of our laws to make trade in land free, because it had been determined that property should not be locked up for longer than a particular time. The general policy of our law was in accordance with the principles of political economy, but the partnership law as it existed in virtue of judicial decisions was an exception. He trusted that their Lordships would give their countenance to a Bill which was wise and prudent in its design, and which would be of great advantage to the mercantile and commercial interests of the country. He believed that many of the social difficulties which now existed between employers and employed would probably be removed by the operation of this Bill. There were many classes of intelligent workmen whom wise employers would desire to bind to a concern by giving them an interest in its welfare, and making their remuneration depend on its success. That could not now be done, but if this Bill were passed, it would be possible to establish such a binding tie as this between employers and employed. If that were the result of the measure, he
    122
    was sure that their Lordships would agree that a more beneficial and wholesome measure could not be introduced into Parliament.
    Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY—PETITION.
  LORD BROUGHAM presented a petition from the Anti-Slavery Society and said, that the Aberdeen Act had proved most offensive to the Government and the people of Brazil, and had prevented all the steps taken by the friends of the emancipation of slaves; that it had been most reluctantly passed in 1845 by the Lords who felt its extreme rigour; and that it was only agreed to by their Lordships on occount of the necessity of strong measures to suppress the slave trade. But that Lord Aberdeen had, both in Parliament, and in a written and formal communication to the Brazilian Government, pledged himself that it should be repealed if either the slave trade was extinguished, or the Brazil Government renewed the Treaty of 1826. Now the slave trade had entirely ceased and after thirteen years experience there was not the least chance of its being renewed. All the authorities were against it, the Emperor himself most decidedly for its extinction, and all his Ministers as well as the people generally, as the results of the election proved. Therefore the pledge given ought to be redeemed by the repeal of this Act which seriously affected all the efforts by the Society and others in obtaining Negro Emancipation, and was most hurtful to the great and valuable trade of this country and Brazil. The petition was, by the Rules of the House, only received as that of the persons signing it—these were headed by the highly respectable President of the Society, Mr. S. Gurney, on behalf of the Committee.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.