RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT SECURITIES BILL.

HC Deb 02 August 1854 vol 135 cc1145-74

Order for Committee read.

House in Committee.

Clause 1.

MR. HENLEY

said, he must complain that, although the Bill had been postponed on a former occasion in consequence of the absence of the law officers of the Crown, those learned gentlemen were not now present.

LORD DUDLEY STUART

said, it was not his fault that the law officers were not present. The Bill which he had introduced had been considerably altered by the hon. and learned Solicitor General; but, as the hon. and learned Gentleman was endeavouring to effect, though by better means, the object which he (Lord D. Stuart) was desirous of attaining, he could have no objection to the adoption of the Amendments proposed.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, who had given notice of an Amendment for remodelling the clause, had told him that he was unable to attend at so early an hour, and had requested him to propose the Amendment of which he had given notice to the Committee. He thought it would be found that, by adopting the substitution now proposed, all the objections urged against the effects of the Bill would be removed, whilst, on the other hand, those political objects which his noble Friend (Lord D. Stuart) and the majority of the House had in view would be sufficiently accomplished. He would now move, as an Amendment, to leave out all the words of the Bill after the words "as follows," in line 7, for the purpose of inserting the following enactments— If, during the continuance of hostilities between Her Majesty and the Emperor of Russia, any British subject shall, in any country, wilfully or knowingly take, acquire, become possessed of, or interested in, any stocks, funds, scrip, bonds, debentures, or securities for money, which, since the 29th day of March, 1854, have or bath been, or which, during the continuance of hostilities as aforesaid, shall be created, issued, entered into, or secured by or in the name of the Government of Russia, or any person or persons on its behalf, every person so taking, acquiring, becoming possessed of, or interested in, any such stocks, funds, scrip, bonds, debentures or securities for money, as aforesaid, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon being convicted thereof, shall be imprisoned for a term of not less than three calendar months. Provided always, that the provisions of this Act shall not extend to or include the case of a British subject claiming an interest in the estate or effects of any deceased person, or the case of a British subject taking the estate or effects of his debtor in execution, or the case of a British subject claiming in any country to be interested under any bankruptcy, insolvency, sequestration, cessio bonorum, or disposition of property in trust for creditors, but that in every such case the British subject may take and receive any share, legacy, dividend, debt, or sum of money due or belonging to him, notwithstanding that the same may arise from or be produced by the sale or proceeds of any such stocks, funds, scrip, bonds, debentures, or securities for money as aforesaid.

MR. BARROW

said, he thought the objects of the measure would be better carried out by the Bill in its original shape. The main object, as he understood it, was to prevent the Russian Government obtaining money by negotiations in Russian securities in this country, and he did not understand the Bill, as proposed by the noble Lord, to extend to any transactions in foreign countries. He perceived, however, that the proposed alteration of the Solicitor General made it an offence for a British subject in any country to deal in securities which, by the law of the country, it might be perfectly legitimate for parties to transfer from one hand to another. He entertained some doubt whether Parliament ought to interfere with transactions in foreign countries to that extent.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, he thought the hon. Member would find, on reflection, that the Amendment was calculated to promote the object of the Bill. It was equally treasonable to advance money to the enemy in a foreign country as in this country, and one of the objections made to the Bill was, that it was so far short of its purpose that it would be easy to evade it by sending money to a foreign country.

MR. HENLEY

said, he thought that the Amendment went to sweep out nearly the whole Bill for the purpose of substituting new enactments, and the Committee ought to know whether the Government now took charge of the Bill.

LORD DUDLEY STUART

said, he had not stated that the Government had taken up the Bill, but the Solicitor General proposed to leave out all the words of the clause, in order to introduce another clause, which would carry out his (Lord D. Stuart's) views more effectually than the original clause. For his own part, he would be very glad if the Government would take charge of the Bill.

MR. THOMSON HANKEY

said, he felt a greater aversion to this clause than he did to the original one. In effect they were now discussing an entirely new Bill. He considered it perfectly futile, and that it was impossible to carry it out. He understood the noble Lord to say the other day that it was futile to make a distinction between a direct and an indirect mode of doing the same thing. It appeared to him it was not impossible to make a distinction between a direct mode of aiding and abetting and lending money to a foreign Government with which we were at war, and an indirect mode of dealing with property which had become the property of other persons. By the declaration of Government they could receive goods, the produce of Russia, that were brought in in neutral bottoms, but by this Bill it would be unlawful to receive the amount in banknotes guaranteed by the Russian Government. He also objected to the Bill, because it was a direct interference with private property. It would make a difference in the value between two kinds of securities, those issued before the declaration of war and those issued since, and which were of equal intrinsic value. He entertained as great an aversion as any man to anything that would assist the enemy in the war, but this Bill would not cripple the resources of Russia; it was a paltry piece of legislation, and a puerile attempt to do that which they could not carry out.

MR. ROBERT PHILLIMORE

said, that the Bill was extremely valuable, as recognising the principle that the will of the subject was bound up with the will of the Government to which he belonged, and that we were not to be allowed to carry on a military war and a commercial peace—a state of things which he conceived would be discreditable and dangerous to this country. The new regulations affecting neutral rights and relaxing the rigour of those formerly in force, constituted, in his view, an additional reason why this Bill should be passed, as we did not yet know what their operation might be.

MR. HENLEY

said, the Bill, as it would now stand, aimed at an object quite different from that of the former Bill. As originally drawn, it would have enacted that no person, whether a British subject or a foreigner, should deal in Russian securities in this country, but it now provided that only British subjects should be detained from dealing in those securities, whilst they were to be restricted from doing so in all places. As the Bill was now drawn, those securities might circulate in the British market, and foreigners might deal in them freely. The noble Lord (Lord D. Stuart) originally omitted to prevent British subjects from dealing in those securities abroad, whereas the measure in its new form would render such dealings as illegal at Hamburg or Amsterdam as in London. The great difficulty of the clause as it now stood was, that if you took an execution against a foreigner, and thus obtained possession of a quantity of these securities, you might deal in them to any extent without let or hindrance. That seemed to him to open a door so wide, that it was a great question whether the Bill would not thus be evaded and entirely defeated, and he should like to hear the opinion of the Attorney General or Solicitor General on this point. The exceptions under the clause would be so very large and loose, that it seemed to him that any man might possess himself of these securities under a colourable process of law.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, that it was exceedingly difficult, with respect to a subject such as that with which the Bill proposed to deal, to devise any form of words which would be found so comprehensive as to embrace all circumstances and all contingencies within their scope. His hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General had so applied his knowledge and ability as to meet these contingencies as far as possible, and the House ought not, in his opinion, to refuse its assent to the clause, because it failed to provide the exact remedy in every case that might occur. With reference to the objection which had been raised against the Bill, upon the ground that under its operation the foreigner might securely deal in Russian securities, he should merely say, that the foreigner was not to be regarded as being engaged in the contest with Russia, and that he might be allowed to carry on such transactions as those against which the Bill was directed without at all affecting the soundness or the utility of establishing the principle which the House was asked to sanction. It had also been urged in opposition to the Bill, that its provisions might without difficulty be evaded even by British subjects. Now, in answer to that argument, he should observe that it was his firm belief that when Parliament, by giving its assent to the measure before the House, had asserted a solemn principle, there would be little need of the introduction of minute provisions into the law for the purpose of securing for it the respect and obedience of the commercial classes of the community. He had a higher opinion of the good feeling and patriotism of Englishmen than to suppose that they would take advantage of those facilities of evading the law, which under the operation of the Bill they might be afforded. He was of opinion, also, that Parliament, having the subject under their consideration, should not hesitate to deal with it with decision and unanimity.

VISCOUNT GODERICH

said, he wished to know whether any British soldier or sailor who might happen to become a prisoner of war, and who while in Russia might become possessed of a Russian bank-note, dated since the 29th of March last, would thereby be held to be guilty of a misdemeanor under the operation of the Bill?

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

The provisions of the Bill are made to apply only to the case of those British subjects who became possessed of those notes while without the Russian dominions.

MR. J. WILSON

said, the Committee had been placed in a considerable dilemma by the introduction of the Bill. If the measure had never been brought forward no harm would have been done; but if it were now rejected the motives of the Legislature might be seriously misrepresented. The hon. and learned Solicitor General had managed to remove some of the blots in the Bill as it was originally proposed, but there were still some defects remaining; and with a view to obviate such a ease as the noble Lord (Viscount Goderich) had just pointed out, he would suggest some such proviso as the following— Provided always that nothing herein contained shall be considered to include notes which shall have been issued as a circulating medium in Russia, and shall be received by any British subject resident therein. His noble Friend (Lord Palmerston) had argued the other day that those who had opposed the Bill were above all things desirous of assisting Russia with money. Now he did not believe that any such wish or desire had any existence; and though the noble Lord had stated that what he (Mr. Wilson) said on a former occasion was "sheer nonsense," he really thought the fate of the Bill must have convinced the noble Lord that those words would have been more applicable to the measure than to its opposers. At all events, not a single word of the original Bill bad been retained. For his own part, he thought that the measure would be perfectly useless in preventing the raising of loans by Russia. The Committee of the Stock Exchange had of their own accord prohibited the Russian stock from being quoted in their lists, and had thus excluded it from the Exchange. The money dealers had thus anticipated the Bill, and they had done so in a much more effectual manner than could be done by any legislation, for what they had done would apply to foreigners as well as to British subjects.

MR. GLYN

said, he would admit it was right that the Government should hold the power of saying to any of its subjects that they should not deal in the public securities of a country with which we were at war; but what he wished to impress on the Committee was, that in matters of this kind we had now arrived at a new state of things, and that the House of Commons ought to take upon itself to legislate for that new state of things. He confessed he thought this Bill ought originally to have been introduced by the Government, and upon a much broader basis. The Bill as originally drawn prevented all persons in this country from dealing with Russian securities, but now it appeared that it was British subjects alone in this country who were to be prohibited from negotiating such securities. He contended that that alteration would have the effect of making the Bill completely nugatory, inasmuch as there were numbers of foreigners on the Stock Exchange in London and in the other parts of the country, Dutchmen and others, who would thereby be enabled to deal in the securities in question with complete impunity.

LORD DUDLEY STUART

said, he did not think that any difficulty would arise of the nature pointed out by the noble Lord below him (Viscount Goderich). The Bill was only directed against persons who "wilfully and knowingly" dealt in Russian securities; and it could not be said that an English prisoner in Russia who was obliged to take a Russian banknote had done so "wilfully." What he (Lord D. Stuart) wished to do was to throw difficulties in the way of Russia obtaining a loan; and he thought that if the contractors knew that their scrip would be shut out of the largest market in the world, they would think twice before they took the loan. He concurred in the objection against the in- sertion of the words "British subject;" unless, indeed, it was held that foreigners in this country were to be treated as subjects of these realms. He suggested that the words "for the first time," should be introduced so as to confine the operation of the Bill to the new stock.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, that if the Bill had not been introduced, he, for one, should never have regretted its absence, because he thought it ought not to have been directed against one particular case alone. He thought it would have been more desirable to have given power to Her Majesty in Council to suspend the right of trafficking in the securities of foreign Governments; but, in his opinion, whatever was done ought to have assumed the form of a general measure. As, however, the measure had been introduced, it was very important to cripple the resources of the enemy by preventing as much as possible traffic from taking place in any loans he might attempt to raise. It was obvious that such a measure could not be so drawn as to meet every possible contingency which might arise, but, balancing its conveniences and its inconveniences, he thought the measure, on the whole, was a wise one, and his only objection to it was that it was a partial measure. As to the objection that the Bill would be nugatory, because it applied at present only to British subjects, he thought those words would not bear the limited construction sought to be put upon them, because every person residing in this country owed allegiance to its laws and was bound by them. It would be very easy, however, to get over this difficulty by inserting, instead of "any British subject," the words, "any person whatever within the realm of Great Britain and Ireland." He did not think, when the point came to be considered, that there would be any difficulty in so framing the clause as to meet most of the difficulties which had been urged against it.

MR. WILKINSON

said, the whole effect of this Bill would be, to make perhaps one-half per cent difference in the money market between one description of Russian bonds and the other. By sending over to Amsterdam or elsewhere, new Russian bonds could be easily changed for old ones, and that would be the whole effect of the operation of this Bill. The fact was, the House of Commons should be satisfied with the general legislation already in force, which made it high treason to lend money to an enemy with whom we were at war. He felt bound to oppose the Bill altogether, believing, as he did, that it was beyond the scope of their legislation to effect the object they had in view, and feeling that, in legislating on the subject, at every step they took they only got out of one difficulty into another.

MR. T. BARING

said, that the Bill was so full of difficulties, and so replete with anomalies, that if it were to pass in its present shape it would be found to be wholly inoperative. He perfectly concurred in the objections to the Bill to which the hon. and learned Attorney General had given expression. In fact, the difficulties in the way of dealing satisfactorily with the measure were considerably increased by the difference of opinion with respect to it which seemed to prevail among its supporters. The unusual conduct pursued by various Members of the Government with regard to this measure, while it afforded considerable amusement to his mind, tended also not a little to embarrass the House in dealing with it. The Bill, originally introduced by the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, was afterwards taken under the protection of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The Solicitor General afterwards came down to the House with a proposition which completely upset the Bill of the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department; and now the Attorney General appeared suddenly upon the scene with a suggestion which completely upset the Bill of the Solicitor General. Such was the state of confusion at which they had arrived. He perfectly concurred with the hon. and learned Attorney General in thinking that the House of Commons ought to legislate upon the subject under their notice upon general principles, applicable to every country—not merely with Russia—with which we might happen at any time to be at war. If the Government had adopted the policy of introducing a measure investing the authority in the Queen in Council to suspend the traffic in Russian securities upon the part of British subjects, such a policy would be plain and intelligible. But let him suppose that the Bill under their consideration should pass into law, and that during the recess war should be declared by Her Majesty against countries with which we were now at peace, what, he would ask, under these circumstances, would be the position in which we should find ourselves placed? That country might send its bonds here in the ordinary way, and we should be placed in this dilemma, that the dealing in the bonds of that country would be perfectly legal, whilst the dealing in those of Russia—we being at war with both countries—would be a misdemeanor punishable with three months imprisonment. Surely, if it was worth while to bring in a Bill on this subject at all, that Bill ought to proceed on a general principle. He believed, likewise, that the operation of the Bill would be found to be objectionable, upon the ground that it would throw great difficulties in the way of commercial transactions. The clause of the Solicitor General contained a proviso to the effect that the penalties to be inflicted for a violation of the provisions of the Bill should not apply to the case of a British subject claiming in any country to be interested under any bankruptcy; but that proviso would be found to give no security to the creditor for the payment of his debts. Let him take, for instance, the case in which a foreigner owed a large sum of money to a merchant in this country. That foreign debtor might, with a view of defrauding his creditor, convert all his property into the Russian bonds in question, and unless the Government could compel him by some legal process to become a bankrupt, the creditor would have no means of having his claims liquidated, inasmuch as he could not take the Russian securities, which constituted the only property which his debtor might possess. Under these circumstances it was evident that the operation of the Bill would be completely to deprive the British subject of the power to enforce the payment of his debts. The object of the measure was to prevent pecuniary assistance being rendered to the enemy, and that was a legitimate object, but they ought to seek its attainment only by reasonable and practicable means. It had been proposed that the provisions of the Bill should apply to all Russian securities—as well to those created before as to those created after tire commencement of the war. But if that line of policy were pursued, and if it should happen that we became involved in a war with all the nations of Europe, what would, under these circumstances, become of British property. Even those great contests in which this country had in former years been engaged—contests quite as important, and, he hoped, more protracted than that in which we were now engaged would be found to be—contests during whose continuance the national energy had been taxed to the utmost—no measure such as that which they were discussing had been introduced for the sanction of Parliament. The wars to which he referred had been waged under the control of statesmen of great ability, among whom was Mr. Pitt; but these statesmen had not deemed it to be their duty to legislate as the noble Lord opposite proposed to do. Mr. Pitt had not attempted by legislating with regard to minutiœ to hamper the trade or to endanger the commercial security of the country. Not alone had no such measure as that under their consideration been introduced during former wars, but no measure had had its progress through the House marked by so many amusing incidents. The history of the Bill was not a little remarkable. This Bill was originated by the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord D. Stuart), and although it had been supported more or less throughout by the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department, the Cabinet as a body, until quite recently, had made no sign in its favour. In the first stage of its discussion it appeared as if the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. J. Wilson) had fascinated the Cabinet; that he had thrown them into a mesmeric trance, from which it required all the energy of the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department to arouse Her Majesty's Ministers. Upon a subsequent stage of the discussion that noble Lord had come down to the House, had used very strong language with respect to the arguments of the hon. Member for Westbury, and had carried the whole House with him. Then some hon. Members had signified it to be their opinion that the Bill did not go far enough; others thought that it wore the appearance of having been framed in a spirit of spite towards the Emperor of Russia; while the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) complained that its operation would be retrospective. The noble Lord the Member for Marylebone had denied that its operation would be retrospective, thus clearly demonstrating to the House that he did not understand his own Bill; therefore it was of no use appealing to him to solve the various difficulties that had arisen. The law officers of the Crown, when those difficulties arose, were nowhere to be found, no one knew where they were; but the probabi- lity was that they were better occupied than in trying to lick into shape this deformed Marylebone abortion. Then, when a division had come to be taken with respect to the measure, there were found some truant Members of the Government running about the lobbies, to avoid recording their vote in favour of the views of the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department. Those various incidents had happened upon the occasion of the first discussion of the Bill in Committee, but nobody had expected that a similar entertainment would have been provided for the gratification of hon. Members so soon after. Her Majesty's Government seemed, however, resolved to cater very zealously for the amusement of the House. On Wednesday it was that the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department took his benefit; but on the following Thursday another actor appeared upon the stage in the person of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General. And if the noble Lord had rode rough-shod over the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury, and performed his part entirely to the satisfaction of the House, the Solicitor General had certainly fallen very heavily upon the noble Lord. The noble Lord had stated that the arguments of the Secretary of the Treasury were "sheer nonsense," but the Solicitor General had spoken of the provisions of the Bill, of which the noble Lord had so warmly approved, as displaying a studious disregard of everything that ought to be attended to in drawing it up, and as requiring to be so altered, if it were to be reduced to a shape consistent with common sense and the laws of the country, that its parents would be totally unable to recognise their own offspring. He must also observe that that statement upon the part of the Solicitor General seemed to be somewhat strange, when it was considered that the Bill in question had previously been shown to the hon. and learned Gentleman by the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, and that he had pronounced an opinion in its favour. Before them, then, was a measure with respect to which three distinguished Members of the Government entertained opinions entirely different. The Secretary for the Treasury, who was so conversant with all commercial matters, had disapproved of the Bill; the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department had considered the arguments of the Secretary of the Treasury as "sheer nonsense;" while the Solicitor General had declared that not one word ought to be allowed to remain of a measure to which the noble Lord had given his earnest support. The Solicitor General had spoken against a Bill of which he had previously approved; while the Attorney General, who had come down to the House to-day, did not seem disposed to regard with any high degree of favour the clause of his hon. and learned Colleague. No doubt we English were a privileged people, and it was somewhat satisfactory to find that hon. Members need not travel beyond the walls of that House in order to see with how little wisdom the world was governed. But he would seriously put it to the Committee, whether it was advisable that they should stultify themselves by legislating in a hurry upon a subject with respect to which so great a difference of opinion existed in connection with the question under their consideration? or whether it would not be the better course to pursue to postpone the discussion of the measure until noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen opposite could make up their minds as to what they intended to do, and could devise some practical mode of carrying their intentions into effect? The noble Lord the Member for London, as well as the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department, seemed to be actuated by feelings of almost personal animosity towards the Emperor of Russia; but he felt assured that they would agree with him in thinking that it was desirable that our legislation, even when directed against our enemy, should be consistent with a wise policy and the dictates of common sense.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, he thought the question now before the Committee was far more simple than the hon. Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon, with an evidently strong wish to defeat this Bill, had chosen to represent. It appeared to him (Lord J. Russell) that the question, as it had been brought before the House, was whether, it being an offence of no less than high treason to subscribe any money for the purpose of assisting in raising a loan for the Emperor of Russia, it should be a perfectly innocent act, and should constitute no offence whatever, two days after that loan had been made and the scrip issued, to take part of that scrip, and thereby, though not directly, yet evidently indirectly, assist the enemies of Her Majesty? That appeared to him to be the question now brought before the Committee. It might be said that this object should be attained in one way or in the other—that it ought to be attained by means of the words of the noble Lord who bad brought forward the Bill, or those of his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General. He did not wish to interfere upon that question; but the point before the Committee was the simple one which he had stated. It appeared that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. Baring) took great offence because this Bill applied only to Russia. Well, the only reason it applied to the Emperor of Russia was, that the Emperor of Russia was the only Power with whom we happened to be at war. The hon. Gentleman said, and very truly, it was possible—but he hoped no such contingency would arise—that during the recess Her Majesty might think fit to declare war against some other Power. He (Lord J. Russell) imagined, however, if such an occasion should arise, that Her Majesty, without any reference to a thing so comparatively unimportant as a Bill of this kind, would immediately assemble Parliament. Her Majesty would never think of declaring war against any Power without assembling Parliament, and declaring the reasons for so doing. The objection of the hon. Gentleman in that respect, then, was at once disposed of. But, then, the hon. Gentleman thought that his noble Friend (Lord Palmerston) and himself could not have taken the strong part they had taken in this matter, and given their support to this Bill, without having some personal animosity against the Emperor of Russia. Now, he thought he could answer for his noble Friend as well as for himself that, having been concerned in the affairs of the country for many years, they had never thought of entertaining any animosity against the Emperor of Russia, and that, so far from this, during a great part of the time they had been in office, the most friendly relations had been maintained with the Emperor. When, however, the Emperor of Russia disturbed the peace of Europe, and became an aggressive Power against one of the other Powers of Europe, it was not to be borne that his noble Friend and he could not speak as they thought of that aggression, and support what measures they thought calculated to prevent it, without being told that they were animated by private animosities. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think it a great hardship that British subjects should not be allowed to deal with Russian scrip, but that was not the opinion of the Committee of the Stock Exchange, who had thought it right and decent, seeing that the Emperor of Russia was an enemy of Her Majesty, to forbid, by a rule of their own, any Russian scrip whatever from being dealt in publicly on the Stock Exchange. Why should the House of Commons, therefore, have less patriotism than the Committee of the Stock Exchange? if that body had done everything in their power to prevent such dealings, why should not the House of Commons go so far as to say that no such, scrip should be dealt in without subjecting the offender to punishment? The hon. Gentleman said that Mr. Pitt had never proposed such a thing. Well, the measures proposed by different Governments during war, or during circumstances which approached to war, had been according to the necessities and to the policy of the time. He thought that in the course of the last century some Bill with respect to lending money to foreign Powers had been introduced, but whether this were the case or not, Mr. Pitt, no doubt, found that the enemy with whom he had to deal levied great war contributions and by forced loans carried on the war. He did not suppose Mr. Pitt found that any loan at that time was likely to conic upon the Stock Exchange. If he had found that such trafficking existed, or was likely to exist, he would, without doubt, have proposed to deal with it; but no such occasion arose. But then it was said by the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Wilkinson) that the only effect of this Bill would be to make the scrip of this Russian loan somewhat lower in the market than it would otherwise be. That might be the case. The scrip might be sent over to Holland and dealt in there. The practical effect of the measure might not be very great. He did not himself believe it would he very great. But he thought it would be desirable if, by an Act of Parliament, you did place at some disadvantage scrip issued for the purpose of enabling the Emperor of Russia to carry on war with this country. The measure would, it was said by the hon. Member for Lambeth, not lower the value of Russian scrip by more than ½ per cent, but, if it did not do so by more than ⅛per cent, he thought it was proper and becoming to legislate upon the subject. Whether or no it was worth while for his noble Friend (Lord D. Stuart) to bring in such a Bill was not a question upon which he should give an opinion. The question now before the Committee was whether, this Bill having been introduced, they should think it proper that, while it was high treason to advance money to the Emperor of Russia, it should be no offence to deal in the scrip of that country.

MR. WALPOLE

said, he thought that the noble Lord President of the Council entirely mistook the meaning of a remark of his hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring) when he supposed that his hon. Friend meant to state that either the noble Lord himself or the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department were actuated by personal animosity to the Emperor of Russia in undertaking or in conducting the war. He was sure no one could have observed the conduct of both the noble Lords upon that question without feeling convinced that they were actuated solely by a sense of national honour, and a determination to preserve the independence of Europe. It appeared to him that the noble Lord had put the leading facts of that case fairly before the Committee. It was an act of high treason to negotiate a loan for a Power with which we were at war, and they were then asked to consider whether they should prevent any dealing on the part of British subjects in the scrip of a loan which had been contracted by a hostile Power. Now, he should have no objection to their attempting to effect that latter object if he thought that they could succeed in that attempt. But his belief was that they could not so succeed, and that the Bill would be inoperative, except in as far as it would hamper the merchants of this country in their commercial transactions. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had said that Mr. Pitt had not proposed such a measure as that merely because he had not found any necessity for its introduction in his time. But he (Mr. Walpole) had always understood—although he could not justify the opinion by citing any positive authority upon the point—that the policy of bringing forward such a Bill had been considered by the Government of Mr. Pitt, and that that Government had not adopted that course merely because they had believed that the Bill would have been utterly impracticable. Let the Committee see whether the measure they were then considering could be carried into operation. That Bill was, as he understood, the amended one proposed by the hon. and learned Solicitor General; and under its first provisions it was enacted that— If during the continuance of hostilities between Her Majesty and the Emperor of Russia any British subject shall, in any country, wilfully or knowingly take, acquire, become possessed of, or interested in any stocks, funds, scrip, bonds, debentures, or securities for money, which, since the 29th day of March, 1854, have or hath been, or which, during the continuance of hostilities as aforesaid, shall be, created, issued, entered into, or secured by or in the name of the Government of Russia, or any person or persons on its behalf, every person so taking, acquiring, becoming possessed of, or interested in any stocks, funds, scrip, bonds, debentures, or securities for money as aforesaid, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Now, it seemed to him that various objections might be urged against that provision. In the first place he would ask why should they not extend it to strangers residing in this country. In the second place, he should observe that he did not see why its operation was to be confined to securities issued by Russia; and in the third place, they furnished no means of enabling parties dealing in Russian securities to ascertain whether those securities were portions of the old or of the new loan. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General had himself thought proper to introduce an important modification of that first provision; for he had gone on to propose that— The provisions of this Act shall not extend to or include the case of a British subject claiming an interest in the estate or effects of any deceased person, or the case of a British subject taking the estate or effects of his debtor in execution, or the case of a British subject claiming in any country to be interested under any bankruptcy, insolvency, sequestration, cessio bonorum, or disposition of property in trust for creditors, but that in every such case the British subject may take and receive any share, legacy, dividend, debt, or sum of money due or belonging to him, notwithstanding that the same may arise from or be produced by the sale or proceeds of any such stocks, funds, scrip, bonds, debentures, or securities for money as aforesaid. It appeared, therefore, that in the case of the property of debtors, deceased persons, and insolvents, the Bill was not to be enforced. But such an arrangement would necessarily open the door to all sorts of evasions of the law. Thus, if a man held these securities, all he had to do was to assign them over to two trustees and then they could be sold in open market for the benefit of all the creditors. Either this would be done, or you would drive a man into insolvency for the purpose of paying his debts. Then, again, the question arose, when once you got all these securities so sold in open market—whether they were the goods of a bankrupt or of a deceased person—how could you ever distinguish between them and securities to dispose of which would constitute a misdemeanor? Then came the question as to how this matter was to be dealt with. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department had, on a previous occasion, stated that if this Bill were rejected, it might lead to an impression that the House of Commons was not in earnest in the matter of carrying on the war. There was, undoubtedly, great force in that argument, and he, for one, consequently would not be willing to be a party to the rejection of this Bill. He would, however, suggest to the noble Lord that, instead of rejecting this Bill, the Government should bring in a general measure enabling the Queen, by an Order in Council, to forbid British subjects negotiating loans with any country with which we might happen to be at war, and placing that Power under such restriction as might be thought expedient.

MR. WARNER

said, he thought that, in the present case, as the country was only at war with Russia, the subject of loans to that Power need only be considered. He thought that the measure of the hon. and learned Solicitor General would not meet the object which ought always to be kept in view, namely, that of crippling the resources of Russia, but by the introduction of a few slight amendments it might be made all that was necessary. If it were desired to render the measure efficient, it was not desirable to endeavour to do so by mere penal enactments, but, if any transactions in Russian securities were declared void, he thought that the Bill would be rendered much more effective.

MR. BRIGHT

said, that although he had not heard the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring), he concluded, from the reply of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) to that speech, that the hon. Gentleman had charged him with having been actuated by personal animosity in the course he had pursued towards the Emperor of Russia. The noble Lord, it might be supposed, had been influenced in that case by that feeling of hostility which people frequently entertained against those who had driven them into a policy which had been beset with difficulties and failures. The noble Lord and the noble Viscount the Secretary for the Home Department were the only statesmen in Europe who had, unhappily, descended to personal vituperation of the Emperor of Russia. Their language in that respect strongly contrasted with the dignified tone preserved by the French Government throughout those transactions; and he should further observe that the French press had taken upon the same subject a line far more in accordance with decency and propriety than that which had been taken by the press of this country. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had assumed that those who were opposed to this Bill were favourable to the policy of Russia, and that those only who supported it were endowed with patriotism, and he had referred to the patriotism of the Stock Exchange. Now, he (Mr. Bright) did not ascribe to the members of the Stock Exchange any more patriotism than to the rest of their fellow-countrymen, and he did not think that, because a particular course had been adopted by the Stock Exchange, that was any reason for its being adopted by that House, which ought not under any circumstance to legislate without believing that the measure agreed to would fulfil the objects which it had in view. Now, what was the case with regard to the present Bill? Every one in that House was convinced that they were engaged in discussing a sham, more complete, more hollow, and more childish than had ever been brought before any legislative assembly. No one knew that better than the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department, who had himself offered the measure to the House as what he called a "moral demonstration." He (Mr. Bright) thought a moral demonstration exceedingly valuable under certain circumstances; but he considered it perfectly useless when it came after vast fleets and armies had been sent forth against an enemy. There were circumstances under which he did not see how the Bill could be applied. He believed there were at present at least 1,500 British subjects carrying on in Russia, as they had a right to do, without violating our laws, various branches of business on which their means of existence depended; he took it for granted that the House did not wish to make those men criminals, or to effect their ruin; and if any of them were to deal in those Russian securities he should like to know whether they would be guilty of a misdemeanor, and whether they would render themselves liable to im- prisonment? Then, again, how would they deal with the case of Englishmen having in some foreign country partners in trade who had purchased some of those securities? Were those Englishmen to be punished for acts of their partners in which they had become interested? He believed that the "moral demonstration" of the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department would not be effected by that Bill any more than it would be effected by a Resolution of that House declaring that every British subject who should afford assistance to Russia while Russia was at war with England would be acting in a manner hostile to the interests of his own country. By one of those provisions it was proposed that the only bonds to which the Bill should apply were those which had been issued by Russia since the 29th of March last. But what would there be to prevent the Emperor of Russia from frustrating, if he should think proper, the whole object of the measure by dating his bonds from an earlier day? The Bill would be perfectly inoperative for any useful purpose, and he hoped that the Government would not continue to press it through the House.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, that the hon. Gentleman had accused him of personal vituperation of the Emperor of Russia. Now, he entirely denied the justice of that accusation. He had only spoken of acts done under the authority of the Emperor of Russia; he had spoken of the note sent by Russia in answer to what was called the Vienna note, and he had spoken of the attack of Sinope, in the language which he thought those notes and that attack deserved. But he denied that his language had borne the character of personal vituperation. It had been applied, he repeated, to acts done under the authority of the Emperor of Russia, and if a Member of that House could not speak of such acts in terms of blame, there would be an end to freedom of discussion.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) had expressed a qualified concurrence in the suggestion thrown out by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, that it would be better to bring in a general Bill, giving to the Government power of dealing, by means of an Order in Council, with cases of the kind now under consideration. Now, that was certainly a suggestion well do serving of attention; but he thought the Committee would feel that at that period of the Session, when its duration was counted by days, it would be impossible for them to pass a measure which would necessarily require a good deal of consideration. The question, therefore, lay between passing the present Bill or doing nothing during the present Session. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester had re-echoed the expressions of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring), charging the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) and himself with having been actuated in the policy they had adopted, and the language they had used towards Russia, by a mean—[Mr. BRIGHT: No, I did not say it]—by a mean and unworthy feeling of personal hostility. [Mr. BRIGHT: No.] The hon. Member had certainly said that, and so had the hon. Member for Huntingdon. But that was an egregious misrepresentation, propagated by that party in Europe which had for many years opposed the policy of this country. It was just as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester had said—people were apt to get angry with those who thwarted their measures; and that was true of Governments and of States as well as of individuals. It had been a regular manœuvre of the absolutist party in Europe, when they felt that the Government of this country were pursuing a policy at variance with their views and interests, to impute to him (Viscount Palmerston) and to other Members of the Government feelings of personal animosity to particular individuals. That was just as regular a practice in diplomatic manœuvres as the thrust over guard and other movements in the small-sword exercise. He was not surprised that the hon. Member for Manchester should have adopted that practice. [Mr. BRIGHT: I did not adopt it.] But he was really surprised that the hon. Member for Huntingdon should have made himself the organ of that sort of ridiculous calumny, because he thought that if there were a man in that House who ought to have abstained from adopting that line of accusation upon the present occasion, it was that hon. Gentleman, who was known and avowed as the private agent of the Emperor of Russia. He thought, therefore, that there were circumstances connected with the hon. Member's position with regard to the Russian Government which ought to have made him abstain from casting those unjust imputations on Members of Her Majesty's Government. He, like his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell), had thought himself perfectly free to express his opinions as to the conduct of the Russian Government. If that Government happened to be swayed in its actions by one individual, the expressions he had used with respect to it might or might not apply to the individual who possessed that arbitrary power. But he certainly would not be deterred by any taunts from expressing with the utmost freedom in that House, or in any other place in which the occasion might require it, his opinions as to the conduct of foreign Governments in connection with their relations with the Government of this country. The hon. Member for Manchester was very difficult to please; because when proposals were made to resist an injury to this country, or to defend its interests by force, the hon. Gentleman opposed the employment of force, and was then all for moral demonstrations; but when he (Viscount Palmerston) recommended that Bill, because, among other considerations in its favour, it would serve as a moral demonstration, the hon. Member asked, what would the Emperor of Russia care for a moral demonstration, and told them to employ their armies and their fleets, as the only means of influencing the enemy with whom they had become engaged. That champion of peace was so very peaceable that he had objected to the war from the beginning to the end; and he would, therefore, neither allow them to proceed by military and naval demonstrations, nor even by moral demonstrations. The hon. Gentleman was perfectly entitled to his opinions; he (Viscount Palmerston) certainly did not think they were the opinions of the country; and when the hon. Gentleman told them what he had heard in private conversations with different individuals in reference to that Bill, he (Viscount Palmerston) would only say that he should be sorry to state what he had heard in private conversations in reference to the arguments of those who had opposed the Bill. He supported the Bill on the grounds he had already stated; he though this noble Friend (Lord D. Stuart) had been right in bringing it forward; but at all events it had been submitted to the consideration of the House, and its principle had been sanctioned by a very considerable majority of hon. Members; and under those circumstances he believed it would not be for the interest of the country that it should be rejected on the ground of its being open to mere verbal criticisms. His hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. Wilson) had pointed out two Amendments which in his (Viscount Palmerston's) opinion would remove some of the objections to the measure without interfering with its principle; and if the clause should then be read a second time, an opportunity would be afforded to him or to any other hon. Member to propose any Amendments they might think proper on the bringing up of the report.

MR. T. BARING

I wish to say a few words in explanation to the Committee. The noble Lord has stated that I am the private agent of the Government of Russia, but I beg to tell the noble Lord that such is not the case. In time of peace I have been the agent of the Russian Government, so far as the firm of which I am a member negotiating a loan for that Government could make me so; but I must remind the noble Lord that, after the failure of a well-known house, the Bank of England, on the recommendation of the late Sir Robert Peel, became the private agent of the Russian Government. If the noble Lord, therefore, means to say that I ought to be silent upon this subject on account of any connection I may have had with the Russian Government, I must tell the noble Lord that, as far as I know, my opinions are as conscientiously entertained as those of the noble Lord himself. Language may have fallen from me which went further than I intended; but what I intended to say was, that the fact of the Government having remained three months without bringing such a Bill as this before the House must be attributed to their belief in its inutility, and not to any want of animosity on their parts to Russia. I do not hesitate to say that the language of the two noble Lords, coming from such high quarters, and directed against a foreign Government with which we had been so long in intimate alliance—I do not hesitate to say that that language appeared to me at the time, and appears to me still, indecorous. But I certainly did not intend to convey the opinion that, in my humble judgment, that language was dictated by any personal spite or private animosity.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

I have no wish to state anything with reference to any hon. Member which would be inconsistent with the truth. I certainly, however, did understand that the hon. Member was the private agent of the Russian Government, although not in such a manner as would be in the least compatible with the highest sense of duty; and I did understand that when a Turkish agent was not long ago in this country for the purpose of negotiating a loan for his Government, an application was made by him, among other applications, to the firm to which the hon. Gentleman belongs, and that they declined to have anything to do with that loan, on the ground of their financial connection with the Russian Government. If I have been misinformed upon that point, I should of course be glad to be corrected by the hon. Gentleman.

MR. T. BARING

Perhaps I may just as well state that there were other reasons for our declining to engage in that loan. We did not think the security very good; we did not believe that a Turkish loan would succeed without a guarantee from England and France; and we said, in addition, that we did not think it would be becoming in us to undertake the management of such a loan, after having a few years before, negotiated a loan for the Russian Government, with which the Turkish Government was at war.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

Am I to understand that the connection of the firm with the Russian Government was not assigned as a reason for declining to engage in that loan?

MR. T. BARING

I am not aware that it was; I was not the person who communicated with the Turkish agent; but my impression is that it was not.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

I am glad to hear from the hon. Gentleman that he does not intend to attribute the language used by my noble Friend and myself, with regard to the conduct of the Russian Government, to feelings of personal animosity. That is all I wished; and, with regard to whether that language was decorous or not, the hon. Gentleman is of course entitled to form his own opinion.

MR. DISRAELI

I quite sympathise with what has fallen from the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), and with the indignation which he must feel at the imputation of personal motives influencing his political conduct. I think that is a very reasonable feeling, and I do not know any living statesman more sinned against in that respect than the noble Lord. About five or six years ago a stream of calumny in that vein was poured upon the noble Lord. The noble Lord was at that time in the responsible position of influencing the policy of this country during the occurrence of the most important events of modern times, and he was assailed by persons of position and authority on the ground that he was influenced in the course of policy which he adopted by personal motives. Now, who was the principal individual who at that time assailed the noble Lord? It was the present Prime Minister of England, under whom the noble Lord now holds office. And who were the persons who supported those calumnious accusations? They were the followers of the present head of the Government, and are now colleagues of the noble Lord. I merely recall the attention of the Committee to this circumstance in order that they may do justice to the amiable disposition of the noble Lord; and they, perhaps, may feel that the indignation which has been lavished upon a chance, and probably misunderstood, phrase, might have been directed against those much more entitled to be complained of than my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon.

MR. VERNON SMITH

said, he had understood the hon. and learned Attorney General to say that, at this period of the Session, it was a waste of time to indulge in personalities; and he would go further, and say that, at this period of the Session, it was a waste of time to continue to discuss a measure like the present. It was not, in his opinion, consistent with the proceedings of that House that an entirely new Bill, such as this in reality was, should be introduced in Committee. He would ask any hon. Member who had read the Amendment if this was not a completely new Bill? The Bill was one which, in his opinion, would not do the least possible harm to the Russian Government, but which would recoil on this country, and he would put it to his noble Friend whether it would not be better to withdraw the present Bill, and to bring in a short Bill on the subject.

MR. J. A. SMITH

said, he was one of those who came down to the House prepared to give his most hearty support to the Bill of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone; and for this reason, that he thought an act which was admitted to be treasonable should not escape without punishment. The discussion which had taken place had very strongly confirmed that opinion, and he was astonished that the hon. Member for Huntingdon, in his amusing and ingenious speech, had directed his attention more to the manner in which the Bill had been introduced than to the principle of the Bill itself. It was a remarkable fact that every Member who had spoken against the Bill, having drawn the most lamentable picture of the evils to English commerce and to individuals, which would arise from the measure, stated at the same time that the Bill should be made general, and that they would be prepared to support it in that shape. He could not understand what effect such a general Bill could have except to increase indefinitely the very evils which were apprehended by those hon. Members from the operation of the present measure. He was greatly astonished at some of the objections which had been urged against the Bill by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole). The right hon. Gentleman had stated that executors were to be enabled to hold Russian stock, that they were to have the power of selling that stock, and that, therefore, the Bill would be inoperative, at least so far as such cases were concerned. But the right hon. Gentleman seemed entirely to forget that the Bill interdicted the purchase of such stock. [Mr. WALPOLE: The Bill does nothing of the kind.] At all events, although executors might sell, the power of buying was taken away, the purchase of Russian stock being in fact made a penal act. It was upon that very ground that he supported the present Bill. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey), in his eagerness to defeat the Bill, had stated that if the power of negotiating loans was taken away from Russia, it would be utterly impossible for Russia to pay the dividends upon her existing loans. Well, the answer to that was this—that while the inconvenience produced to the holders of Russian stock would give him great pain, he could not but feel that it was the duty of the Legislature to do everything they could to cripple the resources of Russia at the present moment, and that no consideration affecting private individuals should be allowed to stand in the way of the attainment of that great and important object. He believed it to be right that Russian loans should not be negotiated in England, and that being so, he thought that the purchasing of such securities by British subjects should be held to be an act punishable by fine or imprisonment.

MR. BARROW

said, the Bill had been denounced as a measure interfering with private property. But private property was only interfered with if it existed at the present moment in the hands of any Bri- tish subject. He challenged the opponents of the measure to show that such property was held at present by British subjects. The object of the Bill was to prevent the holding of Russian stock in future, and he denied that any executor could sell any such stock in future in the English market. [Mr. WALPOLE: Yes, he could.] If that was so, the clause proposed by the hon. and learned Solicitor General differed to that extent from the Bill as originally introduced by the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone.

MR. MASSEY

moved that the Chairman report progress.

MR. BRIGHT

said, before the question was put he wished to have one matter explained by the hon. and learned Attorney General. It was well known that many English houses had partners abroad who were not British subjects. As be (Mr. Bright) read this Bill, it appeared to him that these partners in foreign countries, not British subjects, becoming possessed of securities of this nature, it was clear the Englishman residing at home would be interested in them, and therefore would become liable to the provisions of this Bill. He wished to know if such would not be the effect?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he had no hesitation in saying that an Englishman would not be affected by what was done by the partner abroad, unless he adopted the act as that of his own.

LORD DUDLEY STUART

hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion for reporting progress.

LORD SEYMOUR

said, he thought it well that he should. He preferred the Bill of the hon. and learned Solicitor General to that of the noble Lord (Lord D. Stuart), and therefore hoped a division would be taken on the question of reporting progress.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 30; Noes 88: Majority 58.

MR. T. BARING

said, that under the terms of the clause a British subject, being a stockbroker at Amsterdam or elsewhere, would be obliged to refuse to sell Russian stock for any of his customers. He thought that would operate as a great hardship.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he would admit that a British subject, though a stockbroker resident abroad, would be liable to the penalties of the Bill if he transacted business of the nature described; but it was impossible to make a distinction between stockbrokers and other persons. He intended to add a proviso to the clause, declaring that nothing therein contained should preclude the acceptance of Russian Government notes used as a circulating medium in the Russian dominions, so far as the same might be received by British subjects resident therein.

MR. HENLEY

said, he begged to inquire whether a foreigner who had purchased Russian scrip after the passing of this Bill would be liable to be apprehended and imprisoned, in the event of his coming over to this country at any subsequent period.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Certainly not; because he would not come under the description of a person residing in this country at the time when the act was done.

MR. WALPOLE

said, the answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman increased the difficulty, inasmuch as a foreigner who had purchased Russian stock abroad, and who had subsequently come into this country, might dispose of such stock to parties residing here.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, a foreigner could not do so, because he would get no person to buy his stock.

MR. WALPOLE

said, the executors of deceased persons and the assignees of bankrupts were excepted from the provisions of the Bill. Now, it would be necessary that those parties should be at liberty to dispose of the Russian stock in their hands, in order that the proceeds might be distributed, in the one case among the relatives of the deceased persons, and in the other among the creditors of the insolvents; and that being so, those securities might possibly find their way into the English market, and it would be impossible to distinguish them from securities which had been knowingly and wilfully acquired by other persons not executors or assignees.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, the difficulty presented by the right hon. Gentleman arose from an assumption that securities held by executors or assignees might find their way into the English market. He did not see any possibility of that. He admitted that it would be necessary for executors and assignees, in the discharge of their duty, to sell such property; but they could not do so in Eng- land, inasmuch as it would be illegal for any party residing in this country to deal in them.

MR. WALPOLE

Then I suppose these securities must be sold abroad.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

They must.

MR. SPOONER

said, it appeared to him that the dealings of executors and assignees in Russian securities were excepted altogether from the provisions of the Bill.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, it was not so; the acquisition of such property by executors and assignees was only exempted from the penalties contained in the Bill.

MR. HENLEY

said, he feared the words "British subject claiming an interest in the estate or effects of any deceased person" would not include executors.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, in the majority of instances these would be cases of persons dying abroad, and as the mode of administration differed, and in many countries there was no such thing as executors, it was necessary to use general words, but he thought these words would include executors.

SIR FITZROY KELLY

said, he had been unavoidably absent when the discussion took place on the second reading of the Bill, but he wished to take the earliest opportunity of stating that, even with the safeguards which it was the object of the clause to create, the Bill appeared to him to he most dangerous and unjust in its tendency. He agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman that these words would include executors. There was another case not provided for. Suppose a British subject to be connected with a foreign house—say at Hamburg or at Amsterdam—and that that house should acquire an interest in property of this description, he thought the Bill, as at present framed, would operate most unjustly towards that person; and would expose such British subject, who was perfectly innocent, to great inconvenience. He might be one of a firm of four or five, all the rest being Germans, and who, as foreign merchants, might abroad do acts which an English subject in this country could not legally do. How was that English partner of this foreign house to be affected? His partners might contract a loan with the Emperor of Russia. The British partner would have no power to prevent it, nor could he immediately dissolve partnership, and thus he might against his will become a subscriber to a foreign loan and a purchaser of foreign stock, which act was rendered penal by this Bill. He could not help saying, generally, that he considered the Bill itself to be totally unnecessary. It did not prohibit by law anything which was not prohibited by law already, and it did not make that a criminal offence which was not already a criminal offence. He hoped, at all events, that his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would turn his attention to the case he had suggested, which was no imaginary case, as he knew of the existence of one exactly as he had described it. If the Bill passed at all, this exemption clause ought to go a great deal further, and comprise every possible case in which persons might innocently become interested directly or indirectly in Russian stock.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, that the case which had been put by his hon. and learned Friend was one of the difficulties which must necessarily arise, and was one, therefore, which ought to induce hon. Members to consider whether they would assent to the Bill or not. It was impossible to carry the exceptional clause any further. But, if a partner should repudiate the acts of his co-partners in any transaction such as had been put by his hon. and learned Friend, he thought that might prevent his becoming liable under the provisions of this Bill. With regard to the objections which had been urged by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), he promised to give them the fullest consideration before they proceeded further with the Bill.

MR. T. BARING

said, he thought that the provisions of the Bill would throw a great impediment in the way of trade, and would make the transactions of English merchants with neutral countries most insecure. It often happened that an English merchant could obtain no other security for his claims on a foreign merchant than the transference of shares and scrips of the description which this Bill dealt with, and which the English merchant was very glad to obtain. But if those securities were not available in his hands, it might probably happen that he would not be able to meet his engagements in this country, and thus he might himself be made a bankrupt, although he might be perfectly solvent, supposing such an Act as the one under discussion had not passed into a law.

SIR FITZROY KELLY

said, the objection was perfectly unanswered. The truth was, the law already was quite sufficient to prevent English merchants making themselves original parties in these loans, but if impediments were to be thrown in the way of commercial operations, by forbidding these being received, he would endeavour to make the measure as little mischievous as possible, by introducing a clause on the bringing up of the report. Should that clause be rejected, he would divide the House against the Bill.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

LORD DUDLEY STUART

said, he wished to ask, now that the original clause in the Bill had been struck out, and one prepared by the law officers of the Crown had been substituted, whether the Government would not be prepared to take the Bill into their own hands, and relieve him from all further responsibility?

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, he supposed the Government must accede to the request of the noble Lord.

LORD DUDLEY STUART

said, he was very glad to hear that statement, and he had no doubt this measure, which had been called the Marylebone abortion, would grow up to maturity, and render good and efficient service to the country.

MR. HENLEY

said, he thought it would be only right that, instead of the names of the noble Lord (Lord D. Stuart) and of the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. I. Butt), the names of the noble Lord the Secretary of State (Lord Palmerston) and of the hon. Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Wilson) should now be put on the back of the Bill.

House resumed.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Friday.