The Press. — London, England, 1858-06-26 00:00:00

616 without their walls, they would not tolerate even a suspicion of corruption within them. The motion was seconded by Mr. DLVETT. Mr. BOWYER objected to the resolution its conveying a vague censure and casting a stigrn• upon legal members of that house without any ground. Lord Hotham ought, he said, to name the persons against whom he brought his charges. Mr. WHITESIDE thought. the resolution might be adopted without trenching upon the honour of the professional members of that house. The motion appeared to him just and honourable, and be should support it. Mr. BotrvEum observed that the resolution was at once too wide and too narrow ; it did not meet the cue it, was designed to meet, for a man who was astute enough to evade the existing rules would laugh at this resolution. lie moved the previous question. Sir J. PAILINGTON said, if the house should adopt this resolution, he suggested that the terms should be general, covering every person sad thing, and that the words, "in which be may have acted or been concerned," pointing to the legal profession, be omitted, since they might be a trap to the con sciences of members of the bar, and, in possible cases, led to serious difficulties, as in Crown prosecu tions. Mr. LABOUCHEHE hoped the house would not follow the advice of Sir J. Pakington, who would deprive the resolution of any meaning, or dilute it into a mere truism. There were rumours out of the house, which he believed to be unfounded, but he thought the house and the public were indebted to Lord Hotham for calling attention to the subject, and that members owed it to their character to put a stop ev en to suspicions. The SOLICITOR-GLNERAL, on behalf of the bar, d e clared that for any of its members to have been pr ofessionally concerned in any particular case, and have received any emclument t'or his services, and terwards to advocate in the Rouse of Commons th a same case he had advocated out of it, was d eserving of the severest reprobation ; but he ez ressed his very great regret at the charges implied ?a the speectes of Lard Hutham and Mr. Divett 'against members of the bar. He called for the grounds of those charges. On the part of the bar, he believed that there was no foundation for them whatever. Mr. Sergeant DEASY, on behalf of the bar of Ireland, fully concurred with the Solicitor-General. The ArroaelEY.GaNitut. considered the resolution as uncalled for and unnecessary, the object being already provided for by a re-olution of the house. If the words "any proceeding or measure in which he may have acted or been concerned," were re tained in the resolution, in what position would the law officers of the Crow❑ be placed, who might be consulted on various matters which would come under discussion in that nouse? 'They were applic able to numerous cases in which members of the bar in that house might be consulted. As to Indian appeals, it was impossible not to feel that proles sional members ought to be free from a shadow of suspicion, and the moment a member of the bar knew that a case in which he was concerned was to be brought before Parliament he should give it up. Mr. MALtss protestel against mw►tive; being attn.. bated to the members of any profession. He opposed the resolution. Mr. BE:42IIICH approved the resolution, which, however, he thought did not go far enough. There were tore classes of cases which, in his opiuion, called for the attention of the house. Members received large sums of money, as testimonials, for services, or reputed services, in the house ; and other members became hired agents for colonies and received pay ment. Mr. Grr.rm saw not a word in the resolution about the legal profession. If he believed that a slur was intended to be cast, he should hold it to be nude served. He could not vote for the resolution, because he believed it was not needed ; that the rules of the house upon the subjeot,were sufficiently understood. Mr. B. O'Binem opposed the resolution. Lord J. Rosen. said be should have felt a diffi culty in voting for any resolution, however drawn up. The house had already adopted a resolution upon this subject that was plain and intelligible, and in endeavouring to go further it ran the danger of framing a resolution that would be too 'ride. Ha would rather trust to the honour and high character of the members of the Bar than to the words of any resolution, and he should vote for the previous ques tion being put. In doing so, he rendered his tribute to the motives of Lord Ifotham, who, in his opinion, had done, .by . by . ,iiiging this subject forward. t•trt la wr • After some remarks from Mr. Bovu,r,, le r def s eliee of the bar, Mr. Roznuox said he did not think .Lord Hotham would gain much by going to a tilyisjoa ; but, if he did, he should vote with him, L THE PRESS, JUNE 26, 1858 Mr. MELLOR observed that the resolution, altered as proposed by Sir J. Pekington, would be a mere truism, and in its integrity would be too wide. Upon a division it was resolved, by 151 to 80, that the question should be put ; and, upon a further division, the resolution was carried by 210 to 27. - •-isphir COLLECTION OF TAXES. • • Mr. LINDSAY moved a resolution, that the mode of collecting the taxes, both assessed and income, was attended with great disadvantage and loss, and re quired immediate attention. Parishes, he said, after having been assessed and paid their taxes, owing to the insolvency of the collectors, had been reassessed, and compelled ►o pay them a second time. He proposed that the collectors should be appointed by the Government, who should take proper securities. The motion was seconded by Mr. W. Wituams. Sir J. TROLLOPE said the proper remedy was to revise the Aot 43rd of Ge irge 111., cap. 90, and make a receipt given by a proper otlicer a sufficient discharge. The motion was supported by Mr. RIDLEY and Mr. Now'. . The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed that Mr. Lindsay was justified in bringing this subject before the house, and no doubt the grievance was a serious one. Still ho honed he would not press his motion, as the subject, which demanded very great thought and contrivance, was under the • con• aideration of the Government. The motion was withdrawn. LUNACY LAW'S Mr. TITE moved fora select committee to inquire into the laws 'elating to lunatics under the care of the Court of Chancery. He stated verious reasons which, he thought, rendered this inquiry necessary, and earnestly urged it upon the Government and the house. _ _ . The SOLICITOR GENERAL said, before this investi gation was entered upon, which should not be con fined to lunatics under the care of the Loyd Chan cellor, there should be time an i opportunity for a fall and ample inquiry, to which the Government would interpose no obstacle. But at this period of the session it was vain to hope that a committee could consider the whole subject, including the working of the Act of 1853. He therefore hoped that the motion would not be pressed, and next session every aid would be given by the Government and the Lord Chancellor for a fall consideration of the general subject. The SJlieitor-General replied to the statements made by Mr. 'rite. After some remarks by Mr. DRUMMOND, the motion was withdrawn. Lord J. RUiSELL moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend and consolidate the laws relating to bank rupts and insolvents, shortly explaining the object and some of the provisions of the bill. The .A.TTORNEY-GENERAL did not oppose the intro duction of the bill, and, after some remarks by Mr. Headlam, leave was given. Mr. COBBETT moved for a select committee to consider the law and practice as regards the taking of inquisitions ; the appointment, duties, and remu neration of the officers employed ; and whether auy and what alteration should be made in any such matters. He explained the causes of the disputes between the coroners and the justices. On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHE QUER the debate was adjourned. Mr. M'ettor obtained leave to bring in a bill for the sale of grain, meal, flour, butter, and potatoes, and other agricultural produce, by the pound avoir dupois, the score of twenty pounds, the hundred weight of 100 pounds, and the tun of 2,000 pounds ; and - Mr. PALK a bill to provide for the conveyance of county, city, and borough property to the clerk of the peace or town clerk of the county, city, or borough. The orders of the day having bean disposed of, the house adjourned at a quarter to one o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS—WEDNESDAY. REGISTRATION OF PARTNERSHIPS BILL. Lord GODE/UCH, on the order for the second read ing of this bill, stated its object—namely, that all persons who entered into partnership, and traded under any other name than their own, or as a com pany, should be required to make known to the public who and what they were ; and, for that pur pose, that their names should be catered upon a register. In stating the reasons for the measure, be referred to cases with which we have been too familiar, in which an individual has held himself out as a " company," or traded under a false name, which was, he observed, a practical fraud upon the public, offering facilities for deception, interposing impediments to legal proceedings, and augmenting their expense, evils which it was the duty of the Legislature to prevent. Registration would provide • ternedy, and the principle had received the sanction of a largo portion of the commercial com• =Laity, Mr. COLLIER, in moving to defer the second read. ing for six months, insisted that the bill was a step A backwards, being opposed to, the current of modern legislation, the principle of which was no n -i nter . ference with the trading classes. pplying as it did to all persons whatever engaged in partnership, great and small, costerrnongers, hucksters, and fish. women, its pressure would fall chiefly upon the poorer classes. Any person lending the smallest sum of money to any firm on terms of participating in profits must register. The nice distinctions in the law of partnership would open a continuous stream of litigation. The measure was inquisitorial, and would inflict injustice and create expense. Registra tian, so far from preventing fraud, would be the parent of ingenious frauds. The principle would not work, and he gave the credit of the bill to the Registrars-General throughout the country, who considered registration a universal panacea. The amendment was seconded by Mr. NIOITATT. Mr. BAXTER argued in support of the bill, replying to Mr. Collier, and citing cases which showed the advantage that would result from registration even by the humbler classes of traders. Mr. WARREN opposed the bill, the sure effect of which would be, he said, to drive capital out of trade, to the injury of small traders. Mr. BAINES said he should vote for the second reading of the bill, most of the objections to which applied to the details ; as to its principle, he had no doubt. The bill would enable parties to contracts to know with whom they were dealing ; its material effect would be to check fictitious credit and false trading. Mr. NVEGUELIN objected to the bill that it under took, on the part of the State, to do what individuals should do for themselves. He objected, however, not only to its principle but to its machinery and details, which ciuld not be separated from the principle. Mr. SPOONER observed that the simple question then was, would the house recognize the principle that a man should have the means of ascertaining to whom he gave credit? With that principle he oordially concurred, and he should vote for the second reading ; but he did not approve the machi nery of the bill. Mr. CARDWELL denied that the bill proposed to interfere with the liberty of individuals; but in the existing law there were pitfalls and difficulties winch prevented individuals from taking effectual precau tions for their protection, and the principle of the bill was to remove these difficulties. In one word, publicity was the principle of the measure. It was a question, however, whether the commercial com munity itself were or were not prepared to accept the bill and adapt itself to its provisions. Ha hoped, therefore, that Lord Goderich would submit the de tails of the bill t 3 a select committee ; but, at this p-riod of the session, it would be extremely inconve nient to commence such an investigatioe. At the same time, he could not vote for making secrecy one of the elements of free trade. . . . Mr. HENLEY did not think that either the house or the country had full information upon this subject, or that there was ground sufficiently cesr fur affirming so large a principle; nor was he, on the other hand, prepared to advise the house to negative it. He recommended Lord Goderich not to ask the house to pledge itself for or against the bill. Mr. GURNEY likewise recommended that the whole subject should be referred t:► a select committee next session. He should vote against the second reading of the bill. Mr. Honsmsx joined in the appeal to Lord Gode rich not to call upon the house either to affirm or negative the principle of the bill. He was prepired to affirm its principle, but he considered the details most objectionable. Colonel PATTLN, though his name was on the back of the bill, and he supported its principle, added his entreaty to Lord Goderich to withdraw the bill. Lord GODEILICIi conmented, upon the uuderstanding that be should have the assistance of the Govern ment in referring the subject to a select committee next year. The bill was then withdrawn. ELECTION COMMITTEES SCRUTINY BILL. On the order for the second reading of this bill, Mr. WARREN moved to defer the second reading for six months, contending that the bill would derange the whole machinery of the election law. Mr. Jonw Loewe supported the bill, which, he said, would remedy a very great and admitted grievance. Mr. BARROW spoke against the bill, and Mr. STEUART in its favour. Mr. WALPOLE explained the. state of the existing law and the effect which the bill would have upon it. liter some further discussion, in which Mr. Collins, Mr. hi'Mallori,' int/ Oreaves took part. the house divided; when the amendment was carried by 125 to 87; so the bill is lost. Mr. PAug., in moving that the Piers and Hartonrs Bill be Aid ti second time, stated reasons for introducilt/iC bill, its object and provisions , - - • 7 r• t •