The Sun.
London, England, 1858-06-24 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—YBBTERDAr.
The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Lords' amendments to the Edinburgh and Glas
gow and Stirling and Dunfermline Railways Bill, and
Fife and Kinross and Kinross-shire Railways Bill,
were considered and agreed to.
The Severn Valley Railway (Extension of Time) Bill
was considered, and ordered to be read a third time.
REGISTRATION OF PARTNERSHIP BILL.
Viscount GODERICH moved the second reading of
this bill. The object of the measure was a very simple
one. It merely proposed that all persons who entered
into partnership, or who traded either under other
names than their own, or under the indefinite appellee
tion of a " company," should be required to make
known to the public who and what the partners were.
To obtain that object he proposed that the names of
persons so trading should be entered in a register, and
be open to the examination of all persons interested and
requiring information. That being the single object of
the bill, it appeared to him to be worthy the considera-
tion of the house, first for reasons which recommended
the adoption of such a system necessary, and then be-
cause he thought he should be able to show that the
adoption of such a system had received the sanction and
approval of a large portion of the commercial commatest
-
nity. He thought no one would deny that the neatest
facilities should. be afforded to the trading Public of
knowing who-the parties really were with whom they
were dealing. The present system of persons trading
under the name of old and respectable firma admitted of
great fraud. There were numerous instances of such
frauds on record, but be would not detain the house
under the present state of the surrounding atmosphere
—(hear)—which he thought ought to be remedied with-
out delay—(hear)—by entering at great length into
them, but he should content himself with quoting two
instances, which,would illustrate the whole working of the
sy stem, and which it was the duty of the house to take im-
ed iate steps to remedy. Oae was the case of Mr. Stephens,
who was connected with the Eastern Banking Company,
who in his examination before the Scotch Bankruptcy
Court admitted he was the head and sole representative
of a variety of firms, each trading under a distinct and
separate name ; and the other was a recent case in
Dundee, where a person in insolvent circumstances bad
for a number of years maintained a false position and
credit on the faith of the name of the firm. The bill had
been introduced at the request and on the approval of
all the Chambers of Commerce in that part of York-
shire which he had the honour to represent. The history
of the bill was this: In 1856 the Commercial Association
of Manchester took the subject into their considera-
tion, and, with the aid of legal assistance, they drew up
a paper on the subject in accordance with the heads
of the bill before the house, and the machinery it pre-
vided for carrying out its object. In 1857 the heads of
the paper referred to were submitted to the considera-
tion of the Mercantile Law Conference, presided over
by Lord Brougham, and at that conference a resolution
was agreed to approving of the principle embodied in
this bill. The Chambers of Commerce of Leeds, Brad,
ford, Sheffield, Huddersfield, Manchester, Bristol, Wol-
verhampton, and other places in England had petitioned
the house in favour of the bill, and the Chambers of
Commerce of Edinburgh and Dundee had petitioned
that its provisions might be extended to Scotland.
It was true that a petition had been presented from
Manchester against the bill, and if that was to be urged
as a reason for the house not approving of the bill, he
bad a right to say that he had a larger number of the
commercial community in its favour, whose opinions,
he contended, were entitled to weight and consideration
in that house. The bill had been characterised as an in-
quisitorial measure, but he thought it an inappropriate
appellation. If the commercial community were un-
willing to receive such a measure, that would be a suf-
ficient reason for the house rejecting it, but that was
not the case, and he hoped the house would agree to his
motion.

The motion having been seconded,
Mr. COLLIER considered the bill would inflict injury
on the trading community without a corresponding ad-
vantage. The bill would press heavily on the poorer
classes, for if it were carried any two coatermongers or
fish- women who joined in a speculation only one day
would be obliged to pay half a-crown each for registra-
tion before they could recover the value of the goods
they had sold. This bill was iuquisitorial in its charac-
ter, and would complicate and perplex the already diffi-
cult question of partnership. This measure was a step
in the wrong direction. It was re-enacting protec-
tion, which was contrary to the principles of modern
legislation. The commercial community did not require
the measure, but the registrars generally throughout
the country. They were the prime movers in the
affair. They had a strong organisation throughout the
country, and they were continually agitatingregistration,
and he believed they would never be satisfied till they
had registered everybody and everything. If the shop-
keepers of the country really knew what the bill, if
carried, had in store for them, they would unanimously
rise against it, and petition for its rejection. He moved
the second reading of the bill this day six months.
Mr. MOFFATT seconded the amendment. He con-
sidered the bill would prove a mockery, a delusion, and
a sham with regard to the trading community.
Mr. BUXTON was in favour of the measure. It
would be a protection to the country. It did not med-
dle with the law of partnership. It left that where
it was, and all it proposed was to provide a check
against dishonest firms carrying on business under false
pretences. Many of the objections to the bill could be
considered and, if necessary, remedied in committee.
They did not apply to the principle of the bill. The
main evil in this country, as contradistinguished
from most others carrying on large commercial transac-
tions was, that firms were allowed in this cenntry to re-
tain and to use their original designation and titles,
when the old and monied partners had retired from the
concern, and young men of no capital traded on the
reputation and credit of the old concern.
Mr. WARREN considered the legislature ought not
to interfere in matters of this kind. Lord Mansfield was
the illustrious founder of the mercantile law in one of its
great aspects, and that learned authority said the mer-
cantile law flourished most when it was not interfered
with by the State, but when it was left alone to deal
with matters connected with its own welfare. He had
a fundamental objection to the principle of the bill. He
believed the unexpected but sure effect of the bill would
be to drive capital ontof trade. Money was advanced by
capitalists to a greet extent to traders for the double object
of increasing the means and furthering the interests of
those to whom the capital was advanced, but this bill
would prevent its continuance. and the effect would be
to cripple trade by diverting the salubrious
stream of capital from the channels of com-
merce. This bill, if carried, would disturb exist-
Tt would inflict loss on the
most sober auu la111c; << lcr and prcr..,int
their becoming legitimately large traders.
Mr. M. T. BAINES supported the bill. The objet,
tions that had been made to it were more of detail than
of principle. He considered one of the leading effects of
the bill would be to check fictitious trading and false
credit, and these were the persons who mostly
dreaded the passing of this measure. There could be
no harm in compelling firms to give in formation under
this bill they were compelled to give on pleas of abate-
ment, after putting the creditor a great and unnecessary
expense.
Mr. WEGUELLIN bad a strong objection to the
principle and the details of the bill. Parliament
ought not to regulate commercial transactions,
but it should be entirely left to individuals
themselves to perform. He thought it was impossible ,
to separate the details of the bill from its principle. He
denied that business was carried on under false pre-
tenoes, for tradesmen trusted only those they
knew. (Hear, hear.) The public were mostly
interested in knowing who left a firm, and not
who joined it because the former generally took their
capital with them, and that information was provided
for by its announcement in the Gaunt under the head of
dissolutions of partnership.
Mr. SPOONER concurred with much that had been
said about the details and machinery of the bill, but the
question before the house was whether or not they
should recognise the principle that a person who gave
credit should have the means of ascertaining to whom
he was giving credit. He agreed with the principle of
the bill, but he disagreed with many of its details. He
suggested to the noble lord not to press his bill this
session, for no one would be disposed to go into a com-
mittee-room, in the present state of the Thames—(hear)
—and hear evidence, and enter into a discussion that
must last for weeks or months—(hear, bear)—before they
could get sufficient practical information on which to
found a practical bill.
Mr. CARDWELL said publicity was the principle of
the bill. Secrecy was no part of free-trade, and was no
ornament to commerce. The objections that had been
raised to the bill ought not to find favour in that house.
He, however, concurred in the suggestion that it was
desirable there should be delay in order to ascertain
whether the commercial community of the country were
ready to adopt or reject the principle and details of the
measure. He should support the second reading of the
bill if his noble friend passed his motion.
Mr. HENLEY considered the house and the country
had not sufficient information on which to deal with the
measure before them. He was not prepared to ask the
house to affirm or repeal it until they had had an inves-
tigation into the subject by a committee of the house.
Mr. GURNEY opposed the bill.
Mr. HORSFALL agreed to the principle of the bill,
but objected altogether to the details.
coel PAT'TEN said that though his name was on
the back of the bill he hoped the second reading would
not be passed at so late a period of the session, as there
was no ehance of passing it this year.
After a some remark from ....Tinrd GoDEIUcH..
The bill was withdrnext year by a select committee
a
w
n
,
ihrotitelei.
rn a view to inquiry early
The motion and aendtuinnttwtilrew ithlrawn, and the
of
order for the second reading bill was discharged.
ELECTION COMMITTEES SCRUTINY BILL.
00 the motion for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. S. WARREN moved that the bill be read a
second time this day six months.
Mr. LOCKE supported the bill.
After some remarks from Mr. Barrow, Mr. Steuart,
.nd Dlr. Walpole,
Mr. COLLINS, who introduced the bill, asked the
case to affirm its principle this session, and send it to
select committee as early next session as possible.
Mr. M'MAHON said the object of the bill was to
revent scrutiny, or a break of residence after the 31st
'uly, and as that was the law of Ireland, be saw no ob.
•ction to its 'being applied in England. As bit by bit
',form legislation was the object of the day, he saw no
caeca why the bill should not be passed this session, It

THE

would not interfere with a comprehensive immure of
reform.
Mr. GREAVES opposed the bill.
The house divided. The numbers were--
For the second reading B7
Against it • 125
Majority against it
The bill was consequently lost.
PIERS AND HARBOURS BILL
Mr. PAULL moved the second reading of this bill,
the object cf which was to save the expense of procuring
private bills for the erection of piers and formation of
harbours by the substitution of some general authority
for that purpose, viz., that when a scheme had received
the approbation of the Admiralty it should be considered
a public bill, and passed as such.
Mr. S. WARREN seconded the motion.
Lord LOVAINE doubted if they were justified at
this period of the session in reading so important a bill
a second time, and he suggested that it should
ose of be read
a second time and withdrawn for the purp its
being introduced early next session for further considers-
_

tion.
After some remarks from Mr. M'Mahon, Mr. W. S.
Lindsay. and Mr. Ridley,
Mr. FITZROY objected to the principle of reading
bills a second time pro forma, and thereby pledge them-
selves to a certain course. As there was a committee
sitting to consider the state of private business, he
thought this bill should stand over, and he suggested
the withdrawal of the bill.
Col, WILSON PATTEN considered the bill, at this
time of the session, should be withdrawn. If it
had been earlier in the session, he bhonld have
voted for the second reading, in order that the subject
might be investigated. It was one of great importance,
and he agreed sv:11 its principle.
Admiral WALCOTT gully
Mr. WALPOLE had no o!
of the bill. concurred in the principle
ing the bill a second time iiection to the house read-
pro yo,"'uta, and he concurred
in the opinion that it had better be cv".'thdralv. n'
Mr. PAULL stated hie readiness to withdraw the
bill.
The motion for the withdrawal cf the bill was t.
to, and the house divided on the original motion.
For the second reading 136
Aagainst it 33
Majority fer the second reading —lo3
The bill was then read a second time.
Mr. PAULL, in deference to the suggestion made,
moved its committal this day three months:rAgreed to.

'ejected

WEEDON ESTABLISHMENT.
Colonel BOLDERO moved the discharge of the order
of the day for the adjourned debate on Weedon establish-
ment. He would bring the subject forward on a future
day in supply.
Mr. D. NICOLL objected to its discharge.
Mr. WALL'OLE said it was not usual to object to
such a course when hon. members had an opportunity
of brin4ing the subject forward on another day, with a
better prospect of ultimate success.
BOLDERO said he intended to move a resoln
tion in accordance with the motion before the house,
and bring it forward on the first supply night.
After some discussion, the order was read and dis-
charged.

LETTERS OF CREDIT.
Mr. HORSF'ALL obtained leave to bring in a bill to
make letters cf credit transferable.
The other ordars were disposed of, and the house ad-
journed at 25 minutes past five o'clock.