public-houses should he kept open, combining this, on
the other hand, with a due regard to the comfort and
convenience of the working-classes. He had thought at
the time with Mr. Patten, that the licensed-victuallers
were prepared to agree to the restrictions contained in
the act. With regard to its operation, from all the
information he had received, he had arrived at a different
conclusion from Mr. Berkeley, believing that the act had
been very beneficial. The evils and inconveniences
complained of—and he believed the complaints against
the act did not come from the people—were not all
chargeable upon this act; limitations had existed
previously.—Several members having expressed themselves
in favour of inquiry, the motion was agreed to.

General WYNDHAM moved a resolution that the
Duties on Stage-Coaches should be Modified, on the
ground that those duties, by discouraging posting, had
diminished the supply of useful and seasoned horses
suitable for the army.—Sir J. SHELLEY seconded the
motion, and complained that while railways were taxed
according to their earnings, omnibuses and stage-coaches
were taxed per mile, whether they had passengers or
not.—Lord R. GROSVENOR asked why the duty had
been reduced from 11/2d. to 1d. a mile to the Manchester
omnibuses, while the London trade all paid the old 11/2d.?
—The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER admitted that
the duty pressed heavily upon the omnibus and stage-
coach trade, and said that on the first opportunity their
claims ought to meet with a favourable consideration,
but he deprecated the passing of an abstract resolution
on the subject.—Mr. DISRAELI said that was no answer
to the question why a favour had been granted to
Manchester which was denied to London and the rest of the
country. He thought all our taxes on horses were too
high.—The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER admitted
that a special concession had been made to Manchester,
on the ground that they had to compete with a railway.
—Mr. MILES said he understood the duty was also
reduced in the case of Messrs. Chaplin and Horne, in the
metropolis.—Lord PALMERSTON admitted that the duty,
with these anomalous modifications, could not be
defended; and the motion was agreed to amid general
cheering.

On Wednesday, June 27, the Marquis of BLANDFORD
moved the second reading of the Formation of Parishes
Bill; but, after some conversation, consented to
withdraw the bill.

The adjourned debate on the Maynooth Grant was
resumed. After the grant haa been supported by Mr.
MAGUIRE and opposed by Mr. O'BRIEN, the debate was
again adjourned.

On Thursday, June 28, in committee on the Tenants'
Improvements Compensation Bill, Lord SEYMOUR said,
looking at the number of amendments of this bill of
which notice had been given, it was evidently impossible
that a satisfactory result could be arrived at this session;
and, considering the backward state of the public
business, he moved that the chairman leave the chair,
so that he might move that the order for the further
proceeding with this bill be discharged.—Lord
PALMERSTON submitted that, if there was matter in the
bill which required a good deal of discussion, the better
way was to set about discussing it, instead of wasting
time by discussing whether it should be discussed or
not.—Lord SEYMOUR offered to withdraw his motion,
but, this being opposed, a division took place, which
negatived the motion by 97 to 75.—The committee then
proceeded to consider the clauses of the bill, commencing
with the 5th. On reaching the 11th clause, the chairman
reported progress.

On Friday, June 29, Sir J. WALSH asked Lord J.
Russell if it were true, as stated in the circular published
by Count Buol, that Lord John Russell and the French
Ambassador agreed to the Last Settlement of the Third
Point proposed by Austria.—Lord J. RUSSELL said, as
far as he could judge, all the statements put forth by
Count Buol were correct.

Mr. BOUVERIE moved the second reading of the
Partnership Amendment Bill. After some remarks on
the importance of this subject he proposed, he said, to
explain this bill and the Limited Liability Bill together,
because the two bills related to different branches of
the same question. The one bill had reference to
private partnerships, the other to joint-stock companies.
By law, the test of partnership was a share in the
profits, and there was no way whatever of one partner
repudiating the engagements of another. He was
bound by those acts to the full extent of his means.
This state of the law had given rise to general dissatisfaction,
and was condemned by a unanimous resolution
of the house in the last session of parliament. He dwelt
at some length upon the hardship of this state of the law,
particularly in the case of inventors, who, as a class,
were poor men, and whom this law prevented from
obtaining partners to carry out their schemes. In no
other country in the civilised world was the law in such
a state as in this. He described the nature and the
advantages of the laws of special partnership in France
and America, and said there was but one voice in these
countries in favour of the system. He proposed by his
bills to assimilate the English laws of partnership to
the laws of these countries. There was a general
objection, indeed, to any change in the law, and it was
said that all the advantages of the new system would be
met by parties lending their money at a fixed rate of
interest. Now he did not believe that system would
meet the difficulties of the ease at all; for, even if a
lender was willing to accept a high rate of interest,
which few prudent capitalists would be willing to do,
he was certain that no prudent borrower would accept
money on those terms. He therefore gave his deliberate
preference to the system of partnership en commandite.
He commented at some length on the partiality and
unfairness involved in these charters, which cast upon
the Board of Trade a power they had neither the
means nor the ability rightly to exercise. He then
proceeded to explain the provisions of the measure by
which he proposed to replace the present system. In the
case of private partnerships, he provided that where a
person lent money to a firm on condition of receiving
some advantage from the profits, that circumstance
should not constitute him a partner. With regard to
joint-stock companies—banks and insurance companies
excepted—all such companies with a capital of not less
than £20,000, in shares of not less than £25, might,
under certain restrictions, be constituted on the
principle of limited liability. One of these restrictions was
that the utmost publicity should be given to the fact
that the liability of the partners was limited. Such
were the principal provisions of the two measures he
now offered to the house.—Mr. COLLIER seconded
the motion, though he wished that the principle of
limited liability, should be extended to companies
of smaller capital, subscribed in smaller shares, than
was proposed in the bill. He would not, however,
press his objections, as he was anxious to have this
principle carried into practical effect during the
present session.—Mr. CARR GLYN deprecated hasty
legislation on this subject; and referred to the fact that
the subject had been repeatedly before the house, before
committees, and before royal commissions, all of which
reported that the measure was not yet ripe for practical
legislation. The example of France had been referred
to, but the committee of which he was a member felt
that there was no analogy between the two countries,
on account of the greater stringency of the bankrupt
laws in France. He had no objection to the bill for
joint-stock companies. He applied his observations
only to the law regarding private partnerships, which he
believed would open the door to all sorts of fraud. He
would support the second reading of the limited liability
bill.—Mr. MALINS warmly supported the bill, and saw
no reason why banks should be excluded from its
operation.Mr. CARDWELL said that not only was the
time rife for legislation on this subject, but in point
of fact they must legislate, for the old system of
entrusting the privilege of granting limited liability
to the Board of Trade had wellnigh broken down.
He hoped, therefore, that short as was the present
parliamentary session, there would still be time to
put these measures into such a shape as would
enable them to be passed into law. Of the two
measures, he thought the joint-stock company bill was
the most important. He pointed out that the law, even
in its present state, allows limited liability in its fullest
extent; what the law was deficient in was this, that