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

IMPERIAL PAIUMAMEN

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(This Day.)
The SrEAKER. 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
the Fife atcl Kinross arid ICinrcs3-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 OF PARTNERSHIP BILL.

Viscount GODERICH moved the second reading of
this bill. The obj,ct of the measure was a very simple
one. It merely proposed that all persons who entered
into partnerehip, or who traded either under other
names than their own, or under the indefinite appella••
tion of a " company," should be required to make
kniwn to the public who and what the partners were.
To obtain that object be 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 ha 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 commie
nity. He thought no one would deny that the greatest
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 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)---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 illugratt the whol jeorkit g of the
system, and a hich it was tk 3 duty of the house to take ire-
aiediatestepsto remedy. One was the case of Mr. Stephens,
who was connected with the Eastern Banking Company,
who in his examination before the Scstch 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 had
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 be 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 beads
of the bill before the house, and the machinery it pro-
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 bad 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
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 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 iejury
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 coetermongers 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 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 contrail to the principles, of modern
legislation. The commercial oomenunity 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 agitating registration,
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 a,ainst 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 al 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 coutradistinguished
from most others carrying on large commercial transac•
tions was, that firms were allowed in this o.mntry to re-
tain and to use 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 awl credit Of the old concern.
Mr. WARREN considered the legi-lature ought act
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 outof trade. Money was advanced by
capi alists to a great ee ent to traders for the double olject
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-
ing partnerships. It would inflict loss on the
most sober and small enterprising traders, and prevent
their becoming legitimately large traders.
Mr. M. T. BAINES supported the bill. The objec
lions 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, arid these were the persons who mostly
dreaded the pas=ing 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 ab-
atement, after put ing the creditor a great and unneces-
sary expense.

Mr. WEGUELLIN had a stroll,' objection to the
principle and the details of the bill. Parliament
ought tot 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 earmd on under false pre-
tences, for tradesmen trusted only those they
knew. (Hear, hear ) The public a ere moray
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
f.,r by its announcement in the Gazette 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