HC Deb 18 December 1919 vol 123 cc789-93
Major BARNETT

The object of my intervention is to call attention to the action of the Board of Trade in refusing to allow the St. Pancras Chamber of Commerce to be registered without the word "Limited" in its title. This may seem a very trivial matter to some people, but it involves an important question of principle. It is one of those apparently small things which cause a great deal of public annoyance and resentment. The facts are these: Last summer, a very representative meeting of St. Pancras traders decided to form the St. Pancras Chamber of Commerce, an association not for profit and limited by guarantee. The usual practice in registering an association of this kind is to apply to the Board of Trade for leave to omit the word "Limited" from the title. Let it be realised that the word "limited" is perfectly futile in the title of such an institution as a chamber of commerce, because if the ordinary trader thought the chamber was formed for the purpose of making a profit as a limited company, he would riot join it. As I said, the usual practice is to apply to the Board of Trade for permission to leave out the word "limited." There are certain formalities to be observed. Names have to be sent in, together with a cheque to cover the fees of counsel, and if the report is that everything is in order, as it is in nine cases out of ten, the necessary leave is granted as a matter of course. In the case of the St. Pancras Chamber of Commerce, although all the formalities were complied with, the leave was not granted, greatly to the astonishment of the representative body of traders who wished to form themselves into a Chamber of Commerce. They put themselves in communication with the Board of Trade to ascertain what was the reason why they were not allowed to do what they wanted, and they were told that St. Pancras was a part of London, which, I believe, is an incontrovertible fact. It was said there was already a Chamber of Commerce in London and that there was no need for one in St. Pancras. It was rather suggested that they were encroaching upon the province of the London Chamber of Commerce. My constituents at once went to the London Chamber of Commerce, who wrote a strong letter in favour of the application being granted, showing that, far-from having any antipathy to the scheme, they would be delighted to have it carried out. Having failed to shake the Board of Trade, my constituents came to me, as the senior Member for St. Pancras, and I pus a question to the President of the Board of Trade in this House on the 3rd November. I asked him Whether he is aware that a responsible body of traders in the Metropolitan borough of St. Pancras has intimated its desire to form a local chamber of commerce as an association not for profit and limited by guarantee, and that, the Board of Trade has declined to grant its licence for the registration of such an association as a company with limited liability without the addition of the word 'limited' to its name; and, if so. whether he will reconsider the granting of such licence, in view of the expressed wishes of this commercial and manufacturing centre and the distinctive character of the industries which a St. Pancras chamber of commerce would represent. I would draw particular attention to my right hon. Friend's reply, which was as follows: I am aware of the facts stated in the question of my him, and gallant Friend. The application for a licence to register the St. Pancras chamber of commerce without the word 'limited' received careful consideration, but it was decided that the objects of an association of this kind, which are confined to trade interests in a limited area, do net come within the provisions of Section 20 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908. There is no objection to the association being registered as a company limited by guarantee with the addition of the word 'limited.' "—[OFFICIAL, REPORT. 3rd November, 1919. col. 1157–1158, Vol. 120.] It will be seen that the first point made against the application was that the area was limited. Well, most areas are limited. London itself is a limited area, and England is a limited area. I am told that our world is a very small affair at the best and has a very limited area. I am told that the solar system, of which it forms a very limited part, is itself miserably small in comparison with the inter-stellar spaces. Therefore, the words "a limited area" seem to be words and nothing more. I suggest to the House that if this area, with a population of 218,000, with a mayor and a corporation, an area which includes three Parliamentary Constituencies, and several distinctive trades which are not followed anywhere else in the British Isles, had been fifty miles out of London my right hon. Friend would have granted the application as a matter of course, but, because we in the borough of St. Pancras happen to form part of that huge congeries of cities and boroughs which is called London, with its population of 7,000,000 and is very likely before, it is done, to be 70,000,000—because we happen to come into that we are not to be allowed to have a chamber of commerce of our own, although we want one. Therefore, the limited area criticism is a very little one. Then my right hon. Friend said that there was no objection to the association being registered as a company limited by guarantee, with the addition of the word "limited." Nobody knows better than my right hon. Friend that to insist upon the addition of the word "limited" to the title would damn the whole scheme. It would be absolutely hopeless to register this kind of association as a limited liability company and to run it as a chamber of commerce. It is not an association for profit, and it is not seeking to pay dividends. We are only asking my right hon. Friend to do what he has done in dozens of cases for other chambers of commerce. I know that the strong point he will endeavour to make against me is that there is no other borough chamber of commerce in London. There must be a start made somewhere. If we are enterprising enough to want one, I should not be surprised if my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. W. Thorne) and his borough will not want one next week. There never will be a precedent in this world for anything if we are met with the sort of criticisms my right hon. Friend brings forward.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Auckland Geddes)

I never brought that forward.

Major BARNETT

I certainly understood from the deputation which waited upon my right hon. Friend that that was one of the criticisms he made, but of course I accept his assurance. After an interval of six weeks, last Monday I put a question again to my right hon. Friend. I asked him: Whether further representations have been made to him with reference to the application… and, if so, whether he will now reconsider his decision on the subject. This was his answer: The answer to the first part of this question is in the affirmative— —that was there had been representations— The multiplication of chambers of commerce for the purpose of representing commercial interests in limited areas would, in my opinion, weaken the representation of commercial interests as a whole, and I do not therefore think it desirable to grant a licence for the registration of the St. Pancras chamber of commerce with limited liability without the word 'limited.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1919, cols. 1 and 2.] The representations which were made in the meantime were made on behalf of the Commercial Committee of the House of Commons which unanimously, by Resolution, expressed surprise and regret at the action of the Board of Trade in this matter and asked my right hon. Friend to reconsider his decision. I understand that a deputation from that Committee waited upon my right hon. Friend, but were practically told that no more chambers of commerce were wanted because it meant too much work.

Sir A. GEDDES

No.

Major BARNETT

I believe that was the impression my right hon. Friend succeeded in making on the mind of the chairman of the deputation.

Sir A. GEDDES

No.

Major BARNETT

My right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong, but something like this passed, that if you had more chambers of commerce it would mean more authorities to advise and that it would mean a great deal of worry and annoyance. That would be an argument in favour of doing away with trade altogether, and if we did that the Board of Trade would have no trouble or worry at all. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that this is not a matter of polities and that this sort of aloofness and Olympian superiority to the wishes of the commercial community are not desirable in the Board of Trade. After all, the Board of Trade was made for man and not man for the Board of Trade. My right hon. Friend may be torn away from us. There is always the possibility of his vacating the sphere he at present adorns and going to another, which he would no doubt adorn equally. With one foot in Whitehall and one in Canada he bestrides the narrow world like a Colossus. It is very difficult to make one's constituents understand the meaning of this bureaucratic refusal to allow a Chamber of Commerce to be formed in a great and important London borough. I do not see any reason why St. Pancras should not be allowed to have a Chamber of Commerce if it wants to have it. It is bureaucracy in excelsis that you should have this perfectly reasonable, modest request, put forward again and again by representative citizens, and refused simply sic volo sic jubeo. He thinks the area is too limited. He thinks the interests of trade will be better served by not having a chamber of commerce in limited areas, ignoring altogether that there are trades which do not exist in England outside St. Pancras. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give some better reasons than the limited area for refusing this very small concession, and I am sure he will earn the gratitude not only of my constituents but of every one similarly placed who wants to form an association of this kind without being fettered by this ridiculous limit.