HC Deb 08 February 1838 vol 40 cc918-22

House in Committee on the Banking Copartnership Bill. Several clauses agreed to.

Mr. Courtenay moved the addition of a clause, to include within the operation of the Bill the clerical partners in fire and life assurance companies.

The Solicitor-General

observed, that the case of such partners did not come within the operation of the 57th of George 3rd, and, therefore, it would be unnecessary to include them in the present Bill.

Sir R. Peel

would take that opportunity to express his regret that the Government had not moved for the appointment of a Committee, composed of the most able lawyers and the most eminent mercantile men in the House, to consider the whole case. Had such a step been taken, this benefit would have resulted—that there would have been placed on the records of the House a statement of the reasons which had induced Parliament to interfere for the purpose of reversing the decision of a court of law. The appointment of a Committee would also have been followed by this advantage—that all the cases requiring a remedy would probably have been anticipated, whereas it was now not unlikely from the necessarily hurried manner in which the Bill must be passed through its different stages, that some of these cases would not be provided for. At the same time he admitted that a necessity had arisen which justified the adoption of an extraordinary measure like that now before the House.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

could assure the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that but for the pressing nature of the case the Government would not have objected to the appointment of a Committee. Had the Government delayed to take immediate steps to provide a remedy in the emergency which had arisen, they would have been charged with timidity, and with unnecessary procrastination; and he doubted very much whether the appointment of fifteen Members of that House, to sit on a decision of the Court of Exchequer, would have given general satisfaction. A a proof of the necessity of adopting some measure with as little delay as possible, to meet the emergency which had been created by the decision of the Court of Exchequer, he could state, that a letter had been written to a certain banking company, intimating that if they did not agree to a compensation of a debt due to them by a person, against whom a fiat of bankruptcy had been issued, their whole claim would be resisted as illegal, several clergymen being members of that joint-stock company. That was certainly a most dishonourable proceeding; but if Government had delayed to take immediate steps on the present occasion they would have given a power to all fraudulent persons to resist the claims of joint-stock companies; and the evils which would have resulted as the consequence would, in a very short time, have been incalculable. These, he thought, were reasons sufficiently strong to justify the course which had been adopted; but he had one argument more. In the only other similar case which had come before Parliament the same course had been pursued as on the present occasion, so that Ministers were not only justified by the necessity of the case, and by a due regard for justice, but also by the only precedent upon record, in the course they had adopted upon the present occasion.

Sir E. Sugden

said, the only question to be considered was one in regard to time, for it was impossible to pass this Bill without a full investigation of its merits, and of the causes which' had rendered it necessary. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think that the danger of being charged with timidity justified the course which the Government had pursued on this occasion; but was it possible for her Majesty's Ministers to ask any person to pass this Bill before it had been subjected to the investigation of a committee? He believed the House would not be asked to pass the Bill before a Committee had sat upon it, and it was upon that belief he had acted; and he therefore trusted that a full investigation would take place. The question, therefore, as regarded the appointment of a Committee was simply one of time. He might also mention that the Bill, as at present framed, would not meet all the difficulties which might arise from the late decision, and he hoped the measure would yet be rendered more general in its provisions.

Mr. Courtenay

said, it seemed to him that a general misunderstanding pervaded the House in regard to the proceedings in the Court of Exchequer. The fact was, that no positive decision had yet been given; an opinion only had been expressed, and the House was not legislating in consequence of the decision of a judge.

Mr. M. Philips

said, that facts had been stated of persons having already taken advantage, of the present state of the law; and as many more might, before the end of the week, avail themselves of the decision which had been given in the Court of Exchequer, to resist payment of their lawful debts, he thought the Government perfectly justified in the course they had adopted.

Sir R. Peel

said, that the opinion he had before expressed had been confirmed by what had fallen from his hon. Friend (Mr. Courtenay). The House was in fact called upon to act in regard to a decision which had not yet been given.

Mr. Courtenay

could assure the House that no decision had yet been given. The judge had expressed an opinion, but had refused to give a final judgment till the special demurrer which had been taken should have been argued.

Sir R. Peel

observed, that that was what he had stated, and he thought, before the Legislature had been called upon to interfere, there ought to have been a decision. The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had stated that the Government would have been charged with timidity if they had acted in a different manner from what they had done; and he took credit to himself for the course they had pursued; but he could not conceive a more unnecessary display of courage than had been made by the Government on the present occasion. The right hon. Gentleman said, "See what magnanimity we possess in bringing forward the present measure on our own responsibility;" but he (Sir R. Peel) could give the right hon. Gentleman no credit for the course he had pursued, or the magnanimity he had displayed. The grounds of proceeding ought to have been placed on record, and the present measure ought not to have been brought forward simply on an opinion pronounced by a judge of the Court of Exchequer. There were some subjects of far less importance in regard to which the Government did not hesitate about the appointment of a Select Committee, and there could be little doubt that the present was a case which called for the fullest investigation. The remedy ought to be commensurate to the evil, and without inquiry it could hardly be expected that an adequate remedy could be provided.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

was quite satisfied that the course which the Government had pursued was perfectly justified by the circumstances. He, however, begged to say, that he had made no claim to courage in bringing forward the present measure, and he had only stated that the objection of timidity might have been raised against the Government.

The Solicitor-General

said, that to all intents and purposes there had been a judgment. The court had decided that two clergymen being Members of a joint-stock company, the company could not enforce payment of a just debt. That decision, he thought fully justified the present measure, although he acknowledged that no formal judgment had been entered on the record.

Mr. Courtenay

thought, that the circumstance stated by the Solicitor-General made an important difference in this case, so far as the Legislature was concerned. It was certainly important to know whether a judgment or merely an opinion had been given.

Mr. Maule

thought the Government perfectly justified in the course they had adopted, but he did not think the bill would apply to every case. It simply had reference to mere shareholders, and would not apply to those clergymen who were Members of the direction of joint-stock companies.

Sir W. Follett

thought, that if the bill was to be made retrospective in its operation it ought to take in all parties. With respect to the interference of the bill with pending suits, it would be recollected by the House, that last Session a bill was introduced which affected causes that had arisen under the operation of the Municipal Corporation Act. He did not say that the bill ought to be made to apply to a case wherein a person might have caused a suit to be instituted to avoid the payment of a bonâ fide debt. There should be a protection against fraud. He must confess that he was not prepared to impose those restrictions upon clergymen which he found some hon. Gentlemen were, because he thought there were some occupations in which a clergyman might fairly and properly embark without neglecting his sacred duties, and with advantage to his family.

The Solicitor-General

intimated that he should make such alterations in the bill as would make it applicable to clergymen, whether they were directors, managers, or shareholders.

Bill passed through the Committee.— House resumed.