HC Deb 24 July 1889 vol 338 cc1230-1

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time."

MR. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)

I desire to point out that Subsection (c) of Section 50 has a very different meaning now to that it had three years ago. It provides that a man, or woman either for that matter, may be excluded from a partnership on account of crime. Now, as the House knows, we have had soma new definitions of crime. I am fully satisfied that it has not been on the mind of any hon. Member to promote a Bill in which there shall be a provision by which one partner may exclude another from the business in which they are engaged because of attendance at a meeting. I do not for a moment wish to introduce any matter of controversy now, but I am absolutely convinced that no promoter of this Bill contemplated such a thing; and I appeal to hon. and learned Gentlemen, if they amend the law, to do so in accordance with common sense.

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

I think it is not possible to omit altogether Subsection (c) of Clause 50. It will be observed that the sub-section refers to conviction of any person of a crime, regard being had to the prejudicial effect that conviction may have on the business in which the partners are engaged. I do not suppose the hon. Member wishes to exclude that altogether, and I would suggest that words might be introduced in another place whereby conviction might be defined to meet such cases as those the hon. Member has in mind. It would not do to cut out the sub-section altogether, for the hon. Member must admit there are certain classes of crime on account of which it is only right a partner should have the means of dissolving a partnership.

* MR. H. H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

Unfortunately, we have to deal with cases of conviction for crime under peculiar circumstances. We have in view the possibility of the exclusion of a Member of this House from the School Board of London, as a consequence of a conviction under the Coercion Act. Certainly, it is a matter which we cannot leave to "another place" I would suggest that the Bill be re-committed, in order that the Amendment may be made here, and I hope the Third Reading will not be proceeded with.

* MR. GEDGE (Stockport)

In the Education Act the words are not "convicted," but "punished with imprisonment" for crime. This clause goes further and seems to require modification.

MR. SEALE-HAYNE (Devon, Ashburton)

On behalf of the promoters of the Bill, I wish to say they will accept the suggestion made.

Debate adjourned until To-morrow.