JOINT-STOCK BANKS BILL. (Hansard, 3 April 1856)

§ SIR JOHN SHELLEY
said, he begged to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the election of directors of joint-stock banks in England. The Act which related to the subject was the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 13, and by the 4th section of that Act it was provided that retiring directors should not be re-elected for a period of twelve calendar months. The object of the present Bill was to enable shareholders, if they thought fit, to re-elect at once directors that might be retiring. The Bill would not interfere with the election of new directors—with infusing new blood into the direction. It was evident that by the Act as at present constituted, as soon as a director was sufficiently experienced in his business, although he might be the best man in the direction, he was incapacitated from further serving the shareholders. He might mention that five of the principal joint-stock banks at present existing were established before the Act came into force, and were therefore not subject to its provisions. The present Act applied to three other banks, and if the principle were good for any, it surely would be good for all. His object was to leave the whole direction in the hands of the shareholders themselves, upon the principle of self-government which now so extensively prevailed. The Bill was a very short one, and did not affect anything but the ineligibility of directors to re-election until after a period of twelve calendar months.

§ MR. JOHN MACGREGOR
seconded the Motion.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he would offer no objection to the introduction of the Bill; but he confessed he entertained considerable doubts as to the policy of altering the present law. The provisions with respect to the re-election of directors were very carefully considered by the late Sir Robert Peel, the author of the Act, and they rested upon the intelligible ground of policy. It was the principle which was followed with respect to the Bank of England, and as at present advised he was disposed to think that there was no sufficient ground for altering the law. However, it was perhaps a proper subject for the consideration of the House, and he should therefore offer no opposition to the introduction of the Bill.

§ MR. JOHN MACGREGOR
said, that the late Sir Robert Peel had expressed to him his doubts whether it would not he necessary to make some change in the law. The very best and most responsible man had been often kept out of the direction in a state of suspense for four years. He was very glad that the hon. Baronet had brought forward the measure.