SECOND READING. (Hansard, 24 May 1883)

§ MR. COURTNEY,
in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was introduced, after mature consideration, to meet the great evil of making, and putting in circulation, medals which were imitations of the current coin of the Realm, and which did not constitute any offence against coinage in 874 the present law. The attention of the Government had been drawn by the authorities of the Mint to the extent these medals had been put in circulation; but there had been a good deal of uncertainty as to whether they should take any measures to put a stop to the evil. It was now, however, proposed to make it a misdemeanour to possess, without reasonable excuse or justification, any medal resembling a coin, or bearing superscriptions such as those on the Queen's coins. He would admit that it was a difficult matter to word an Act of that kind so that it should operate fairly; but he was sure the principle of the Bill would not meet with any objection in any part of the House. He, therefore, confidently proposed the second reading.

§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY
said, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) had said the Bill had been brought in after great deliberation. He should not have thought it, if the hon. Gentleman had not taken the trouble to inform the House of the fact; because, in the first place, the Bill overthrew, in a simple line, the great principle of our Criminal Law, that a man must be proved guilty, and not himself prove his innocence. They had not heard a single word of explanation as to the practical reason why the Bill was introduced, or what the evils were against which the Bill proposed to contend. If any person— Makes, or has in his possession for sale, or offers for sale, or sells, any medal, cast, coin, or other like thing, wholly or partially of metal, or any metallic combination, and resembling in size, figure, and colour any of the Queen's current gold or silver coin, or having thereon a device resembling any device on any of the Queen's current gold or silver coin, or being so formed that it can by gilding, silvering, colouring, washing, or other like process, be so dealt with as to resemble any of the Queen's current gold or silver coin, he should be liable to one year's imprisonment. There were many things which resembled coins, which were used as medals or ornaments, and all these would come under the Bill. Ancient coins, for instance, would come under the Bill. In its present shape, he could not approve of the measure.

MR. COCHBAN-PATRICK
said, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman the 875 Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) that it was not easy to frame a measure to put down illegal coinage. It appeared to him that the present Bill would fail in the object the hon. Gentleman had in view, and that, on the other hand, it might be attended with results which the hon. Gentleman had not in contemplation. He thought he was right in conjecturing that the occasion of this measure was a sentence in last year's Report of the Deputy Master of the Mint. In that Report reference was made to the prevalence in the country of what were known as "Hanoverian medals." Those medals bore on one side a likeness of the Queen, and on the other side an equestrian figure altogether different from any device on the current coin of the Realm. The medals, however, were very common; and the Deputy Master of the Mint said, in his 12th Report— It is clear, therefore, that the facility with which these medals can be procured is the cause of much crime. Thirty prosecutions have been taken for uttering these coins. It is doubtful whether there is any provision in the Statute now in force which makes it illegal either to make or sell them. It would appear desirable that an Act should be passed, expressly prohibiting both their manufacture and sale. Now, it appeared to him (Mr. Cochran-Patrick) that the Bill under consideration had a much wider scope, and was much more vague in its language, than the Act which was recommended by the Deputy Master of the Mint. He would admit that, while they were trying to meet a particular evil, it was very possible to cause considerable inconvenience in other directions. The offence which was laid down by the Bill was that of having made, or being in possession of, or offering for sale, any medal, cast, or coin having a resemblance to the current coin of the Realm. Now, the 7th clause of the Coinage Act of 1861 laid down that— Whoever …. shall import or receive into the United Kingdom … any false or counterfeit coin resembling, or apparently intended to resemble, or pass for any of the Queen's current gold or silver coin, knowing the same to be false or counterfeit …. shall be guilty of felony. In the 13th section it was said that— Whoever shall, with intent to defraud, tender, utter, or put off …. any medal … resembling in Size, Figure, and Colour the current coin …. shall be guilty of a misdemeanour. 876 In both those cases a guilty knowledge or intention was distinctly laid down; but, under the present Bill, the mere possession of a medal or coin was to be an offence, though a person might be in possession of it quite innocently. The Bill might be attended with effects not desired or intended by the Government. Results not intended might be easily avoided by an alteration of the language; and he hoped that the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would, in Committee, turn his careful consideration to the subject.

§ COLONEL KING-HARMAN
said, he thought the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cochran-Patrick) had not carefully studied the Bill. If a person made or sold medals which were liable to be used for an illegal purpose he was liable to imprisonment. Such was the simple intention of the Bill, and it appeared to him the House ought to support it.

EARL PERCY
said, he did not read the Bill in the same way as the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel King-Harman). The Bill said that any person who made, or had in his possession, or offered for sale, or sold, any coin which resembled the current coin should be guilty of an offence. What he should like to know from some authority was, the moaning of "resemblance." Every old sembled, in some respects, Her Majesty's coin; and, therefore, anything more ridiculous than the Bill as it stood could not be conceived.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said, everybody knew that there were coins made to look as much like sovereigns as it was possible. Those things were the means—the manufacturer did not himself utter them—those things were the means by which the unwary were deceived. The uttering of these medals was a very mischievous kind of fraud, and did a great deal of harm to innocent people. It was the resemblance of these medals to real coin that did all the mischief; and, therefore, their manufacture ought to be stopped. In fact, the word "resemblance" was the essence of the Bill. He thought that, in the same way, they ought to stop the manufacture of anything looking like a bank-note. In Committee the language of the Bill could be altered if it was thought necessary. He hoped that now the House would not reject the second reading.

§ MR. WARTON
said, a more ridiculous, contemptible, or absurd Bill was never introduced, not even by a private Member, on a Wednesday. After the passing of such a Bill as the present, it would be illegal to possess many kinds of counters used in a round game of cards. Anything circular resembled the Queen's coin. He could not help thinking that it was simply a love of legislation which prompted the Government to introduce such a miserable Bill as the present.

§ MR. MOLLOY
said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when he got up to make the matter plain, and explain why the Bill had been introduced, only told them what was the ease at the present time. He (Mr. Molloy) considered that the law was now sufficiently strong to cover illegal coinage; and he would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to what the Bill really did. If the Bill were put in force, it would be an offence for a man to possess a Napoleon, because it resembled in appearance a coin of this Realm. ["No!"] If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would take the trouble to read the Bill, he would see that the possession of a Napoleon would subject a man to 12 months' imprisonment. The Bill said— If any person, without due authority or excuse (the proof whereof shall lie on the person accused), had in his possession a medal resembling the Queen's coin. ["For sale!"] Of course, for sale; no one kept Napoleons for the sake of keeping them. If a man in this country, therefore, had a Napoleon in his possession, he would be liable to 12 months' imprisonment. There were gold coins in Greece, and the possession of one of such coins would subject the possessor to 12 months' imprisonment. The Bill, in fact, was so absurdly, so idiotically drawn, that one was at a loss to imagine where it was picked up. It would be a wise thing, for the sake of the legislative dignity of the House of Commons, if the Government withdrew the Bill, and re-introduced it in a shape consistent with the dictates of common sense.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
said, he could assure the House that the mischief at which the Bill was aimed was no imaginary one. During the 10 years from 878 1868 to 1878, 10 per cent of the total number of prosecutions for uttering bad coins were in respect of uttering Hanoverian medals, and the prosecutions had even increased since 1878. As the law stood at present, it was impossible to touch the people who made them. There was no useful or beneficial purpose served by making them; they were the means of fraud, and they did no good. There was only one object in making medals like sovereigns, and that was to enable people to commit fraud. The Law Officers had, in certain cases, been obliged to advise that prosecutions should not be taken against the manufacturers, though they knew there were considerable consignments of them from this country to the Continent, in order that they might be passed off. If people wanted medals, let them have them unlike sovereigns. The exact wording of the Bill could be fully discussed in Committee, though he did not believe it was open to the objection taken by certain hon. Members. He could not understand how anyone could say that a Napoleon would come under the Bill. It was different in size, and did not at all resemble a sovereign.

§ MR. R. N. FOWLER
supported the second reading. The hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Molloy) had directed attention to matters which deserved consideration in Committee; but, certainly, a case had been made out for legislation. If the Bill was badly drawn, the best course to pursue would be to allow it to go into Committee, and there make the required Amendments.