SECOND READING. (Hansard, 19 July 1889)

§ MR. BIGGAR (Cavan)

I think that this is a Bill of sufficient importance to 885 make it incumbent on the Government to give the House some explanation of its provisions. I believe it proposes to make an important change in the law. I believe the object of the Bill is to make it possible for a commission agent to pawn or raise advances on property which he has in charge for the purposes of sale, and I believe that the change in the law will inflict a greater amount of injury than the existing law, and on a class less able to defend themselves. I agree that as the law now stands a commission agent may go to his bankers, and holding himself out as the proprietor of certain property borrow money on the security of it, although he may not have the authority of his employer to pledge it, and in case of failure to repay the advance the banker is the loser; but this Bill will enable the agent without authority to go to a banker or moneylender and raise money. This will work great injustice in two ways. Of course, I do not wish to suggest that the great majority of commission agents in this country are not perfectly honest and trustworthy; but we know that a certain small proportion of these agents and share brokers do from time to time—sometimes from misfortune and sometimes from misconduct—become untrustworthy, and this law will enable the bankers to bring more pressure to bear upon these men to hand over securities which do not properly belong to them. I therefore think the Government should give us some substantial reasons for this very material change in the law. The unfortunate people who send their shares or stocks to a share broker run the risk of having their property mortgaged to some minor or to some third party. The Government would do well to give some reasons in favour of the Bill. If they do not give such reasons the House ought to pause before assenting to the Second Reading.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,) Isle of Wight

The point to which the hon. Member for Cavan has referred is undoubtedly one of very considerable importance; but the hon. Gentleman is probably aware that this Bill has been most carefully prepared under the eye of Lord Herschell. Having looked through the Bill, I must say that, although certain expressions may be open to criticism, it only reproduces existing statutes. The particular point 886 to which the hon. Member has called attention has been a debateable point for a long time, but it is one which really cannot be well discussed on the Second Reading of the Bill. It is for that reason we propose to refer the Bill to the Grand Committee on Trade, where there will be Members well acquainted with business transactions, and well able to deal with the point. Some objection has been taken to the words "acting in the customary course of his business," in line 5, but it has been taken in favour of interests rather antagonistic of those the hon. Member represents—namely,in favour of bankers and others. It is felt that the Bill rather narrows than widens their powers. The hon. Member will therefore see that the point has not escaped attention. If the view taken by some hon. Members who have communicated with me is right, so far from the words increasing the liability to fraud and misconduct, they will make it more difficult. With regard to the other clauses of the Bill, the House will remember I stated on a previous occasion that this is a Bill which, as far as I know, only reproduces existing Statutes in every case except one or two. I believe the Bill will be a great improvement, and put on a few sheets of paper provisions which are now found scattered up and down different Statutes.