§ Order for Committee read.
§ House in Committee.
§ Clause 1 struck out.
§ Clause 2.
§ MR. HENLEY
said, he must urge the rejection of the clause. A man might at present safely buy cattle in open market, but if the clause passed he would be liable to have his right to them disputed by any person who represented that they were stolen and claimed them as his property.
§ MR. LOWE
said, the question had been considered by the Mercantile Law Commission, a Commission composed of many learned persons, who were of opinion that in the event of the sale of stolen property it was better, as the loss must fall on some one, that the purchaser rather than the original proprietor should suffer. The clause, however, was no insertion of his, and he had no wish to press it against the wish of the Committee.
§ MR. ROEBUCK
said, he thought the buyer in open market ought to be protected, as he had no means of knowing that the property was stolen, whereas the proprietor might by precaution defend himself against robbery.
§ MR. LOWE
said, he must confess that there was great justice in what had been 1001 stated in opposition to the clause, and as he was inclined to think that there was great advantage in affording every facility possible to dealings between man and man, he would consent to the omission of the clause.
§ Clause struck out.
§ Clauses 3, 4, and 5, agreed to.
§ Clause 6.
§ MR. MULLINGS
said, he should move the omission of the clause, which provided that a guarantee to or for a firm should cease upon a change in the firm, except in special cases.
§ Question put, "That Clause Six stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 95; Noes 13: Majority 82.
§ Clause agreed to, as was also Clause 7.
§ Clause 8 withdrawn.
§ The remaining clauses were agreed to.
§ House resumed; Bill reported, with Amendments.