SECOND READING. (Hansard, 11 August 1876)

§ EARL FORTESCUE,
in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its object was to amend certain provisions of the Companies Acts of 1862 and 1867, and to alter the law relating to the issuing of the prospectuses of new companies and the publication of balance-sheets and profit and loss statements by companies already established. It was very earnestly desired by the mercantile community, and had received the approval of 160 associated Chambers of Commerce. It provided—first, that prospectuses were not to be issued before a copy signed by the directors had been sent to the registrar, and amongst other provisions a list of allottees was to be sent to each allottee within seven days after the making of an allotment. Companies were also to prepare a report of their proceedings, with the names of the directors and officials, and a balance-sheet annually of profit or loss, to be sent to the address of every registered member of the company seven days before every ordinary meeting of the company, or to deposit it at the company's office. The Bill also provided compulsory powers for carrying out the latter.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
objected to the second reading of the Bill on the 1066 ground that the Companies Acts mentioned formed a code of elaborate and important laws which had been framed by the Government of the day after the greatest care and deliberation, and had been the subject of various judicial decisions. It might be very necessary that the provisions of those Acts should be considered and expanded, but then that ought to be done only after due deliberation, because a stone could not be touched without running the risk of pulling down more than it was desirable to disturb. He was sorry to appear as an opponent of the Bill; but, having considered it carefully, he thought it very undesirable that a Bill of that nature should pass at the very end of the Session, when it could not possibly be considered. The noble Earl opposite (Earl Fortescue) said it was ardently desired by the mercantile community; but what opportunity had the mercantile community had of considering its provisions? Some of them were of a most stringent character, and would have such an operation that business could not be conducted at all under them. Many companies were merely private trading companies, and what right had Parliament to assume to regulate the manner in which they should conduct their affairs? He did not underrate the possible importance of the Bill, but it ought not to be passed at the end of the Session, when it could not be considered by those whom it would affect in a very considerable degree.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, he was informed that the Bill was one which had the support of the President of the Board of Trade in the other House of Parliament, while the Attorney General had spoken in its favour.

THE LORD CHANCELLO
Remarked that he had had no communication with the Attorney General on the subject, and he must, therefore, demur to having his authority in support of the Bill quoted on grounds which were not sufficiently well authenticated.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
regretted that there had been no communication between the noble and learned Lord and his hon. and learned Colleague in the other House on the subject, for he looked upon such communications as very useful. He was informed that the Attorney General had stated that the object of the Bill was one which he regarded as 1067 beneficial, and he understood that the Secretary of State for the Home Department had gone still further, by observing that the Government withdrew all opposition to the Bill on the ground that the ruin of so many persons might be involved in its not passing.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
thought the course pursued by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) in quoting the opinions of Members of the other House on the authority of the reports of what had occurred there was one which was calculated to lead to great inconvenience, for the true elements for forming an opinion on the subject were wanting, unless there were some official and authoritative records of the debates on which to rely. Many strange things passed in the House of Commons after 12 o'clock at night, and it was impossible from the concise, not to say the slipshod, reports of what took place after that hour to know what they were, but it was quite patent that, it was impossible at this time of the Session for their Lordships to discuss the Bill.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR,
while not denying that the whole object and scope of the Bill were most praiseworthy, would not persevere in his objection to it provided the noble Lord in charge of it would agree not to press it beyond the second reading.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
hoped his noble Friend (Earl Fortescue) would be allowed to postpone his Motion until the Government had been able to confer with their Colleagues in the other House as to what took place there on the occasion referred to.

§ EARL FORTESCUE
hoped the measure, if it was not passed now, would be taken up next Session by the Government.

§ LORD REDESDALE
said, it would not be fair to the House and the public that the Bill should be entertained at the very close of the Session. It had been for a long time before the House of Commons, and was not sent up till this late period; and he would remind their Lordships that to-morrow almost all the Ministers had to attend a Privy Council.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
said, he was not prepared to deny the importance of the Bill, but there was not time to give it that consideration which the subject deserved. If the noble Lord opposite (Earl Fortes- 1068 cue) was satisfied with having the Bill read a second time, in order to affirm that the subject required the attention of Parliament, he would assent to that; but unless an assurance was given that the Bill would not be pressed on to future stages, he thought it would be better to negative the Bill.

§ EARL FORTESCUE
assented to the proposal of the noble Duke.