Academy of Music an opportunity of displaying before
the public the acquirements which they had gained
under the patronage of the crown. He believed the bill
was objected to on the ground that it involved the
principle of limited liability. No doubt that was the case.
It was not to he expected that gentlemen of fortune
would risk their property to an unlimited extent for
a public purpose. This was not a mere trading
speculation; it was a gratuitous combination of gentlemen to
promote a public object; and they had a right to say
that their liability must be limited within certain bounds.
A precedent for this principle was to be found in the
case of the Drury-lane Act, 52 Geo. III., c. 119, which
was passed shortly after Drury-lane Theatre was
destroyed by fire. He admitted that the promoters sought
in the first instance to obtain their object by other
means. They went to the late President of the Board
of Trade to ask for a charter, and their request was
refused; and he believed they now came to the house
in opposition to that right hon. gentleman's opinion. It
was for the house to say whether they would refuse to
make a concession which had been made in favour of the
Electric Telegraph Company and the Crystal Palace
Company. He would detain the house with only one
more observation. The Academy of Music acted under
a charter, and he did not understand on what
principle peculiar privileges could be granted to a school
which was to foster and train up the rising generation in
the musical and dramatic art, while they refused to those
who had been so trained an opportunity of displaying
their talents. He entreated the house to read the
bill a second time and refer its details to a committee—
Mr. HUME objected to the second reading on the ground
that the principle of limited liability, whether right or
wrong, had been referred by the government to a
commission; and it appeared to him that this was a bill
which ought not to be passed pending the inquiry. He
should certainly oppose its further progress under the
circumstances.—Mr. M. MILNES said the answer to the
hon. gentleman's objection was, that this was not a
trading bill, and that the question of limited liability, as
affecting credit, had here no application.—Mr. CLAY
opposed the bill, and affirmed that it was for a mere
trading speculation.—Admiral PECHELL hoped the
house would have the opinion of the President of the
Board of Trade on the question, as it involved the interests
of hundreds of persons.—Mr. CARDWELL said he
felt it his duty to say a few words in answer to the
appeal which had been made to him. This subject came
before the member for Oxford (Mr. Henley), when he
presided over the business of the Board of Trade. He
refused the application made to him for a charter of
limited liability, being governed, as he understood, both
by precedent and by principle. When the case was
brought before himself he thought it no disrespect to
the right honourable gentleman's decision to have an
interview with Mr. Lumley, which lasted nearly an
hour, and at its close, he did not entertain the shadow
of a doubt that the right hon. gentleman's view was
correct. It was said that this was not a trading
concern. He only hoped that the creditors of the concern
might see no reason hereafter to view it as a trading
concern; but he could not help reminding the house
that one of the chief grounds on which the bill was
asked for was, that no private fortune was adequate to
meet the expenses. He had been very much pressed
with the consideration of the great respectability of the
parties who asked for a charter. No one could doubt
that they were persons of the highest standing; but the
law of this country acknowledged no difference between
one subject and another; and he asked the house to
remember that if they passed this bill, it would be impossible
to refuse similar applications from persons who had
different objects. He thought he was doing no injustice
by saying that the one object of this bill was to obtain
limited liability, which the ordinary provisions of the
Joint Stock Companies Act did not give. The question
was one, therefore, not of detail, but of principle; and
it was for the house to consider whether it would set up
the principle of limited liability in this particular case.
He maintained that the bill was contrary to precedent,
and ought not to be sanctioned. Two years' investigation
of the subject before a committee of the House of
Commons had resulted in a recommendation that a
commission of inquiry should be appointed by the crown.
The crown was going to appoint a commission, and he
hoped that it would lead to a settlement of the question,
what were the cases in which limited liability should be
given, if indeed it were ever conceded. Under these
circumstances he did not think the bill ought to pass;
and, inasmuch as the second reading involved the
question which would have to be decided by the commission
—namely, whether there should be limited liability or
not, he should vote against it.—On a division, the second
reading was negatived by 170 against 70; and thus the
bill was lost.

Mr. SPOONER moved for a committee of the whole
house to Consider the Act relating to Maynooth College;
maintaining that when the act was passed, its supporters
were unaware of the evil effects which would result from
the system of education, and the spread of those
principles which a Protestant country was thus made to
support. He contended also that the act could not be
maintained without a violation of the Parliamentary
oath, the terms of which the hon. member cited with a
vehemence highly amusing to the house. He warned
them how far they encouraged the increase of the priest
party in Ireland, who, as had been sufficiently indicated
at the recent elections, were only seeking to rid the
country altogether of the incubus of the Protestant
church. He read a variety of reports of speeches from
Irish journals in support of his case, affording, as he
believed, a convincing proof that the object of the endowment
of Maynooth College had altogether failed. He
examined the religious laws by which Catholics are
governed, and declared them to be incompatible with
allegiance to the throne or the constitution. A catholic
was incapable of being a good subject, incapable of
toleration, which was only a treacherous sign; and any
concession made towards him was made at the peril of the
country.—Mr J. MACGREGOR seconded the motion, but
suggested that instead of a committee of the whole house,
a select committee should be appointed to consider the
subject. He was in favour of civil and religious liberty,
but the statements of Mr. Spooner were too important
not to be either established or disproved.—Mr. SCHOLEFIELD
moved an amendment to leave out all the words
after the word "consider," and to substitute the words,
"all enactments now in force whereby the revenue of
the country is charged in aid of any ecclesiastical or
religious purposes whatsoever, with a view to a repeal of
such enactments." There were a variety of enactments
of a similar nature to the Maynooth grant, and equally
vicious in principle, and his object was to sweep them
away altogether. Still, if his amendment was not
adopted, he should vote against the resolution; for, if a
reform was to be made, it should begin with the more
powerful religious body charged upon the state. His
object in proposing the amendment was to remove the
question from a narrow and sectarian ground to the
broad basis of religious liberty.—Sir W. CLAY seconded
the amendment. The corner-stone of our faith was the
right of private judgment, which right was incompatible
with the endowment of any particular religion by the
state. The time was coming when it would be necessary
to revise our entire religious system, and in Ireland he
was not quite clear that the time had not arrived. In
the event of the amendment being rejected, he would
follow the course of Mr. Scholefield.—Mr. F. GREVILLE
defended the endowment and opposed the motion.—Mr.
MIALL spoke generally in favour of religious liberty.—
Mr. BALL supported the motion.—Mr. DUFFY examined
the sources of Mr. Spooner's evidence, which he did not
consider to be accredited. He had never seen the alleged
facts in the journals from which they were said to have
been quoted, and at best the journals themselves were
of no influence, and entitled to very little consideration.
He had seen the statements in question—together with
a great many others of a similar character—in a work
(from which he quoted) written by Sir Francis Head—
an octavo volume, the result of a fortnight's observation
and reflection in Ireland. He disbelieved the statements
that had been made, and on general grounds claimed
religious equality for Ireland.—Sir J. YOUNG defended
the policy of the grant, as tending to diminish differences
between the two great religious classes in Ireland.