THIRD READING. (Hansard, 3 August 1899)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)
My Lords, there are one or two observations which I think it is desirable I should make to your Lordships. There were some clauses introduced in the Bill in Committee having relation to questions which I think are very interesting to medical men and pharmaceutical chemists. I have received a very large number of communications upon the subject, and I am fully alive to the necessity of guarding very carefully the language by which the intentions of the measure, as manifested by the amended form of the Bill, should be carried out. I am still very strongly convinced that a company ought not to be permitted to do what a private person is prohibited from doing, and that the public must be protected against practices of that sort. It is impossible to resist the propriety of subjecting those companies who are at present carrying on business as chemists and druggists to restrictions such as are proposed in the Bill. I daresay your Lordships will remember that cases have decided—and in my opinion rightly decided—that the language which calls upon a person to qualify in any of the professions does not in turn apply to companies, and that the word "person" in the Acts which form the code upon the subject must be constructed as meaning a natural person and not a company. The idea of an ideal personage, such as a company, practising and undergoing an examination is absurd, and cannot cohere with the language of the Statute. In my view the learned judges who came to the conclusion that that was the true construction of the Statute were 1239 perfectly right; and that decision left the law that a company could be formed to do the very thing which an individual is not permitted to do without examination as to qualifications. I think I may say that the Committee to whom this matter was referred were unanimously of opinion that the formation of companies to practise any profession, and which intended really to take advantage of company machinery to do that which an individual without qualification may not do, should be stopped. As I have said, I have received a large bulk of correspondence on the subject, and in some of the communications which have been sent to me it is suggested that this is an effort to prevent proper enterprise and so forth. As a matter of fact, I think the writers were not familiar with the state of the law. It is true to say that, although a company cannot be prosecuted for doing it, and a company cannot undergo an examination to enable them to do it, yet if an individual dispenses without qualification you can catch him and prosecute. And it was in view of the state of the law on the subject that the Committee to which this matter was referred came to their conclusion. I must say that I quite agree that if this matter is to come forward, as it probably will in another session, it is desirable that we should guard very carefully the language used, so as not to interfere with any proper vested interest; but, on the other hand, we should not allow the public generally to be exposed to the dangers of the practising of unqualified persons as dispensers. What I said on a former occasion, that the Committee were practically unanimous, appears to have given rise to controversy. I say so still. It is true there were certain divisions on matters of detail during the investigations, which lasted three years—some members of the Committee went one way and some the other—but they were not important questions. What I said before, and what I adhere to now, was that on the main lines of the Bill—the important matters under the Bill—the measure, as now presented, represents the practically unanimous decision of the Committee. I think, my Lords, that it is a subject of congratulation that on such a subject practical unanimity has been attained. At this period of the session I think it is perhaps not worth while that I should go through the whole clauses of 1240 the Bill. I have said all that is necessary on the Report of Amendments to the Bill. I can only add that I believe the Bill will be a very great improvement on the state of the law as it exists at present, and that it will in a great measure check the creation of fraudulent companies, which I think is the proper thing to do, and not enact a penal code against persons engaged in the conduct of such enterprises.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble and learned Lord that the Committee deserve approbation for having given a great deal of attention to this extremely complicated and difficult subject. Not being either learned in the law or connected with companies, which is, perhaps, an advantage, I hold any opinions with regard to it with much modesty. But, having heard all the excellent evidence which was presented to us, I agree with the Lord Chancellor that in the main proposals the Committee were practically unanimous. The object of the Committee was to try and devise some system by which we might not interfere with honest directors or with the important system of companies having limited liability in this country, but at the same time check a certain amount of the fraud and malfeasance which undoubtedly exists. There seems to be a rather undue impatience to enact very strong penal laws, with the idea that such a code would remove some of the evils complained of. I do not think the history of our legislation teaches us that lesson. Frequently the most violent and stringent laws have failed in consequence of their extreme stringency. The law, to be really effective, must carry with it the general consent of the community, and if you make a law which touches unduly men who have embarked in these matters with nothing but honest intentions, you will make hard cases and create a prejudice against your legislation. It is much better in a very difficult subject of this kind to proceed cautiously, and where there is great doubt and great difference of opinion you should not hastily determine to legislate, but confine yourselves to those broad points on which there is general agreement. I think that was what mainly actuated the Committee. I earnestly hope, after the long time which has been spent on this subject, and in view of the anxiety which undoubtedly 1241 prevails for some legislation, that a Bill will be brought forward next session, and that Her Majesty's Government will give it every support in order that it may become the law of the land.

§ THE EARL OF DUDLEY
After what has fallen from the noble Lords who have spoken, I do not think there is much necessity for me to enter into this discussion, but I should like to say that I quite agree with what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said as to the Committee being practically unanimous on the main points of the Bill. Of course, as the noble and learned Lord said, there were details connected with the Bill on which we had differences of opinion, but I think it is quite true to say that on the main policy of the Bill the Committee were practically unanimous. There is no doubt that, as the Bill was originally introduced, its provisions were of too drastic a nature. I do not think it is too much to say that the evidence we had before us showed that these drastic provisions were in many cases undesirable, and the Committee were unanimously of opinion that we had better, in the interests of honest directors and of commercial life generally, soften down those drastic provisions, and attempt to make the Bill of a more workable character.