THE EARL OF CARDIGAN feared that | Earl had taken an erroneous view of Sir William's memorandum : it was too much the practice to lock both doors. THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE thought 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 1; to be printed. (No. 149.) HER ROYAL HIGHNESS THE PRINCESS MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS TO HER MAJESTY. "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 CHELMSFORD said, 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 "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 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 were 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." be sent with an answer to the King's letter, and, 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 and other Europeans are still in custody | servants are as safe under the protection under the circumstances which have been of England now as ever they 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 wouud, 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 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.) of LORD KINNAIRD said, that though he did not intend to oppose the progress 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 CLANRICARDE said, 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 GRANVILLE thought 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 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 REDESDALE said, 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 DONOUGHMORE said, 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 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 RIPON understood 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 REDESDALE said, he thought it was a very inconvenient course to propose Amendments on the third reading of a Bill. EARL GREY said, 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 CHELMSFORD said, he thought they were perfectly qualified to consider the proposed Amendment. LORD REDESDALE said, 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. Clause 5 (Justices of the Peace to grant Licences). EARL GRANVILLE moved that the clause be omitted from the Bill. THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE refused to assent to the Amendment. If it were struck out now, he should move to re-insert it on the Report. THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE said, 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 GREY said, that the House should not pass the Bill hastily through Clause negatived. Committee; they should consider the mea-, should move its re-insertion on a future sure carefully, and make any Amendments occasion. 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 MALMESBURY thought 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 CHELMSFORD said, 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. Other clauses agreed to. to be received on Tuesday next, and Bill Amendments made; the Report thereof to be printed as amended. (No. 151.) 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 render THE EARL OF MALMESBURY said, that the reason why the police objected to ex-ing themselves liable to the law of partnerercise the power might be that their work would be increased by the opening of public-houses. ship. 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 LORD CHELMSFORD said, that by the Act of last year the police were authorized to grant licences for the opening of public-engagements of the trader if he became 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 RIPON said, 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 CLANRICARDE said, 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 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 tional inducement to the clerk or servant | person. On the other hand, the shopto exert himself in the successful prosecu- keeper himself, when he calculated his tion of the business. These propositions savings, would feel deeply his having to constituted a measure which he believed account to his sleeping partner for a would be found most useful to many honest large portion of them. These loans and struggling traders, and to the public stood upon a different footing. They, to at large, and one which he trusted their be effective to the lender, could not be Lordships would not refuse to pass. concealed, and the borrower is still the master of his own trade. If an excessive Moved, That the Bill be now read 2. rate of interest were taken, it would pro-(Lord Stanley of Alderley.) LORD ST. LEONARDS considered 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 bably 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 CRANWORTH said, 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 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 WENSLEYDALE was 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 CHANCELLOR said, 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 |