RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT SECURITIES BILL. (Hansard, 27 July 1854)

§ MR. J. WILSON
moved that the Committee be further postponed till to-morrow.

§ LORD DUDLEY STUART
said, the debate was formerly adjourned to allow of the presence of the law officers of the Crown. Both of them were now present, and he did not think it would be unfair to go on with the Bill, more especially as they had also present the leader of the Opposition to the measure in the person of the hon. Secretary to the Treasury.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, ho thought the difficulty in which they were now placed, was owing to the Government taking the unusual and inconvenient course of proceeding with Supply till past one o'clock in the morning. But for that they might 885 have been able to dispose of this Bill; and, under these circumstances, it was right that the Bill should be disposed of one way or other. They had had the strongest possible language used on this Bill by the noble Lord the Home Secretary, and they had had equally strong language used by another Member of the Administration; and he therefore thought they had a right to know what the views of the Government were with respect to this Bill. But, instead of that, what had taken place? It was adjourned on Wednesday, merely that they might have the opinions of the law officers of the Crown. Well, the law officers were now present, the Members of the Government were present, the supporters and opponents of the Motion were present, and yet they were told they could not go on because the Votes of Supply had driven them over till two o'clock in the morning.

§ MR. J. WILSON
would remind the right hon. Gentleman that, had the salutary Motion to prevent Motions being made before going into Supply been properly carried into effect to-night, they would not have been so late.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, that if it was the pleasure of the House to proceed with this Bill, it would be undoubtedly necessary to make some important alterations in it. If the Committee would agree that the Bill should be postponed till Tuesday or Wednesday, then, without pledging himself to an approbation of the principle of the Bill, he would take into consideration what the form of these Amendments should be.

§ MR. I. BUTT
said, this was no answer to the appeal which had been made, whether it was the intention of the Government to allow the discussion on this Bill to be renewed during the present Session, or whether it was to be thrown overboard by being fixed at an hour when it could not be proceeded with. This matter was of the more importance, because what the hon. and learned Gentleman had just stated was at variance with the assurances which had been given to the House by his noble Friend (Lord D. Stuart). The hon. and learned Solicitor General had been prudent enough not to pledge the Government upon this subject, as it would be difficult to do upon any subject on earth. But his noble Friend had on a former occasion assured the House that not only did the hon. and learned Gentleman approve of the principle of the Bill, but that he did so in the most marked manner, by suggesting 886 an Amendment to be proposed on the third reading. The Bill was approved by the greater number of the House—["No, no!"] Yes, it was supposed by an overwhelming majority, and even some of those who opposed it, like the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring), did so on the ground that the Bill ought to have been undertaken by the Government. Here, then, was a Bill on which the Government was divided—a Bill on which the noble Lord the Home Secretary had contrived to fix the eyes of Europe; and yet they had no one to tell them what the intentions of the Government were. He did not know whom to address as the leader of the House. He would ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Wilson) who was the representative of the ascendant party in the Government? Was it the noble Lord opposite, or did the opinions of the noble Lord the Home Secretary prevail? He hoped one or other of them would give the Committee an assurance that this discussion would be resumed some other day.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, as the hon. and learned Member for Youghal had attacked him for having abstained from giving an opinion, he would now state that the Bill had been prepared with the most laudable disregard of everything that ought to have been attended to in its composition. He had desired delay in order that the defects in this notable measure might be rendered less glaring. Though the Bill was framed—as he told the noble Lord (Lord D. Stuart)—in accordance with the spirit of the law, yet it was framed with the most perfect neglect of all the interests of British merchants in all their dealings with neutral nations. And though, as the House had approved of the principle of the Bill, and as they were now in Committee, it was not necessary that he should express his opinion of its principle, and he was anxious, therefore, to confine his attention to its defects; yet he would now inform the hon. and learned Member that, in the first place, there was hardly anything that was written in the Bill which ought to remain, and next, that if there was anything which did remain, it ought to remain with a vast number of qualifications in order to prevent mischief and to render it as powerless and as little operative as possible. Now take the first words of the Bill— If any person or persons shall purchase or sell any shares or securities for a debt, or for any 887 other purpose accept, or assign, or transfer, or offer as security for any debt or claim, and give over, assign, or transfer any part of these prohihibited loans, he shall be guilty of misdemeanor. So, supposing that at Amsterdam any merchant should be bankrupt, or should make any assignment of his property for the benefit of his creditors, amongst whom British merchants would be the principal creditors, should they, therefore, accept this assignment, although they might do so in perfect ignorance of the fact that amongst this property so assigned there was some portion of these prohibited articles, they as British merchants would be guilty of misdemeanor. If, again, any individual should be appointed a residuary legatee, he would be unable to take any portion which might consist of these stocks or loans. For a third case, suppose a Dutch merchant became bankrupt, and an English merchant who happened to be one of his creditors went over to Holland to claim his debt, he would be immediately told that he had no right to any portion, say 50,000l., which might be invested in these loans, because, forsooth, the British Parliament had prohibited it. It appeared that all these contingencies were perfectly unknown to the framers of the Bill, for the Bill was drawn up without any provisions for the case of transactions similar to those which he had just mentioned, into which a British merchant might be drawn without any will of his own. So far, indeed, as the principle itself of the Bill was concerned, which prevented British subjects from dealing directly by their own voluntary acts in Russian loans, it was quite in conformity with the principle of the existing law; but if the measure were permitted to go on he had drawn up a form of words which would prevent the Bill from interfering in transactions in which its operation would be altogether absurd. He would read the terms of this proviso, which he considered necessary to be added to the Bill— Provided only that the provisions of the Act do not extend to or include any British subject claiming interest in the estate or effects of any deceased person; or the case of any British subject taking the estate or effects of a 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 transfer of property in trust for creditors; but that in such cases a British subject may take such shares, dividends, or debts, due or belonging to him, notwithstanding that the same may arise or proceed from the sale or proceeds of any such stock or security. 888 He would lay this proviso on the table, intending to move that it should be added to the Bill.

§ MR. I. BUTT
said, he must complain that the hon. and learned Solicitor General had made a personal attack upon him, and said he was prepared to stand by the Bill. He denied the justice of the hon. and learned Gentleman's criticism. He admitted that the proviso was one which he had himself suggested, and which he would have brought up if the noble Lord the Home Secretary had not himself stated that the Solicitor General was prepared to submit a proviso upon the third reading.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, that certainly what passed in the small hours of the morning did infinite credit to the intellectual and physical vigour of hon. Members. It appeared that they became more energetic, and their spirits and physical energies seemed to increase as the time of night wore away, but he thought, with all deference, that they had not been employing their time to the best purpose. The Bill was one on which considerable difference of opinion existed, but a large majority had affirmed its principle, and he had no doubt that an equally large majority was prepared to affirm it now. It was stated with a good deal of ground the other evening that there were questions of detail in the Bill which required further consideration, and his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General had proposed a proviso, which seemed calculated to meet most of the objections which had been raised. This proviso they could not take into consideration now, because they were discussing the question of reporting progress, and as this discussion seemed likely to go on, he was of opinion that they had better report progress now, and as Wednesday was an open day, the Bill might then be taken the first thing.

§ LORD DUDLEY STUART
said, that he did not object to reporting progress, but he trusted the Committee would allow him to say a few words on account of what had fallen from the Solicitor General. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the opinion which he had given to him (Lord D. Stuart) with regard to the Bill was given without reading it. He (Lord D. Stuart) must, with all respect, directly contradict this statement. At the time he spoke to the hon. and learned Gentleman, he (Lord D. Stuart) had the Bill in his hand, and the hon. and learned Gentleman 889 looked at it cursorily and expressed himself very much opposed to it. The following day he met the hon. and learned Gentleman, who was kind enough to say, "I have looked at your Bill, and examined it, and think it unobjectionable—except in some particulars." They were the same as the objections which the hon. and learned Gentleman had just stated, which he proposed to remove by a proviso, and the heads of this proviso he wrote down upon the Bill, which he (Lord D. Stuart) then held in his hand. The hon. and learned Gentleman then said that if this proviso were added, he had no objection to the Bill. To this he (Lord D. Stuart) replied that he was willing to accept the proviso, and would draw up a clause to the same effect, and have it added to the Bill. The only reason why no such proviso was prepared and put upon the notices of Motion was, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had himself proposed to draw it up. It did appear to be hardly fair, after this, that the hon. and learned Gentleman should now say that there was hardly a single word in the Bill which ought to remain in it. He thought it would have been more in accordance with courtesy and with consistency, considering the kind communications that he had made to him on the subject, if he had allowed him to see the proviso after he had drawn it up.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, this would be a lesson to him not to have any communication on Bills with respect to which he had no official duty to perform. He had communicated to the noble Lord, in answer to the question which he had put to him, having first misapprehended his Bill from his own statement of it, and having understood that it was intended to apply to Russian stock generally. He was afterwards told that it applied to Russian stock created since the declaration of war; and he then stated that it was in conformity with the general spirit of the law. The Committee would bear him out in saying that he was unwilling to express any opinion on the merits of the Bill, or to take any part in the discussion, except to do what he had told the noble Lord he was willing to do, to frame a proviso, which would make it more like what it ought to be, and as little objectionable as possible in case the principle were to be approved of.