The adoption of the resolution had led to an improvement
in the mode of transacting business. He was
unable to express his opinion decidedly on the effect
which the proposed alteration would have, but he was
inclined to favour the principle of the measure. It
was clear that the bill had received a very imperfect
and a most hasty consideration in the other house of
parliament. The bill would greatly effect the commercial
honour of the country. The government might
think to redeem the character of the session and prove
that it had not been altogether an abortive one, but by
the course they were pursuing they would lose more than
they would gain.—The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said
that if the house adopted the course recommended by
Lord Grey they would do more to weaken the influence
of that house in the country than anything they had
done these many years. If ever there was a bill that
called for immediate and urgent consideration, it was
this; and he implored their lordships to sit to September,
if it were necessary, but not to throw aside this
important question on any pedantic formality.—Lord ST.
LEONARDS said that should the resolution moved be
carried, and should the bill be read a second time he
should propose that a week or ten days be given, in order
that those who were not in attendance might be in their
places to discuss the measure in committee. The law of the
country, as it at present stood, was not opposed to the
principle of limited liability, for any person or company
in their dealings might in their contracts limit the
amount of their liabilities. The persons possessing
this privilege were compelled, and wisely so, to submit
to numerous regulations to provide proper safeguards,
but none were provided by this bill, nor was the slightest
security afforded by it against the formation and
establishment of bubble companies of the worst possible
description. Government might carry the bill, but they
would not obtain for it the deliberate sanction of that
house.—The LORD CHANCELLOR said that nothing
was required by the resolution before their lordships
than that which was provided for in the standing
order itself, which allowed bills of urgency to pass.
He believed that their lordships would strike a very
dangerous blow at the constitution of the country,
if, by any stringent resolutions, they refused to discuss
measures of legislative importance.—Lord MONTEAGLE
thought that it would be in every respect better if they
were to repeal altogether the standing order, rather
than suspend it upon an occasion like the present. The
present bill had occupied the House of Commons from
May to August, and their lordships were now called
upon within a few days of the close of the session to
pass a measure which it had been considered necessary
to discuss at such length in another place. While under
discussion in the House of Commons, the bill had been
three times revised and reprinted; and he therefore
called upon the house not to consent to consider so
important a measure under circumstances which would
totally preclude them from giving to it that calm
consideration which it imperatively required.—The house
then divided, when there appeared, on the motion for
suspending the standing order—contents, 38; non-
contents, 14: majority for the motion, 24 The standing
order was then ordered to be dispensed with.—Lord
STANLEY of Alderley thereupon moved the second
reading of the bill. In doing so he stated that in the
opinion of her Majesty's government the time had come
when it was absolutely necessary that some measure of
this kind should pass, and called the attention of their
lordships to circumstances which had convinced him of
the absolute necessity of an alteration in the law with
respect to the grant of the privilege of limited liability.
He was convinced the house would best consult the
interests of the country if they did in this matter what
they had done in others, namely, unfetter all the existing
restrictions on the investment of capital, and leave it to
each individual to do with his money what he thought
would best conduce to his own interests. He trusted
their lordships would read the bill a second time,
believing it was one which was loudly called for by the
times in which we lived.—Earl GREY said his leanings
were in favour of this bill; but he objected simply to
their discussing at this time, and in the present state of
the house, a great change in our commercial law, to
which there was no opportunity at present of giving
anything like due care and deliberation.—Lord REDESDALE
said he was rather favourable to the principle of
the bill than otherwise, but he thought the measure had
not received in the other house of parliament that due
deliberation which it deserved, but very much the
reverse.—After some observations from Lord Wynford
and Lord Denman, the bill was read a second time.

The Sale of Beer Bill passed through committee, and
the Turkish Loan Bill was read a third time and
passed.

On Thursday, August 9, the house went into
committee on the Limited Liability Bill, when several
amendments of Earl Grey and Lord St. Leonards,
requiring that £10,000 should be the minimum capital, in
shares of not less than £25 each, and providing a reserve
fund of 20 per cent, as security for the creditors, were
negatived.—An amendment of Earl Grey's, fixing the
number of shareholders at not less than 25, and another
of the Lord Chancellor's, requiring the solvency of the
company to be ascertained and 20 per cent, paid up,
were agreed to.—Earl Grey proposed a new clause,
making the directors liable for the debts of the
company in the case of their making a dividend after the
company was insolvent.—Lord STANLEY objected to the
clause, which, however, was ultimately agreed to.—
Earl GREY then proposed another clause, providing
that no note or obligation given by a shareholder should
be considered as a payment on account of his share, and
that no loan should be made by the company to any
shareholder.—This clause was also agreed to.—Earl
Grey then proposed a clause prohibiting any company
from incurring debts beyond the amount of its capital,
and making the directors personally responsible for any
excess.—This clause was withdrawn.—Another clause,
moved by Earl Grey, rendering directors liable to
penalties for publishing false balance-sheets was
postponed till the report.—Clauses 8 and 9 were agreed to.
—On clause 10, Lord MONTEAGLE carried a proviso
that if three-fourths of the share capital should be lost,
the company should wind up its affairs.—The remaining
clauses were agreed to.—Earl GREY declared that the
measure was still crude and undigested, and that it
would remain for many years a standing memento of
the impolicy of pressing a measure forward at such a
late period of the session.

On Friday, August 10, on bringing up the report of
the Limited Liability Bill, the provisions underwent
another discussion.—Lord CAMPBELL urged upon the
government the propriety of re-considering their decision
on the previous night, and that they would fix a minimum
of capital in the bill.—Earl GRANVILLE declined to
agree to this suggestion.—Earl GREY reiterated his
former suggestion that an independent audit should be
established for all these companies.—After considerable
discussion, Earl GRANVILLE promised to consider the
question; and if it was thought desirable, he would
insert a provision to that effect on the third reading.—
The report was then received.

On Saturday, August 11, on the motion for the third
reading of the Limited Liability Bill, Lord LYTTELTON
entered a protest against its passing.—The Marquis of
LANSDOWNE said that although he had been uniformly
in favour of the bill, and it was improved by the
alterations that had been made in its progress through
that house, yet he did not share in the very sanguine
expectations that were entertained, with regard at least
to its immediate operation; but he had not the least
doubt that the ultimate effect of it would be beneficial.
It was in his own knowledge that many useful
undertakings of the most urgent nature, to some of which he
would have been a subscriber himself, had been kept in a
state of suspended animation from the want of a bill of this
kind, and that at a time when there existed a necessity
for carrying into action all the capital and resources of
the country. Lord REDESDALE said that his opposition
throughout was not directed to the principle of the
bill, but he desired to improve it and render it a working
measure.—After a few words from Lord CAMPBELL in
favour of the bill, and from Lord MONTEAGLE who
warned all classes against entering into reckless
speculations under its operation, Earl GRANVILLE said he
very much doubted if the bill would be improved had