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

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The motion was withdrawn.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was withdrawn.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 modernlegislation, the principle of which was non-inter.
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 •

Lord LOVAIME suggested that it would be better,
considering that the bill would require an additional
staff in the Board of Almirally, upon which it would
confer large powers, to carry it into effect, that it
should stand over until next session.
Mr. PAULL consented to withdraw the bill, but
some members not assenting, a division took place,
when the second reading was carried by 136 to 33.
On the motion of Mr. PAULL, the bill was ordered
to be committed that day three months.
On the order for resuming the debate upon the
motion for an address for a royal commission to
inquire into the system of business of the establish-
ment at Weerion,
Colonel BOLDER() moved that it be discharged,
intending to bring the subject forward on the next
night of supply.
Dissatisfaction was expressed by Mr. Nicott. and
Mr. CONINGIIAN, but ultimately the order was dis-
charged.
Mr. lionsrALL obtained leave to bring in a bill to
make letters of credit transferable.
The remaining business having been disposed of,
the house adjourned at twenty minutes past five
o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS—THURSDAY.
"REGINA ecru."

The Earl of MAI.MESUURY, alluding to the former
discussion on the seizure of the " Regina Cceli " and
massacre of the crew by the negro emigrants on
board, read a French official report of the transac-
tion, and a 'Etter from Captain Croft, of the
"Ethiope" steamer, to Mr. Newnliam, the English
Consul at Monrovia, describing the circumstances
under which the "Ethiope " took possession of the
"Regina Cu3li " when in the possession of the
negroes. It appeared from Captain Croft's state-
ment that be considered the negroes as pirates, and
that he claimed the vessel he rescued from them as
a prize to the " Ethiope." The French commander
of the " Regina Ccoli " (Simon), who escaped the
massacre by being on shore at the time of the out-
break, had never lost sight of his vessel, had made
attempts to retake her, with the assistance of the
local militia and some forty Americans whom he
hired for the purpose, and had finally established a
kind of blockade of the vessel by means of row-
boats. It was in this state of things that the
"Ethiope," which had been sent for by Mr. Newn-
ham, the Consul, arrived and seized the " Regina
Cali" as a prize, against the protest of Captain
Simon, claiming salvage for so doing. The insur-
gent Africans subsequently plundered the cargo of
the ship, and dispersed on shore. The " Regina
Cceli" was taken from the " Etbiope" ey two French
ships of war. Lord Malmesbury added that Captain
Simon " protested against being saved," or being
zalled on to pay salvage, as he had never lost sight
of his ship ; and, under the circumstances, it was
doubtful if aoy one had a right to take possession
of her.
Lord BROUGHAM conceded that, in the presence of
Captain Simon, no one had any legal right to take
possession of the " Regina Creli;" but he bad re-
ceived proof that the negroes on beard were not free
emigrants, but slaves kidnapped on the coast and
sold by the native slave dealers and native princes.
He was confirmed in that belief by the facts that the
negroes were manacled, and that they rose against
their captors on the first opportunity.
Eari GREY was not prepared to admit that the
facts of the case, as at first stated, were set aside by
the explanation they had heard. The circumstances
were still suspicious, and should it be proved that
the negroes were really bought as slaves, he adhered
to the opinion he had expressed, that they were
justified in using force to obtain their liberty. ,They
were in lawful possession of the vessel, she was no
longer a French ship, and the English captain was
entitled to render them any assistance they might
require.
The order of the I lay for considering the report of
the reasons to be offered to the House of Commons
for insisting on the amendments to the Oaths Bill,
was postponed till Thursday week.
Lord BROUGHAM withdrew his Transfer of Real
Estate Bill, hoping some legislation on the subject
would be possible next session.
Their lordships then adjourned.