HC Deb 26 November 1914 vol 68 cc1473-6

  1. (1) No person shall by virtue of any transfer of any securities made by or on 1474 behalf of an enemy have any rights or remedies in respect thereto unless he proves that the transfer was made with the leave of the Board of Trade, or was made before the commencement of the present War, and no company or municipal authority or other body by whom the securities were issued or are managed shall except as hereinafter appears take any cognisance of or otherwise act upon any notice of such a transfer.
  2. Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply where the transferee or some subsequent transferee proves that the transfer or some subsequent transfer was made before the nineteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and fourteen, in good faith and for valuable consideration.
  3. (2) No entry shall, during the continuance of the present War, be made in any register or branch register or other book kept in the United Kingdom of any transfer of any securities therein registered, inscribed or standing in the name of an enemy, except by leave of a court of competent jurisdiction or of the Board of Trade.
  4. (3) No share warrants payable to bearer shall be issued during the continuance of the present War in respect of any shares or stock registered in the name of any enemy.
  5. (4) If any company or any body contravenes the provisions of this Section the company or body shall be liable on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, and every director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company or body who is knowingly a party to the default, shall be liable on the like conviction to a like fine or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding six months.
  6. (5) For the purposes of this Section the expression "securities" includes any annuities, stock, shares, debentures, or debenture stock issued by or on behalf of the Government or by any municipal or other authority, or by any company or by any other body.

Sir F. BANBURY

In order to get some explanation as to its retrospective nature, I beg to move to omit Clause 8. If it is retrospective it will inflict very great hardship upon everyone who in good faith has bought certain shares or stock in any foreign company. It might happen that an alien enemy on 4th August had transferred certain stocks to a neutral without proper consideration, and that neutral had sold them for good consideration to an Englishman on 10th August. Since 10th August there have been five or six different transfers—all bonâ fide. This Bill says that no company may transfer stock which has at any time since the 4th August been in the hands of an alien enemy unless it is proved that the transfer has been for proper value received. The result of that would be that if I purchased through my stockbroker £1,000 London and North-Western Railway ordinary stock, and it came out in the name of my hon. and learned Friend—he is a first-class person—I would pay him for the stock. I find that he has given good value for the stock, and I part with my money to him. Then I have to go through any amount of gradations to find out whether eight, nine, or ten transactions before my hon. and learned Friend got the stock were bonâ fide for value received. In these circumstances I venture to say that a severe blow will be inflicted upon a market which is already very much depressed, and which does not want further blows put upon it. What you want to do is to enable people to realise their securities, if they wish to do so, as easily as possible. The hon. and learned Gentleman is making it almost impossible to realise English securities by this regulation. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would say that on and after 26th November no stock standing in the name of an alien enemy must be transferred unless it is proved that good consideration has been paid, I would not have a word to say against it. But if a transfer is presented with the name of Johann Schmidt, I will not pay for it unless I am sure that good consideration has been paid.

Mr. BOOTH

I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir J. SIMON

I have the warmest sympathy with the hon. Baronet's sentiments—in fact I share them—but I would ask him to look at the actual terms of the Clause. I do not complain at all, because for the moment he was misled about it. If he will look at the Clause he will find that, so far from doing what he supposes, it does the exact opposite. He will find that is so if he will look at the language of the proviso which meets the precise case he has put. It is quite true that we begin by saying that transfers since the beginning of the War are null and void. But the proviso does not merely say that the transfer is all right if the person who bought from the alien enemy bought bonâ fide and for good consideration; but the transfer before the introduction of this Bill, between the beginning of the War and now, substantially speaking, gives a good title to the hon. Baronet if anybody in the course of the chain has bought bonâ fide for value. So it is a mistake to say that it is invalidating the title. The language of the Clause does exactly what the hon. Baronet wishes to do.

Mr. RAWLINSON

I am sure that the Attorney-General is, quite unintentionally, absolutely mistaken as to the effect of the Clause. The proviso is that it must be done before 19th November. Therefore if the purchase is made to-morrow or any other day between now and the end of the War it makes absolutely no difference to him to show that he paid full value. That is where the hardship comes in. He has got to show that he paid good value for it not to-morrow but before 19th November, which is a very different thing. It is a grave business difficulty for people who are going to buy London and North-Western stock in the month of December that though they pay full value for it they will not have a title unless they go a great deal further and prove that somebody has given good consideration before the 19th November. I quite appreciate the case which the Attorney-General wants to get at, but I do not think that this is the best way of dealing with it. I do not think that the penalty is sufficiently clearly set out.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (5) leave out the word "includes," and insert instead thereof the word "means."