these verdicts are returned, and not be convinced that such is their origin. We have given these instances of amendments in the law which an absolute government may effect with peculiar facility. They are of the greatest importance, and would remove two of the greatest blots in the judicial system of our neighbours. That there are others is undeniable, and some for the removal of which the general feeling both of the profession and of the community would entirely concur with the opinions of more speculative jurisconsults. Among these the security of all persons against unjust arrest and prosecution by such an alteration of the law respecting bail (caution) has been more than once dwelt upon in this Journal; and the present Government could certainly not do a more popular thing than introduceing such an amendment of the Criminal Jurisprudence, attended as it would be by no sacrifice whatever of its own prerogatives. There are other improvements in the law that fall within the former description, of changes which an absolute government can make more easily than one controlled by popular assemblies; but unhappily the most important of all is one likely to find little favour with rulers who rely upon the destruction of all intermediate authorities between the multitude and themselves. We refer to the great vice in the French system, the source of all the instability of the monarchy and the bane of agriculture, we might add the main obstruction to general improvement — the law which ordains of necessity the infinite subdivision of property. It is almost as great a cause of embarrassment in the judicial as in the economical and political system. Unhappily the feeling in its favour is deeply rooted and universal; and as they who govern by setting the mass of the ignorant and the poor on one side, and the respectable classes on the other, are little likely to increase the influence of the latter, we are fated to see an arrangement perpetuated under which the gross absurdity exists, and in districts almost within sight of the capital, of a single tree held in property by fifty persons, each of whom is owner of an undivided fiftieth part. But if that which forms the great obstacle to agricultural improvement is carefully neglected, not so the means of certain mercantile operations; the greatest encouragement - has been given to speculations in the money market. Never since the time of Law has such gambling in shares been known. Fortunes have been realised in the course of a few months almost equal to those which the Mississippi scheme created and destroyed in as many weeks or days. In the midst of all this, comes a decree on which the greatest store was set, and which was passed even by the subservient senate with some difficulty, giving the head of the state an absolute power of making treaties and tariffs, of course without the least notice to the public. But those at the head of affairs are also, of course, in the secret; and can conduct their operations in the market with an advantage which needs only be mentioned generally to be fully comprehended. Let us hope that the thirst of gain which is supposed to prevail among the military authorities near the head of affairs, may be slaked rather in the interior of the country, and at the moderate expense of its inhabitants, than at the far more ruinous cost to them and to all nations of external operations. This is the great alarm which now possesses men's minds, not indeed in France, but in all other countries. Thankful for having escaped from the nearer dangers of anarchy, the French have not yet had time to reflect on the risks they run of being once more led by the ambition and the avarice of a few men to disturb the peace; and pay for military glory by the ruin of their trade, the desolation of their fields, and the final invasion of their country. Anxious for peace themselves, they willingly shut their eyes to the danger that threatens them; and eagerly catch at verbal assurances dealt out just when and where they are profitable to the dealer, while they shut their eyes to all the acts which are done in the very opposite direction. It is even said that while writings which recommend in the most undisguised manner a policy of aggression, are disavowed by authority,―an authority armed with the power of preventing any such from seeing the light, these very publications are distributed in places the resort of the soldiery. We cannot believe this; we think the trick too clumsy to be tried. But that such writings are suffered; that language of the same kind is endured among those having access to the head of the State, that on the late occasion of his progress it was if not encouraged yet certainly never checked, is undeniable; and the utmost that can be urged in extenuation of this double dealing, is the necessity of giving a vent to the bad feelings prevailing in certain quarters. We do not stop to remark that giving vent is also giving encouragement; but we regard with unmixed satisfaction the two important facts, that the other powers of Europe, fully warned of their peril, are well prepared for their defence, and that they are resolved to unite as one man in resenting and in punishing any aggression in any quarter. This satisfaction must be shared by the French themselves, because their best security against the calamities of war is the conviction of their rulers that it would be fatal to them. ART. VIII.-LIMITED LIABILITY IN PARTNERSHIP, 1. Report on the Law of Partnership, to the President of the Board of Trade. Ordered to be printed March, 1838. 2. Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the Law of Partnership, together with the Proceedings of the Committee, Minutes of Evidence, Appendix, &c. Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed July 8. 1851. 3. Replies from Foreign Countries to Questions relating to the Law of Debtor and Creditor, and to the Law of Partnership. Circulated by the Committee of Merchants and Traders of the City of London, appointed to promote the Improvement of the Law relating to Debtor and Creditor. W. Clowes & Sons, 1851. 4. An Inquiry as to the Policy of Limited Liability in Partnership. By HENRY COLLES, Barrister-at-Law. Published by the Social Inquiry Society of Ireland. James M'Glashan, Dublin, 1852. 5. A Letter to the Right Honourable Henry Labouchere, M. P., on the Formation of Companies and Partnerships, and limiting the Liability of their Members. By JOHN NEWALL, Parliamentary Agent and Solicitor. Vacher & Sons, Westminster, 1852. FEW subjects of late years have more attracted (and deservedly so) the attention of Law Reformers than the existing state of the Law of Partnership; hence the Parliamentary Inquiries and other Reports, at the head of this paper. With regard to the administration of the law of partnership generally, it is to be hoped that the recent changes in the Courts of Chancery and Common Law will have a beneficial effect, by enabling them to decide with greater facility, especially in matters of accounts, any disputes which may arise between partners. But neither the Court of Chancery nor the Courts of Common Law as at the present constituted, are fitting tribunals for the determination of mercantile questions. Not only is the mode of administering mercantile law faulty, but the principles upon which the Courts proceed demand a careful revision, so as to render them, what all laws ought to be, suited to the convenience of that important class of the community whose transactions are regulated by them. The Select Committee on the Law of Partnership (1851), after recommending a greater facility in granting Charters, under rules published and enforced by proper authorities also, recommends "the appointment of a Commission, of adequate. legal and commercial knowledge, to consider and prepare, not only a consolidation of the existing laws, but also to suggest such changes in the law as the altered condition of the country may require, especial attention being paid to the establishment of improved tribunals to decide claims by and against partners, in all partnership disputes; and also to the important and much controverted question of limited liability of partners." (Report of Select Committee, p. viii.) scope With regard to this recommendation of the Committee it is to be hoped that any such Commission will have a wider for their inquiries, and that instead of being confined to the state of the Law of Partnership, it will be extended to the whole system of our commercial law, and not merely to that of England, but also to that of other parts of the United Kingdom, viz. Ireland and Scotland; so that their labours might furnish the basis of what the great majority of the mercantile men of the United Kingdom so much desire, the assimilation of the mercantile laws of England, Ireland, and Scotland, and their reduction to a well considered and uniform Code, of which an improved mode of procedure would form by no means the least important part. It will be observed that the Select Committee call the especial attention of the proposed Commission "to the important and much controverted question of limited and unlimited liability of partners." Whether, in fact the partnership known in France as société en commandite,—in which the liability of some of the partners called commanditaires is limited to the amount of their capital,-should not be introduced into this country. They recommend, what is in effect equivalent to the adoption of the partnership en commandite, viz. "that power be given to lend money for periods not less than twelve months, at a rate of interest varying with the rate of profits in the business in which such money may be employed, the claim for repayment of such loans being postponed to that of all other creditors: that, in such case, the lender should not be liable beyond the sum advanced; and that proper and adequate regulations be laid down to prevent fraud." As far as experience goes partnerships en commandite (and they have now stood the test of centuries) appear to have been productive of much good. They were in existence as far back as the middle ages in Italy, and were applicable both to mercantile transactions by sea or land, and even to agriculture. They appear to have given great impulse to, if not mainly to have sustained, the great commercial prosperity of the Italian republics of that period. They seem to have owed their origin to the prohibition of trading to nobles and to the loan of money by any person at interest, then stigmatised under the name of usury. It was not however considered usurious to receive, as a partner, a share of the profits, in proportion to the capital advanced to a merchant on any undertaking, nor, as commanditaires were unknown to the world, was it considered beneath the dignity of a noble to become one. The ingenious idea, of making the lender of capital liable to the losses to the extent only of his contribution, encouraged the direction of capital towards that kind of investment: it was found convenient to draw profit from money without engaging in personal responsibility. Capital, stricken with sterility by the prohibitions of the Church, found then in |