RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT SECURITIES BILL. (Hansard, 26 July 1854)

§ MR. T. BARING
said, that although he thought it was quite proper, if such measures were necessary, to enact laws to prevent money being advanced to hostile Governments, yet he conceived they ought to be of a general nature. It was not the way in which they ought to legislate on a subject affecting trade, to introduce special measures as the circumstances arose, nor ought they to be influenced by hostility or spite against a particular country in the enactment of such laws. But this was a special measure applicable to Russia alone. If it was desirable to pass such a measure at all, it ought, in his opinion, to be introduced by the law officers of the Crown. The noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord D. Stuart) seemed to think that if this country and France enacted such a law as this, Russia would be unable to obtain money at all; but he (Mr. Baring) thought he very much underrated the money power of the rest of the world in coming to that conclusion. As far as he saw, there was no disposition whatever on the part of any Englishman, or, indeed, any individual in this country, to take any interest or part in a Russian loan, subsequent to the declaration of war and for the purpose of carrying on that war. The credit of Russia, however, was not so confined, nor was it possible to crumple up the resources of Russia as easily as some hon. Members supposed. By this measure you proclaimed to the world that but for 768 public opinion there would be a disposition to invest English capital in Russian securities. He was satisfied that the good feeling of Englishmen would induce them to abstain from lending money to Russia without the prohibition of an Act of Parliament. He also thought it was not expedient, from any principle of petty spite, to make a special demonstration against Russia. By passing this Bill they were proclaiming to the world that, but for it, English capitalists would buy Russian securities. He objected to the Bill as unnecessary, as a crude measure, and because any Bill of this character ought to be general, not special.

§ LORD DUDLEY STUART
said, he would have been glad if the Government had taken up the Bill. But, at all events, it had been supported by one Cabinet Minister, and would be supported by him again, and he believed that it would also be supported by the noble Lord the President of the Council; for he had communicated with that noble Lord, who stated himself to be in favour of it, but that he would consult the law officers with regard to it, and since that the noble Lord had stated that he would support the Bill. Therefore he supposed he should have the support of the Government, notwithstanding that the hon. Secretary to the Treasury had risen after a Cabinet Minister who supported it, and contemptuously opposed it; but he supposed that, being the Bill of a private Member, the hon. Gentleman thought that he was at liberty to take any course he chose with regard to it. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring) said it was unhandsome to aim this Bill at Russia alone, she by-the-bye, being the only country with which we were at war. He (Lord D. Stuart) did not know if the hon. Gentleman's sympathies were with Russia, but they appeared to be so when his objection to the Bill was that it was aimed at Russia only, she being the only Power with which we are actually at war. The Bill was not aimed at the holders of Russian securities which now existed. He (Lord D. Stuart) maintained that if the Bill became law it would throw difficulties in the way of Russia in carrying on the war. He had been told that the Emperor of Russia held a large amount of stock, and could dispose of it when he chose; and therefore, that a Bill for preventing new loans would be of no use. But he (Lord D. Stuart) said that 769 if the Bill passed, the value of any new Russian securities anywhere would be depreciated, and that would be an advantage. As to what had been said about its causing the existing Russian securities to fall, that argument was equally applicable against the continuance of the war itself, which of course caused a great depreciation in all trade connected with Russia. Some hon. Gentlemen seemed to have an extraordinary tenderness for Russia, a country which was our enemy; and he was told when he brought in a Bill to cripple her resources, that it was unhandsome, and only to gratify spite. He would contend that there was nothing unmanly in doing anything which would prevent Russia from carrying on the war against this country. He should not have objected to have made the Bill a general measure if any Amendment to that effect had been moved. With regard to what had been stated by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Baring) about the assets of bankrupts, a clause had been prepared which would provide for that. It was said by some hon. Members that this Bill was open to objection, on the ground that it might render that simply a misdemeanor which was now high treason. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Youghal (Mr. I. Butt) had, however, prepared a proviso to meet the objection, which would be proposed in Committee.

§ MR. J. WILSON
said, that having lately expressed his opinion of this Bill he was not now about to discuss its general merits. The noble Lord (Lord D. Stuart) had made some remarks upon the observations he made with regard to this Bill the other night. He did not complain of that, though he apprehended he was at liberty to make what comments on it he thought proper, but with referents to one point he might say, he believed if it were once understood what the financial position of Russia was at this moment and what its operations were, it would have more effect in preventing a Russian loan than any laws which could be passed. At the time this country was engaged in war, from 1800 to 1815, when bank-notes were inconvertible, our currency became depreciated; but when the House of Commons passed a Bill on the subject in 1819, in redeeming the securities, they determined to pay all their debts honestly without depreciation, and at the full value, instead of paying them with the depreciated currency. What did Russia do on a similar 770 occasion? Russia commenced a long war with the issue of a rouble note of the value of thirty-eight pence, which was made inconvertible for a lengthened period of years, but, owing to frequent issues, the rouble note was depreciated step by step, until, instead of being worth thirty-eight pence, it was only worth 10½d. Now, what did Russia do? The whole of these securities were paid by the Russian Government at 10½d. The value of the rouble was restored to thirty-eight pence, but all the old notes which the Russian Government had issued were paid at 10½d. Russia was now doing precisely the same thing again, and was declaring the rouble notes issued at thirty-eight pence to be inconvertible; those notes had already fallen to thirty-two pence, and if the present war continued, it would soon be found that the excessive issues would lead to a depreciation equal to that which took place during the war to which he had referred. The creditors of Russia and the holders of Russian securities would then find that their securities were reduced to one-third of their original value. He thought, if these facts were known, that capitalists would be placed upon their guard against such uncertain investments, and that the object of the noble Member for Marylebone would be secured much more easily and completely than by any legislative measure.

§ MR. I. BUTT
said, he thought this measure ought to have originated with the Government. As the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) had spoken in favour of the Bill, he should be happy to divide with him. Besides, he had as yet heard nothing substantial urged against the Bill. The one question with him was, would this measure affect the resources of Russia? No hon. Gentleman, he presumed, would say, if Russian securities were made unsaleable in England, that this would not cripple Russia. His opinion was, that as we prohibited the building of steam-boats for Russia, we ought also to prohibit furnishing Russia with the means of carrying on hostilities. The plain meaning of the argument of those hon. Gentlemen who opposed the Bill was, that wherever Englishmen could turn a penny, they must be left at liberty to do so, even at the expense of their country. He should vote for the Bill, on the principle that, if you made Russian securities unmarketable, you affected the power of Russia materially by crippling her resources. There was nothing to 771 prevent Dutchmen from buying Russian securities and selling them to Englishmen; and he wanted to know why that should be high treason on the part of Englishmen which foreigners might do with impunity and profit in English markets. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. Baring) said, by this Bill you were proclaiming that Englishmen would take Russian securities if not for the Bill. But he rather said, by the Bill we were proclaiming strongly to Europe that it was a matter of doubt whether Englishmen hated Russian ambition and Russian designs. It was for the House to decide the question, whether it was right for Englishmen to lend money to Russia to make war on us? He would urge his noble Friend (Lord D. Stuart) to divide the House on the measure.

§ MR. HEYWORTH
said, he considered that, upon grounds of justice and propriety, the House was bound to assent to this Bill.

§ MR. SPOONER
said, it had been stated by the hon. Secretary to the Treasury that, in 1819, this country honestly paid its debts; but he wished it to be understood that he (Mr. Spooner) did not concur in that opinion. He thought that the law officers of the Crown ought to have been present to explain the provisions of the measure now under consideration. He believed that, by the existing law, English subjects were precluded from making in any way direct advances of money to States with which this country was at war. Now, the present Bill, as he understood, was intended to carry the principle further, and to prevent any dealings on the part of English subjects in securities created by States with which we were at war through the medium of other nations. The object of the Bill seemed, in fact, to be to prevent that from being done indirectly which could not be done directly. He wished to know, however, why the Bill, instead of being confined to Russia, did not apply generally to foreign States? He would vote for going into Committee, but he hoped that in Committee the Bill would be rendered applicable to any States with which this country might be at war.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly give my support to this Bill, because it appears to me to be founded on a general principle, which it is exceedingly important to maintain. That general principle is, that subjects of this realm shall not in time of war be allowed to furnish the enemy with the means of carrying on war against us. No doubt, the 772 common and established law of the land, which has been acknowledged by all, and which my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has communicated to all our foreign Consuls, that it might be made known to all—is, that to furnish the enemy directly with money, in time of war, is the highest of all crimes—is, in fact, high treason. But what a puerile distinction is that which is attempted to be drawn between furnishing money directly and furnishing it indirectly. This Bill does not apply, as many hon. Gentlemen are endeavouring to represent, to the established Dutch stock, which has been matter of bargain and sale, of bequest and inheritance, in times gone by; but it applies merely to stock created for the purpose of making war on this country. The object of the Bill is simply this—that if the Emperor of Russia endeavours to negotiate a loan in Europe, to kill our soldiers and sailors, to destroy our commerce, and to frustrate our national policy, at least Englishmen shall not contribute to the resources of the enemy. The argument of my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury goes to this—that you ought to remodel your law of high treason, and permit your merchants and manufacturers to supply the Emperor of Russia with powder and balls, ships of war, and all the implements of destruction. Now, Sir, I consider that it is sheer nonsense to say that we should do so. Such an argument is founded on the principle on which we know the Dutch Admiral proceeded, who, in an interval or lull during a naval action, sold powder to the enemy, in order that the engagement might be renewed in the afternoon. I am as desirous as any man can be of encouraging the commercial enterprise of this country, but, for Heaven's sake, do not let us yield to this peddling system, which places pocket against honour, which turns a balance-sheet against national interests, and which lowers down the best feelings of the country into a mere question of pounds, shillings, and pence. I say that that principle is disgraceful and fatal to a country. If we mean to maintain our national independence, we must have a regard for the generous and great principles on which nations act, and by which alone national independence and honour can be maintained. It is said by some hon. Members that the Bill will be nugatory; but it cannot be nugatory in so far as it establishes a principle. You may say that it may be evaded; but 773 there are men who will evade a law, however high the sanctions may be which the law is calculated to enforce. You cannot guard against the bad and evil passions of men, and the way in which they may be induced by motives of private interest to deal with general principles. All you can do is to lay down the rule, to which honest men will conform, while those who choose to evade it must settle the matter between themselves and their own conscience. I therefore shall strongly recommend the House to adopt this Bill. I think the rejection of it would really be to encourage Russia, and to make a general advertisement to all British subjects that they were at liberty to assist the enemy with their money as much as they pleased. I think it would have a very lowering effect on the national character, not only in this country, but in Europe, if it were found that the British House of Commons, guided by simple greed of private emolument, rejected a Bill which was founded on the principle of your established law, which does not carry that law to the extent to which it exists in reference to other transactions, but which simply affirms a principle that every honourable man will endeavour, in his own dealings, as much as possible to observe. Let it be also remembered that the Bill is simply applicable to debts contracted for the purpose of giving the Russian Government pecuniary means to carry on the war against this country. As I have previously said, I see no difference in principle between allowing British subjects to furnish the Russian Government with money and allowing them to furnish it with money's worth. Money is only useful to them as supplying them with the implements of war, and you may just as well say that you will leave off your blockades, and allow everybody to send everything they please by which they may make a few pounds profit to Russia, for the purpose of carrying on the war, because it is against our commercial principles to interfere with private enterprise. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, I shall certainly give this Bill my very hearty support.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
observed, that every one must have admired and appreciated the spirit in which the noble Lord had spoken, but that as the noble Lord appeared to attach great national importance to this Bill, he thought the noble Lord should have explained how it was that such a measure had been introduced by an independent Member, and not by 774 Her Majesty's Government. He (Sir J. Pakington) agreed that the object at which the noble Member for Marylebone aimed was a most desirable one; but, so far as he could collect the opinions of hon. Gentlemen who were most competent to form a judgment on the subject, the question was not so much as to the desirableness of the end sought to be attained as to the practicability of accomplishing it by such a Bill as that now before the House. He would not enter into the question which had been raised by the noble Home Secretary as to whether or not the objections urged against the Bill by the hon. Secretary to the Treasury were—as they had been termed by the noble Lord—"sheer nonsense." He would leave that matter to be decided between the two Members of the Administration who were sitting upon the same bench. He could only say that, looking to the position of the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston), considering the length of time during which he had been officially conversant with subjects of this kind, and having heard the noble Lord's declaration of the importance which he attached to this Bill, his (Sir J. Pakington's) vote would be guided on this occasion by the opinion of that noble Lord. If, therefore, a division took place, he (Sir J. Pakington) would vote for going into Committee upon the Bill. He hoped, however, after what had been said by hon. Gentlemen most competent to form a judgment upon this subject—after the objections raised by the hon. Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Wilson), and after what had fallen from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring)—that at a future stage of the Bill the law officers of the Crown would give the House their opinion as to whether the clauses were framed in such a manner that they were likely to effect the desirable object which the noble Member for Marylebone sought to attain.

§ MR. KINNAIRD
said, he thought the Government were not open to blame for not having taken up this question, and he must protest against the growing and prevalent feeling that the Government ought to do everything in that House. He considered that it was the duty of private Members to bring forward any measures which they thought it right to propose, instead of relying altogether upon the Government. He considered that they were much indebted to the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone for bringing in the Bill.

§ MR. DUNCAN
said, if the principle of the Bill were to be carried out, it must do great injury to the mercantile community, who would be prevented from obtaining supplies of hemp, flax, tallow, and other articles. He believed that since the declaration of war not less than 250,000l. had been sent from his own district into the coffers of Russia—a fact altogether contrary to the doctrine of the noble Lord. As the Bill would have a tendency to injure the interests of his constituents, he must vote against its going into Committee.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, he thought that the question the House had to decide, with reference to this Bill, was simply whether it was right and proper that persons should be allowed to engage indirectly in transactions which, if they were conducted directly, were, by the law of the land, treasonable. The Bill provided that persons who were indirectly engaged in these treasonable transactions should only be liable to two or three months' imprisonment, but he thought, if the noble Home Secretary had taken a correct view of this subject, that alterations should be made in Committee which would not allow persons guilty indirectly of high treason to escape with such paltry penalties. He did not think this was an ordinary measure of legislation, and considered that a Bill which dealt with the crime of high treason should be taken up by Her Majesty's Government. In his opinion, also, such a Bill ought not to be limited to one country only, but should be a general measure, applicable to all nations.

§ MR. W. BROWN
said, he feared that the Bill would form a very dangerous precedent, for it had always been considered the sound policy of this country, whether during peace or war, to allow money negotiations to proceed in London without restriction. He conceived that the hon. Secretary to the Treasury had established a very strong case in favour of not taking such action as was suggested by this Bill, and be thought it was desirable that the House should have an opportunity of hearing the sentiments of the President of the Council and other Members of the Cabinet upon the measure before it was further proceeded with.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 77; Noes 24: Majority 53.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
House in Committee; Mr. BOUVERIE in the Chair.

LORD SEYMOUR
said, he had voted for the Bill going into Committee, because the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department had made so strong a speech in its favour. He confessed, however, that he had heard that speech with considerable surprise, because it appeared to him that if resisting this Bill were anything so grievous in its nature or treasonable in character as selling gunpowder to the enemy, the measure ought to have been introduced by the Government. They had done everything at the outset of the war to mitigate its horrors, so that it might interfere as little as possible with the commercial interests of the country, but this Bill proceeded on a totally different principle. He would not say whether the principle were right or not, but he thought, before they proceeded further, they should be informed by the law officers of the Crown as to its probable bearing on our relations with other foreign countries. He thought it desirable, therefore, under these circumstances, that the Chairman should now report progress, and he begged to move to that effect accordingly.

§ LORD DUDLEY STUART
said, he could not assent to this proposal. The Bill was a very short one, and its principle obvious and easy of comprehension by every one. There would be ample time to have the opinion of the law officers on the third reading.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, he must express his hope that the Committee would adopt the proposal made by the noble Lord the Member for Totness. The measure affected international questions of very great magnitude, and they would not be in a position to discuss the clauses in Committee without having the opinion of the law officers of the Crown.

§ MR. WILKINSON
said, no one was more desirous than he was to prevent succour being given to Russia, but if this Bill were agreed-to, the noble Lord (Lord D. Stuart) could not stop here, but must insert a clause prohibiting dealing in hemp and tallow the produce of Russia.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, he could not agree with the argument of the hon. Member who had just spoken. Advancing money to the Russian Government was one thing, and paying money for Russian produce, whether belonging to Russians or to subjects of neutral States, was quite a different thing. One went directly to furnish the resources of war; the other might operate indirectly and 777 circuitously for the benefit of the Russians, whilst it also benefited ourselves. If there were any general desire on the part of the House, before going through Committee, to have the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, he would ask his noble Friend to agree to the postponement of the Bill. He should himself vote for going on; and there was this to be considered, that in the present state of business more turned on the question of delay than the mere loss of a few days.

MR. VERNON SMITH
said, he hoped they should not carry this Bill, merely because it bore on the face of it hostility to Russia. He was very much astonished that the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston), having made so inflammatory a speech in favour of the Bill, had not thought it necessary to bring in a Bill on the subject himself. The noble Lord told them they would be doing something very like high treason in voting against the Bill, and he (Mr. V. Smith) had voted for going into Committee. But he must say, if they were to carry out the principle of this Bill, if they were bound to injure Russia in every possible way, the same principle would apply to dealings with the old securities. He thought his noble Friend had pushed the principle much too high, if he intended to content himself with this Bill. He thought they ought to have the assistance of the law officers of the Crown, and, therefore, he hoped his noble Friend would consent to the Chairman's reporting progress.

§ MR. I. BUTT
said, that the words of the clause were so plain, that he considered that every person in the House was as capable of understanding them as the Attorney General. If it were necessary to bring up any other clause, it could be done on the consideration of the Report.

§ MR. T. BARING
said, at the risk of being called by the noble Lord a traitor, he must express his wish that the Bill had been taken up by the Government. He thought that if any change in the present law was necessary in order to prevent the Russian Government, with which we were at war, from getting the money of British subjects, it ought to be adopted; but the measure for this purpose ought to be maturely and deliberately considered, and introduced in such a shape as might give it practical efficiency. He would suggest that Government might frame the Bill so as to make it applicable to every country 778 with which we were at war as much as Russia. The noble Lord the Member for Marylebone was known, whether in time of war or peace, as a permanent enemy of the Russian Government, and the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department shared that reputation and sympathised with his opinions. But it would be scarcely becoming them as a legislative assembly to decide any question of foreign policy and international relations by considerations affecting only one particular Government.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, it undoubtedly might be a matter for consideration whether they would not hereafter extend the principle of this Bill to all the cases to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded. At the same time he did not think that that was a reason for not carrying this measure. There were two principles upon which Governments and nations acted—the one was to provide for the immediate case before them, the other was to provide for all futurity. Now we were at war with Russia, and he did not think it was open to any hon. Member to accuse another hon. Member of peculiar animosity to Russia, because measures were taken to carry on the war, and to give us all the advantage which skill or arrangement could give us in the contest. When they were at war with a country, they endeavoured to do that country all the damage they could for the purpose of bringing about peace, and that which was necessary for their future security, and therefore he did not admit the accusation of the hon. Gentleman, that there was any personal feeling or ally peculiar animosity to Russia as Russia. He hoped we should not be at war with any other country but Russia, and he did not at present anticipate that we should. He hoped that when this war was brought to a conclusion we should enjoy a long period of peace, and therefore he did not see any urgent necessity to generalise this measure. He should have no objection on principle to do so, but the arguments that had been used rather seemed to him to be against generalising it now. It was said, the measure was ineffective. Well, let them try it in the present case, and if it succeeded in this case, they might extend it to other cases. Let them try what effect it would have in the war in which they were engaged; and if it was found to be a measure that was applicable to all cases in which they might be at war with a foreign 779 Power, he had no doubt that it might then be properly made a general measure. With regard to the absence of the law officers, every one knew that the law officers were very much engaged in the morning, but it would be perfectly competent for the House to have their presence upon the report, and if any change should be thought necessary, in order to carry the measure properly into effect, the House could make that change upon the report as well as in Committee, and therefore nothing would be lost by this very short Bill passing through Committee now."

§ MR. T. BARING
said, if the noble Lord thought this Bill was urgent in the ease of Russia, all he could say was, that to the best of his belief and knowledge there had not been a single individual in this country who had taken any interest in the last loan made with Russia, nor did he think that public opinion would sanction such a proceeding; and this he would also say, that he believed the Committee of the Stock Exchange would forbid the currency of that loan. He thought public opinion was much stronger than the noble Lord's Bill.

§ SIR JOHN SHELLEY
said, the right hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. V. Smith) had talked of the inflammable speech of the noble Lord the Home Secretary (Lord Palmerston). He (Sir J. V. Shelley), whatever the right hon. Gentleman might think of it, believed that that speech would be re-echoed out of doors, and that the noble Lord would gain great credit by it. He should certainly vote for going on with the Bill.

§ MR. I. BUTT
said, that it was something extraordinary that in this Bill they were running counter to the principles of commerce, seeing that, according to the hon. Member for Huntingdon, the Committee of the Stock Exchange would forbid transactions in any new loan with Russia.

§ LORD DUDLEY STUART
said, in reference to the desire expressed by hon. Members for the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, he could state, that although the hon. and learned Solicitor General had at first expressed a strong objection to the Bill, yet when he had read it he quite concurred in its object. In like manner the Attorney General, after perusing the measure, had said that he saw no legal objection to it, but that it was a question of general policy. 780 Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 32; Noes 78: Majority 46.
Clause 1.

§ MR. I. BUTT
said, that an Amendment to this clause would be desirable. If a person subscribed to a foreign stock with the view of affording pecuniary aid to the enemies of the country, there was no doubt that he would be guilty of high treason. The same might also be said of a person who colourably purchased stock from a neutral, with a real intent of subscribing to the loan. By the Bill, it was intended to make the bonâ fide dealing in Russian bonds already paid up a misdemeanor punishable by three months imprisonment; but he had some doubt, however, whether the clause, as it stood, might not likewise render the second case to which he bad alluded, and which was clearly treason, a mere misdemeanor; and he should therefore propose words reserving to the Government the power of proceeding against a party either for treason at common law, or for a misdemeanor under the Statute.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman was an illustration of how much the Committee needed the assistance of the law officers.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, he would suggest that the clause had better pass as it stood, leaving the point raised by the hon, and learned Gentleman to be considered between that time and the bringing up of the report

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, the object of the Bill—and it was a very desirable one—was to prevent any person in this country lending money to the Russian Government for the purpose of carrying on the war; but why, on an important question like that, did not the Government themselves bring in a Bill? The loan, as he understood it, was already contracted, and this Bill now declared that the transfer of any portion of that security from the 28th of March, 1854, should constitute the offence of misdemeanor; but unless they made the transfer of other Russian stock than that a misdemeanor, what security had they that money might not be advanced to the enemy by persons in this country.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, he thought there was considerable difference between prohibiting transactions of the 781 kind in question in stock created prior to the war, and prohibiting them in regard to loans created for the special purpose of carrying on war against this country. It appeared to him that the date inscribed in the clause was a very proper one, since it was on that day that the Russian Government attempted to raise the loan for the purposes of the war against England and France.

MR. VERNON SMITH
said, he would beg to ask the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. Butt), as Attorney General ad interim, whether the acceptance of Russian bonds as a security for a debt or claim would render a person liable for a misdemeanor? By the accident of commerce a person might come into possession of Russian bonds as a security; would a man, under those circumstances, be liable to three months imprisonment unless he immediately repudiated those bonds?

§ MR. I. BUTT
Unquestionably. Although some cases of hardship might occur, it was necessary to go to that extent in order to prevent the law from being evaded.

§ MR. WILKINSON
said, he doubted the policy of the measure. The Czar might retort by refusing to pay the interest on his former bonds to English holders.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, that if a foreigner offered the prohibited bonds as a security, the creditor would not take them. It would just be the same as if a man offered a person a bad bank. note.

§ VISCOUNT MONCK
said, the noble Lord had misunderstood the point of the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. V. Smith's) question. The right hon. Gentleman was not speaking of cases in which Russian bonds were tendered to a merchant who might accept or reject them at his pleasure, but of cases in which by the accidents of commerce this foreign stock might fall into the hands of a merchant who would have no other means of realising his claim.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, he apprehended that in every case in which a security of that nature was tendered in payment of debt, it would be for the creditor to consider whether he should accept it or not, or whether he should not treat it as a bad bank-note. He thought the principle on which the creditor should act in such a case was caveat merchant.

§ MR. T. DUNCOMBE
said, he had understood this Bill was not to have any retrospective effect; but it was to operate against the loan raised in March last, and 782 therefore it would have a retrospective effect. He admitted it was desirable that the Russian Government should be deprived of all facilities whatever for raising money in this country for the purposes of the war, but he must contend we had no right to give the Bill which was meant to attain that object a retrospective effect.

§ MR. DUNCAN
said, there were many of his constituents engaged in shipping, who might have received payments in March or April last for freights which they had taken out in February, among which payments Russian securities might be found, and lie thought it unworthy of the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) to say that such securities would have to be treated as bad debts by the holders of them.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, if one merchant dealt with another whose circumstances were doubtful, the only course for him was to take care that the security tendered to him by his debtor was good, and it was an additional reason why he should not accept a bad security if the solvency of his debtor was a matter of doubt. With reference to the objection taken by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. Duncombe), he might say that the Bill affected Russian stock created on the 28th of March, 1854, but only affected transactions in that stock subsequent to the passing of the Bill. His own impression was, that there would be no great hardship in such an enactment as that.

§ MR. T. BARING
said, the noble Lord had certainly a pleasant way of disposing of the question of commercial relations. He was afraid, however, that the noble Lord's views wore by no means favourable to the creditor. It sometimes happened that merchants in this country were connected with foreign firms, with respect to whose solvency they might entertain some doubts. Under these circumstances, security for the payment of his demand would be asked for by the creditor; but the debtor might say, in answer to that request, "I have got nothing but Russian bonds; but these are of some use to me, while they would be valueless to you." The creditor would thus fail to obtain the liquidation of his demand, and he would ask if that was a wise principle by which such a state of things would be sanctioned?

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, that all these arguments might very simply reduce themselves into a much more ele- 783 mentary form. No doubt war was a great inconvenience and a great interruption of all the commercial relations between man and man, and between nation and nation. Nobody disputed that. War ought never, therefore, to be undertaken except for some great and adequate reason; but when they had that reason they must make up their minds to suffer the inconvenience and the interruption of the ordinary relations of commerce. He did not know that there would be any great advantage in making a state of war too easy. War ought to be felt to be, what it was, a great calamity, because it would then make Governments less rash to enter into a state of hostility. In the present case the opinion of the whole nation would be that this war was inevitable, and that a measure, the object of which was to prevent English subjects from rendering pecuniary aid to the enemies of the country, was deserving of the consideration and support of Parliament.

MR. VERNON SMITH
said, he must maintain that the question under their consideration was by no means one of an elementary character. It was simply whether the operation of the Bill would or would not be retrospective—a matter upon which, as it involved an important principle of law, he thought it was extremely desirable that they should have the opinion of the law officers of the Crown.

§ Mr. J. WILSON
said, he was of opinion that if the Bill were to pass into a law, it was advisable that it should be passed in as perfect a manner as possible. There was in the Bill, as it stood, a defect, which required only to be stated in order to show that it went further than the measure purported to go, and would influence a class of securities which it was not meant to affect. The Bill made it a misdemeanor for any person to buy, or offer to buy or sell, securities of the Russian Government, which should be, or should be reputed to be, issued after a certain date. Now, it was well known that the Russian Government held in their own hands a considerable proportion of their old securities. Let him suppose that they should issue a large amount of those securities to their agents, Messrs. Hope of Amsterdam, and that a London merchant should purchase those securities. Well, the person making the purchase would come under the operation of the Bill; but how, he would ask, was such individual to become acquainted with that 784 fact? He should therefore suggest to his noble Friend (Lord D. Stuart), that it was desirable that the application of the Bill should be limited to those securities which purported to have been created after the declaration of the war.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, he remembered a saying of Mr. Windham's, that the truly wise were always in the minority. He could not help thinking that that saying was correct as applied to those who were in the minority in the division which had lately taken place. The Committee must perceive that it was by no means desirable that they should proceed further with the Bill until they had the advantage of the assistance of the law officers of the Crown. He should, therefore, move that the Chairman should report progress.

§ MR. MASSEY
said, when the Bill was in Committee that was the proper time for discussing the details. It was extremely doubtful at present whether the Bill would not have a retrospective effect, and whether it would not involve innocent persons in its penalties. Besides, it involved questions of property. He was willing to assist in crippling the resources of Russia, but they ought also to take care that in doing that they did not ruin the property of their own countrymen. He thought the House ought not to commit itself to a course of precipitate legislation on this subject.

§ MR. BARROW
said, he thought that, as such a loan had not yet been contracted, in the discussion which had ensued on this Bill they had been simply fighting with shadows.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, as the Committee thought it desirable to have the opinion of the law officers of the Crown on the construction of the Bill, he would not oppose the Motion for reporting progress.

§ LORD DUDLEY STUART
said, he hoped the Government would take care that the law officers of the Crown should give the House the benefit of their advice, so that there might be no unnecessary delay.
House resumed.
Committee report progress.