§ SIR EDWARD WATKINasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to the opinion expressed 1436 by the Lord Chief Justice of England and to the words he used in the hearing of the case of Twycross v. Grant, reported in the "Times" of May the 18th, as to the practice of producing an artificial premium, by purchases on the Stock Exchange before allotment, upon bonds, shares, and stocks issued under prospectus, and of thereby inducing the public to apply for the securities offered—the words reported to have been used by the Lord Chief Justice being—
The fact that the practice was usual does not affect its morality. What I allude to is not anything in the nature of bona fide dealings, but purchases on the Stock Exchange for the purpose of raising the shares to a fictitious value, and in order to induce others to buy them, and then when they have bought, they find the shares worthless in their hands. That is really getting money by means of false pretences;and, whether it is his intention to advise Her Majesty's Government to take legal proceedings against any of the parties to the transactions disclosed in the Report of the Select Committee on Foreign Loans, and who were guilty of obtaining money from many thousand persons by means of the "false pretences" described by the Lord Chief Justice?
§ SIR ROBERT PEELI will also ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to the opinion expressed by the Lord Chief Justice of England, and to the words he used in the hearing of the case of Twycross v. Grant, reported in the "Times" of May 18, as to the practice of producing an artificial premium by purchases on the Stock Exchange before allotment, upon bends, shares, and stocks issued under prospectus, and of thereby inducing the public to apply for the securities offered, the words reported to have been used by the Lord Chief Justice being—
The fact that the practice was usual does not affect its morality. What I allude to is not anything in the nature of bona fide dealings, but purchases on the Stock Exchange for the purpose of raising the shares to a fictitious value and in order to induce others to buy them, and then when they have bought, they find the shares worthless in their hands. That is really getting money by means of false pretences;and, whether it is his intention to advise Her Majesty's Government to take legal proceedings against any of the parties who have been guilty of obtaining money from many thousand persons by means of the "false pretences" described by the Lord Chief Justice, more particularly 1437 with reference to transactions disclosed in the "Railway News" of March 24, 1876, with respect to the Humber Ironworks Company, capital £1,000,000, E. W. Watkin, Chairman, on behalf of which scheme the promoters appealed to the public through the Stock Exchange, promising a dividend of 20 per cent and upwards to the shareholders, the shares of the Company being quoted 1½ to 2 premium before a single share had been allotted; whereas in a few months the whole of the money subscribed by the public disappeared except a trifle?
§ SIR EDWARD WATKINSir, before the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General answers my Question I am sure the House will allow me the indulgence of a few words in reference to the Question of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. I only arrived from Ireland early this morning, and did not see the Question of the right hon. Baronet till some time this afternoon. Therefore, I received no Notice of the right hon. Gentleman's intention to put his Question, which I am sure I am within Parliamentary language in describing as not a little offensive. I therefore had no opportunity of showing the right hon. Baronet that he was grossly in error, that he had done me great injustice, wasted the time of the House, and extended a practice which I think you, Sir, will see is not entirely to the credit of the House—namely, that of bringing forward personal matters and arousing personal animosities in the shape of asking Questions. Now, Sir, the facts are very simple, and they are perfectly well known. If any hon. or right hon. Member will do me the favour of going to the Library and inspecting The Times of the Autumn of 1869, he will find the report of the trial, extending over three days, to which the right hon. Baronet refers; that a jury was empanelled to try whether I, the Member of this House alluded to, had done anything dishonourable, or fraudulent, or unfair; that after three days' examination I positively refused to allow the case to go to a referee, and insisted on my right to have the case tried by a British Judge and a British jury. The jury were unanimously of opinion that no case whatever had been made out, and the person who pursued me — a small attorney in Yorkshire—preferred to be non-suited rather than take the 1438 verdict of the jury. If the right hon. Baronet will do me the further justice of referring to the remarks of the Lord Chief Justice, who tried the case, he will find that his Lordship distinctly stated that no imputation rested upon me, and that the misfortunes of the undertaking—for unfortunate it was—were in consequence of no fault of mine, but happened mainly because the advice which I gave was not taken; and I think he will do me the justice of admitting that the Question is not fair, is not well founded, is libellous—that it is such a Question as a man would not put to me out of this House without receiving such a reply as the forms of this House will not permit me to make.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALMy attention has been called by the Question of the hon. Member for Hythe, as well as by that of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, to the observations of the Lord Chief Justice in the case of "Twycross v. Grant." I understand the Lord Chief Justice, in the words made use of, to condemn the practices referred to as dishonest and immoral; but I do not think he commits himself to an opinion that persons resorting to these practices are in all eases liable to criminal prosecution. It is no part, I conceive, of my duty as Attorney General to initiate criminal proceedings against the promoters of Companies. In the cases referred to by the hon. Member for Hythe and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, my advice has not been asked by Her Majesty's Government, and unless it is asked I have no intention of volunteering a communication of my opinion.
§ SIR EDWARD WATKINI beg to give Notice that on going into Committee of Supply I will call the attention of the House to this very important question and move a Resolution.