The Sun.
London, England, 1855-03-28 00:00:00

NORTITAIVIPTON RACES.

(THIS DAY.)

(BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.)
EARL SPENCER'S PLATE.

Foxhunter
King of Trumps
Medway
Fourteen ran. Won by half a length
6 to 4 agst Scherz (taken)
ALTHORP PARK STAKES.
Queen's Head
Tilly
Sugar-cane

Ten ran.
6to 4 agst Queen's Head (taken)
2to 1 agst Slander Colt (offered)
ST. LIZ HANDICAP.

Alonzo .
Hercules
Gamelad

Talfourd
Saucebox

Benham..

Nine ran.
CUP STAKES.

Fiv© ran.
RACING STAKES.

1

LATEST BETTING.
GREAT NORTHERN HANDICAP.
Bto 1 agst Fandango.
10 to 1 aga Vandyke.
10 to 1 agst Athersone.

CHESTER CIIP.
25 to 1 agst Marc Antony

MPE MAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(THIS DAY.)
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Price's Patent Candle Company Bill was read a third
ime and passed.

The following bills were considered and ordered to be
read a third time :—Dursley and Midiaad Railway;
Ossett Gas ; South Staffordshire Railway.

PETITIONS.

Mr. Vance, Mr. Muntz, Mr. Ileadlam, and Mr.
Maleings pre3onted petitions against the Bills of
Exchange Bill.

DILLS OF EXCHANGE BILL.

On the order of the day for the second reading of
this bi!l, _ . _

Mr. VANCE opposed it, on the ground that it would
restrict the operations of bills of exchange and prove
alike injurious to the debtor and the creditor. It pro-
posed to estiblish a registration of dishonoured bills of
exchange, and to enable the holder of a bill of exchange
to sue out judgment against his debtor without taking
any preliminary proceedings beyond the mere registra-
tion. This r. gistration would set aside the existing law
of judgments, insolvency, and bankruptcy, and, other-
wise give the holder of a rgistered bill of exchange an
undue advantage over all other creditors. That part of
.the bill which related to Ireland was exceedingly objec-
tionable ; and, although it might boa very good thing
to prevent frivolous defences against bills of exchange, he
yet thought such cases were of too rare occurrence to
justify such an arbitralir measure an this. Except in cases
where usurious interest was charged, frivolousdefences
were exceedingly unfrequent, and since the coMmercial
community of England and Ireland had mostly petitioned
rt.ainst the bill, he did not think the house would be
justified in passing the second reading. He moved that
the bill be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. MUNTZ seconded the amendment, as the bill
would do a great deal more harm than good. Ile would
drive many a solvent man into bankruptcy. It came
from a lawyer, and he. had no hesitation in saying that
lawyers were more ignorant of mercantile transactions
than any other people. A bill of exchange was only the
representation of a debt.not quite due, and he could not
understand why it should have precedence over all other
contract debts.

vv
Sir E. PERRY defended the bill, which he said was
supported by 28 petitions from the largest mercantile
cities in the kingdom, and based upon sound principles.
The patronage under the bill would be placed in the
hands of the Crown, but it would impose no additional
expense whatever upon the public, as the registration
fees would provide for everything. It was not the bill
of Lord Brougham, at least that noble and learned lord
did not frame it ; but it was the work of a committee of
mercantile men who held their meetings in the City of
London, whilst it had been examined in detail, and ap•
proved by a committee of Law Lords in the upper house.
The law proposed to be established by this bill was in
operation in Scotland, where it was working exceed-
ingly well, and he hoped as the simple remedy of the
bill was to do away with fictions defences, and
give a speedy remedy on dishonoured bills of exchange,
If the house passed the second reading he should hare
no objection to refer the bill to a select committee.
Mr. GURNEY- could see no necessity for altering
the existing law. There might be inconveniences at-
tending its operation, but the remedy proposed by this
bill was averse than the disease. In fact, it consulted
the convenience of the few at the expense of the ruin of
the many. The sound principle for regulating the law of
debtor and creditor should proceed upon the under-
standing that the debtor was entitled to sufficient time
to recover himself from temporary difficulties, and
if at the expiration of that time it was found that the
debtor could not recover himself then his assets should
be divided in equal proportions amongst all his cre-
ditors. Now, this bill wholly ignored the principle of
giving the holder of bills of exchange a preference over
all other creditors, and he thought the house should
hesitate before they adopted it, because it appeared to
_him to be an absolute encouragement of fraudulent pre-
ferences. He admitted that the present state of the law
was an inducement to leniency from the creditor to the
debtor, but this bill would afford a direct premium for
harshness ; and therefore he thought it would press
heavily and unjustly upon those small shopkeepers, and
their name was legion, who carried on their trade
through the instrumentality of bills at short dates.
Besides these objections to the bill, it would act most
prejudicially upon the public interest, inasmuch as it
would tend to diminish the amount of really good bills
of exchange, and increase considerably bad ones, because
men who did not hesitate to give bills now wouli object
to do so if this measure passed, and bills of exchange
would too frequently bear the acceptance of men of
straw. As for the petitions in favour of the bill, he did
not attach much importance to them, because they came
mostly from Chambers of Commerce, where small trades-
Ilion were not very often represented ; while, with re-
gard to the petitions which came from wholesale dealer 4
in favour of the Scotch system, it might work'very well
for them, but the man who felt the screw had just as
much right to be heard as the man who turned it. (A
laugh.) Now the small tradesmen of Scotland would
.tell a very different story to these petitioners, because
they could show that the good the system accomplished
was purelyiruaginary, but the evil it inflicted was pal-
pable and certain. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. NAPIER should be sorry to see this bill rejected,
because if men could be made to feel that there was a
speedy and simple process for making them fulfil their
contracts they would not be so ready to put their names
to bills of exchange which they were unable to meet.
Mr. MITCHELL supported the bill, on the ground
that a man who put his name to a bill of exchange was
bound to be prepared to take it up at maturity.
quiteaiS
tradesmen
wr j.
huSos Pltli
yOawaouhbNnol
unjust
Eui
snßt
carriedtahiol
edp pcionnss
ecet
aid:left
ietrl bill,rebgd fuoesrbi
niiin:
bills
the
of
fhe ieccxhacshema
operationsoni might hest,mb abe
withi be
bills for moderate if not insignificant amounts. He ob.
jetted to the bill because it gave theewreoduitldordtohenopgowooedr
of injuring an unfortunate debtor. It
whatever, but a great deal of harm.

•Mr.BAlNESeupported the bill upon the same ground
as that urged in the petition of the Leeds Chamber of
Commerce, viz., that it would simplify and economise
the law, while its provisions bad been approved of by the
highest legal and mercantile authorities. He preferred
this bill to the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes
Bill, but perhaps the good of both might be extracted
and put into one bill, if they were referred to a select
committee.
Mr. G-LYN insisted that the present law of bills of
exchange imperatively called for reform ; it was an ano-
malous state of things that there should be one law for
Scotland and another for England, and ho hoped the
two bills would be referred to a select committee, with
the view of devising some 'effective means for destroying
the pernicious system of renewing bills of exchange.
Why, on the 4th of March last, one house, in the city
noted no less than 700 dishonoured bills, while it was
computed that on the same day there were no less than
5,000 dishonoured bills noted in the city of London.
Now, was that a state of things which the Legislature
could permit to continue. It lowered the character of
bills of exchange, and any measure which could put a
stop to it would be a benefit to the mercantile com-
munity.
Sir F. THESIGER thought the remedy provided by
the Common Law Procedure Act was sufficiently ex-
peditious without a measure of this nature. There was
no analogy between the case of Scotland and that of
England. In Scotland the existing system had prevailed
since 1682; it had become incorporated with their laws, and
the people were used to it, but he did not think that was
a sufficient reason for transplanting it to England, where
people had become familiarised with quite a different sys-
tem. There were defects in the English system no doubt,
but they would be remedied by the second bill on this
subject, and therefore he should have no objection to
assent to the second reading of this bill, providing it
was afterwards referred with the other to a select com-
mittee.
The LORD-ADVOCATE said the whole law of Eng-
land upon this subject rested on a false basis ; the cor-
rect system was that which prevailed in Scotland, and
not only in Scotland, but all over the Continent, and
the house, in his opinion, would do well to adopt this
bill.
Mr. KEATING, who had charge of the second bill,
said the existing law was a scandal alike to the admin-
istration of juitice and the Legislature. Actions were
brought upon LA of exchange, and for the sake of de-
lay they were defenied. The acceptance was denied;
but, on the trial, an order admitting the handwriting
was produced, and the holder obtained his verdict. These