rudiments of the religion of the Church of England.—
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the proposition had come
somewhat suddenly upon the house, but he deemed it
necessary that some decision should be come to, in
pursuance of the clause which had been carried on Thursday.
It had been the opinion of government that the
questions of Oxford reform and of the admission of the
dissenters should be kept separate, but the house had
come to a different decision. As regarded the merits of
the question, he had never doubted that the university
ought to be opened to the dissenters, and he thought
the measure would be incomplete if those who ran the
race were excluded from the prize. He regretted that
the clause had, upon Thursday, been put in a form
which it would have been inconsistent in the government
to support, but it was now placed before them in a new
shape. A person could, he considered, from examination
of the statutes, be a bachelor of arts without taking part
in the government of the university, and it might be a
subsequent question whether further honours might not
be thrown open to dissenters and Roman Catholics. He
hoped that Mr. Walpole would be able to assent to the
clause; but if he should complain that he had not had
time to consider it, the government would not oppose a
motion for adjourning the question.—Sir J. PAKINGTON
protested, as a question of parliamentary practice, against
now assenting to a proposition which had been before
them not a quarter of an hour.—Mr. H. DRUMMOND
said that the alteration in the system of admission to the
university had been rendered necessary, not by that
institution, which had remained the same, but by the
alteration in society. He defended the system of classical
teaching, and after expressing his belief that dissenters
would take advantage of the change, he regretted that
Roman Catholics would not, adding divers sarcasms
against them, and the declaration that no Roman Catholic
layman ever attained celebrity except in despite of
his priests.—Mr. NAPIER objected to parliamentary
interference in the question, but wished the power of
admission of dissenters to be given to the university
authorities.—Sir E. PERRY supported the clause.—The
SPEAKER then announced that notice ought to have
been given of the clause in its altered form. Further
proceedings were then adjourned until Thursday.

On Tuesday, June 27th, Mr. COLLIER brought
forward the subject of Limited Liability in Partnership.
He moved a resolution, "That the law of partnership,
which renders every person who, though not an
ostensible partner, shares the profits of a trading concern,
liable to the whole of its debts, is unsatisfactory, and
should be so far modified as to permit persons to contribute
to the capital of such concerns on terms of sharing
their profits, without incurring liability beyond a limited
amount." The subject, he observed, was one of
considerable importance, and he was anxious it should not
be misunderstood, that, because it was taken up by a
lawyer, it was a mere technical question. Briefly
explaining the law of partnership in this country—
which, although it did not absolutely prohibit limited
liability, did so practically unless sanctioned by parliament
or granted by charter from the crown,—he
observed that the law was peculiar to this country; it
was at variance with the civil law, and was not the law
of foreign countries, where the commandité principle,
which had extended to the United States, was adopted.
After referring to the commission of inquiry into the
subject, the members of which were divided in opinion,
and premising that the burden of proof in such a question
did not lie upon him, but upon those who maintained
the necessity of restrictions, he proceeded to show
the advantages which would attend an alteration of the
law, and to obviate objections grounded upon the
supposition that limited liability would be injurious to
society. He denied that it could prejudice the partners
themselves, or the directors of the undertaking, or the
public, and he argued against another objection, that it
would damage the commercial credit of the country.
He had great faith he said, in the principle of unrestricted
competition, the benefits of which had been not
only demonstrated by argument, but verified by
experience.—The motion was seconded by Lord GODERICH.
—Mr. CARDWELL acknowledged that the subject
was exciting the greatest interest in the country, and
that upon free-trade grounds there ought to be no objection
to an alteration of the law. The general presumption
of the law, he observed, was, that when persons
engaged in partnership, each had power to bind the
others in commercial transactions; but they might enter
into arrangements to regulate their mutual liability as
they pleased, and limit their liability by contract with
other persons; but our law had not established by legal
enactment the commandité principle of other nations, by
which under certain conditions, which varied in different
countries, the presumption of general liability was
limited. The question was, whether such an alteration
of our law would operate to the good of the community?
and upon this important question authorities were very
much divided, as well as in regard to the securities
requisite in order to protect the public; and all these
difficult questions, he insisted, should be solved before
the house came to a decision upon the subject. The
commissioners of inquiry confessed their embarrassment
arising from the conflict of opinions among witnesses of
the highest character, and six out of the eight members
of the commission were in favour of the existing law.
These were reasons, he thought, for not coming to a
hasty decision; but the whole of this difficult subject
would be taken into consideration by the government,
with the view of embodying the result in a bill.—
Mr. LUCAS moved, by way of amendment, to add
a rider to the motion, to the effect that such a modification
of the law was especially necessary to Ireland,
arguing that the admissions of witnesses hostile to the
principle of limited liability were favourable to its
adoption in that part of the united kingdom, where the
want of simple alterations of the law of partnership
prevented industrious persons from being as industrious
as they would be.—Mr. COBDEN observed that the
spirit of the law of England and of Ireland was in
favour of limited liability, but, in its operation, the law,
by requiring that every transaction with the community
should be accompanied by a notice of the limitation,
practically prevented the working of that spirit. Would
it not be better that there should be one general place of
registry, where the liabilities of partnerships and the
degrees of liability should be specified? The effect of
the alteration of the law would be to promote the
formation of business concerns, giving an opportunity
to men to rise in the world; and this was one of his
strongest reasons for advocating the change. He did
not understand the ground upon which the result of
experiments in other countries was undervalued; if
there was truth in a principle, it was applicable to all
countries and all times. In legislating upon this question,
he thought the opinions of capitalists ought not to
be exclusively looked to, since they were very likely to
be unconsciously warped by feelings of self-interest, and
yet to legislate in a manner inimical to their interests,
which could not be otherwise than benefited by a
change of the law which extended the employment of
capital.—Mr. MALINS supported the motion, having
had, he said, much experience of the great mischief
arising out of the present state of the law, the
legislature inconsistently granting to railways and other
large concerns what is denied to smaller undertakings.
—Mr. GLYN, who had been a member of the committee
of 1851, admitted that the law of liability was in
an unsatisfactory state, and required material amendment,
yet he was convinced, by all the evidence he had
seen, that although it was desirable that some change
should take place, the house was not in a situation to
know what it should be. The report of the commissioners
had not noticed, nor had Mr. Cobden, an important
difficulty, namely how to prevent the frauds which,
under a system of registration and limited liability,
would inevitably occur.—The motion was supported by
Mr. J. Phillimore, Mr. Gower, and Mr. D. Seymour.
—Mr. W. BROWN, on the other hand, thought it would
be injurious to the interests of this country to adopt, in
the present state of information upon the subject, the
principle of limited liability.—Mr. SOTHERON, though
favourable to the object of the motion, thought an
abstract resolution would do rather harm than good.—
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL recommended Mr. Collier
not to press his motion to a division. He admitted
that he was a decided friend to the proposition; but