The Sun.
London, England, 1858-06-23 00:00:00

CHELMSFORD RACES. --(This Day.)

(BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.
TOWN PLATE.

Fly-by-D,y
Uhique
Schoolfellow

Four ran.
MALDON STAKES.

Lady Well
Yea

Four ran.
CUP STAKES.

Naughty Bay
Triton
Brother to Farthingale
Three ran.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(This Day.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The Lards' amendments to the Edinburgh and Glas-
gow and Stirling and Dunfermline Railways Bill, and
the Fife and Kinross and Kinr,ss-shire Railways Bill,
were considered and agreed to.
The Severn Valley Railway (Extension of Time) Bill
was considered, and ordered to be read a teird time.
REGISTRATION 01? PARTNERSHIP BILL.

Viscount GODERIC Li 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 iudcfiuite appella-
Lion of a " corn' zt!iy," should be required to make
known to the public who and what the paitocri were.
To obtain that object he proposed that the names of
persons so trading shculd he 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 adopion of such a system necessary, and then be-
cause ho 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 commu-
nity. He thought no one would deny that the greatest
feedities should be afforded to the trading public of
knowing who the parties really were with whom they
were dealing. The present system of persona trading
under the name of old and respectable firms 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)—vl,hich 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 whol I workir g of the
system, and a hich it was ik,! duty of the house to take im-
mediate steps to remedy. One was the case of Mr. Stephens,
who was connected with the Eastern Bank'ng Company,
who in Lis extuninwion before the Scotch Bankruptcy
Court admitted he was the head and solo representative
f a variety of firma, each trading under a distinct and
separate name; and the other was a recent case in
Dundee, Khefe a person in insolvent circumstances had
for a number of years maintained a false po.ition 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 Chamber:, 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 fur carrying out its object. In 1857 the heads of
the paper referred to were submitted to the considera-
tien of the Mercantile Law C inference, presided over
by Lord Brougham, and at that conference a resolution
was agreed to approving of the principle embodied in
this bal. The Chambers of Commerce of Leeds, Brad-
f.rd, Sheffield, Huddersfield, Manchester, Br:stol, 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 bad petitioned
that kti provisions might be extended to Scotland.
It was true that a petition had been presented from
Manchester against tho bill, and if that was to be urged
as a reason for the house not approving of the bill, he
had 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 au in-
qui-itorial 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 it jury
on the trading community without a corresponding ad-
vantage. The bill would press heavily on the poorer
chase*, for if it were carried any two costermongers or
fish-women wbo joined iu 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 i
they had sold. This bill was inquisitor:al in i s charac-
ter, and would comp icate 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 pf modern
legislation. The commercial community did not require
the measure, but the registrars generally throughout
the country. They were the puma movers in the
affair. They had a strong orgaidsation throughout the
country, and they were continually agitating registration,
and be believed they would never be satisfied till they
bad 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 a_ainst it, and petition for its rejection. He moved ,
the second reading of the bill this day six months.
Mr. MOFFATr seconded the amendment. He con-
sidered the bill would prove a mockery, a delusion, and
a sham with regard to the trading coinmuuity.
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 a'l 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.
principle ef the bill. The
They did not apply t 3 the
main evil in this country, as contradistinguished
from most others carrying on large commercial transac•
times was, that firms were allowed in this re eintry to re-
tain and to ti,e their original designation and tides,
when the old and monied partners had retired from the
concern, and young men of no capital traded on the
reputation aril credit of the old concern.
Mr. WARREN considered the legidature ought not
to interfere in matters of this kind. L ird Mansfield was
the illustrious f ,underof the mercantile law in one of its
great aspects, and that learned authority said the mer-
cantile law fl meshed most when it was not interfered
with by the State, but when it was left alone to deal
with matters c-nnected 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 outof trade. Money was advanced by
capi alists to a great ex ent to tra lets for the double ot:joct
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 cone
mace. This till, if carried, would disturb exist-
ing partnerships. ft would irfliet loss on the
most sober and small enterprising trader 4, and prevent
their becoming legitimately large trader?.
Mr. M. T. BAINE3 supported the bill. The objec
tioas that bad 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 fal e
credit, and these were the persona wbo mostly
dreaded the passing of this meeeure. There could be
no harm is compellirg firms to give in formation under
this bill they were compelled to give on pleas of ab-
atement, after paling the creditor a great and unneces-
sary expense.
Mr. WEGUELLIN had a strong objection to the
principle and the details of the bill. Parliament
ought Got to regulate commercial trantections,
• but it should be entirely left to individuals