*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYrose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs it he would lay on the 126 Table any legislative measures for prohibiting or restricting gambling in "option and future" contracts representing; "fictitious" agricultural produce and metals, either passed or proposed, in Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bohemia, Belgium, Franco, Switzerland, Norway and Sweden, Greece, Argentina, and the United States and South Australia; and if Her Majesty's Government had asked the Hungarian Government for a copy of the official report of the International Agricultural Congress held at Budapest last September; and to ask Her Majesty's Government if they would lay on the Table the sections of the Canada Criminal Code of 1892 which came into operation in March 1893 prohibiting gambling in prices. He said he would first say to the noble Earl the Under Secretary for the Colonial Office, that he had called there and finding no information about prosecutions under the Canadian Criminal Code, he had withdrawn that part of the Question. With regard to South Australia, they had also no information. What had happened in South Australia was that, on 11th November 1891 and in August and November 1896, Mr. Archibald brought forward in the Legislative Council and House of Assembly the questions of "options and futures," and moved a Resolution to urge the Imperial Government to legislate and declare it illegal to deal in options and futures except when produce changed hands. This Debate was adjourned on the first two occasions, and on the last it was wound up by the Premier, who deprecated the resolution principally on the ground that it would be a bad precedent to ask the Imperial Government to legislate in matters affecting themselves. In May last, when he brought the subject of gambling in fictitious produce before the House, the Board of Trade made some statements to the House which were not in accordance with the facts, and, as he would presently show, placed the Board in the dilemma of either wilful concealment of facts or ignorance of them disgraceful in a public office. He said the Board of Trade, because the noble Earl was not responsible for statements put into his mouth. He had too much personal regard for Sir Courtenay Boyle to allow him to be implicated in this matter, and he had already expressed his disapproval of this system of gambling. As 127 for the President of the Board of Trade, ha had recently got into a scrape, and on that account, and on account of the County Councils, he was not prepossessed in Ins favour; but that was a reason why he was the more bound to say that the dates showed that the President was not responsible for the statements made by the Board of Trade; for the President only got back to Parliament in 1895 and later in the year into the Board of Trade; but Sir Robert Giffen had persistently since 1891 endeavoured to prevent any discussion of these gambling systems, and Her Majesty's Government might do well to endeavour to ascertain whether there were any external reasons for his action. The noble Lord who spoke for the Board of Trade made two statements. First, he said that he doubted whether it would be possible to check this system of gambling by legislative authority; secondly, that in no single instance had attempts made by foreign Governments to check this gambling been successful, and no Bill drawn with this object bad as yet passed into law. The, noble Lord was not in any way responsible for statements which the Board of Trade asked him to put before the House, but he (Lord Stanley of Alderley) was entitled to ask whether the Board of Trade were really ignorant of the fact that the Criminal Code of 1892 of Canada imposed as much as five years' imprisonment and 500 dollars fine on persons convicted of making bargains in fictitious goods, wares, or merchandise in Canada or elsewhere, with the intent to make gain or profit by the rise or fall in prices: that this Act received the assent of the Governor General on the 9th July 1892, and that the Dispatch leaving the code to its operation was dated in March 1893 and was signed by Lord Ripon. Was the Board of Trade ignorant of the fact that this Act had had the effect of preventing produce exchanges being established in Canada, and it was passed because of the ill effects of this gambling in the United States? Did the Board of Trade not know that in the case of "Forget v. Ostigny," reported in the "Law Reports" for 1895, there was an appeal from the Court of Queen's Bench in Canada to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and that the Judicial Committee rightly reversed the decision of the Canadian Courts, and held that 128 the practice alluded to in that case did not constitute "gambling" and therefore the broker was entitled to recover from his client? For as the broker was not to make any profit or loss, the essential points of a gaming contract were absent. This case had been decided in respect of the Canadian Civil Code, and not under the Criminal Code of 1892–93, which was posterior in date to the transactions in the case which happened in 1882. This judgment of the Privy Council was delivered by the noble and learned Lord now sitting on the Woolsack. There was another more important case, that of "Strachan v. Universal Stock Exchange Limited," and a series of most satisfactory judgments, the facts of which were as follows:—Mr. Strachan, an officer on half-pay, had been betting with his broker to the extent in a few months of about three millions. The broker required some security, and Mr. Strachan deposited certain shares and £3,000 in money. Mr. Strachan brought an action to recover the shares and the money. Mr. Justice Cave and a special jury gave him back the shares but not the money. He appealed in 1895 to the Court of Appeal, and Lord Esher and Lord Justice Rigby upheld the decision of Mr. Justice Cave. The "Universal Stock Exchange" then appealed to the House of Lords, which upheld the decision of the Appeal Court, on the 20th March 1896. These actions turned upon the Gaming Act 1845, Section 18. Mr. Strachan, in November 1895, appealed to the Court of Appeal in order to recover his £3,000, but Lord Esher, Lord Justice Smith, and Lord Justice Kay upheld Mr. Justice Cave's decision. When the "Universal Stock Exchange," on March 20th 1896, appealed to the House of Lords against the decision which restored to Mr. Strachan his securities, the appeal was dismissed by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. Lord Halsbury, in delivering judgment, said:
When I look at the terms themselves the whole scheme appears to me to be intended with great ingenuity to pretend that there is to be a real transaction, and yet there is to be a payment in respect of the relations between the parties, which is only reconcilable in my mind with its being an unreal transaction. They are to get 5 per cent. Each learned counsel in turn has been asked what that was for, inasmuch as it was admitted there was 129 no purchase and no sale. In all these transactions not one single purchase or sale is proved to have existed during the whole period in which this business was going on. Then if the real meaning of the parties is this, that there is to be only a payment of differences, what is it but a gaming and wagering transaction between the two us to what shall he the payment on the one side or on the other side? My Lords, if I were on the jury I should come to that conclusion; but I am not under the necessity of trying this question as if I were upon the jury, because the jury have found that it was a gambling transaction, and upon evidence which seems to me extremely satisfactory.Lord Herschell delivered a similar judgment, emphatically disproving the contention of the Board of Trade as to the difficulty of distinguishing between gambling and legitimate speculation, He said:The proposition amounts to this, that parties who intended to gamble with one another, but wanted to have the security against one another of being able in a Court of Justice to recover their bets, could compel a. Court of Justice to adjudicate, and secure to them their bets by a judgment, if only they inserted in their contract a provision which might in certain events become operative, to compel the goods to be delivered and received, although neither of them anticipated such a contingency; the purpose of inserting the provision creating an obligation being only to cloak the fact that it was a gambling transaction, and enable them to sue one another for gambling debts. The proposition contended for by the learned counsel for the appellants would really lead to that result, and I should require much consideration before I gave my assent to a proposition involving such consequences.Lords Macuaghten and Norris concurred in that judgment. It thus appeared that the Board of Trade maintained in May last that the law could not check these gambling transactions, and could not distinguish between gambling and legitimate speculation, either in spite of or in ignorance of a case which had been tried by a judge and special jury, had been heard twice in the Queen's Bench and in the House of Lords, during which suits nine judges, including the Lord Chancellor and seven Lords of Appeal expressed views disproving the opinions of the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade might have said more justifiably that existing law provided against these gambling transactions, and that it was a question whether they should be made illegal as well as void in law. He hoped he might, perhaps, have shaken the confidence placed by Her Majesty's Govern- 130 ment in their advisers in the Board of Trade. Surely it was more likely that persons so ill informed as to current events were wrong, rather than that the 14 Governments and Parliaments mentioned in his question were in error. In conclusion he would read part of a letter published in the St. James's Gazette yesterday, and written by a prominent Hungarian statesman. The writer said:The Committee of the Austrian Parliament has already gone one step farther than to Imperial German law since that Committe; has reported to the effect that both Blanco-Terminal Trade (options and futures) is to be abolished, and Blanco-Delivery Trade (when no delivery takes place) is to be also made illegal. We have just now had an inquiry at the Hungarian Ministry of Commerce, on which occasion the very same clauses have been made by the Agrarian Party as in Austria. Our local inquiry was, of course, influenced not only by the Hungarian agrarians but also by the example of Germany, and also by the Debate in the Austrian Parliament.
§ THE PRIME MINISTER (The Marquess of SALISBURY)I hope I shall not be accused of disgraceful ignorance or dishonest concealment when I confess that I do not know one-tenth of the documents which the noble Lord desires me to produce. He tells me that there; re legislative Measures either passed or proposed in many foreign countries. It may be, of course, the deficiency of the Foreign Office; it is possible that the representatives of Her Majesty abroad do not take the keen interest in this subject that is taken by the noble Lord; at all events, I have not been able to discover that any Measures have been passed excepting the well-known German Measure. If the noble Lord wishes for a copy of that, no doubt he can obtain it; but we do not generally lay the Acts of Parliament of other nations upon the Table of this House. With regard to Measures that are proposed, I have only been able to discover one—namely, in France. There a Measure was proposed last September by a private Member; but I do not think it has gone any further. I can only say that if the noble Lord will help us in our research, and tell us what are the dates of these various Measures, we will ascertain whether they can be obtained without great inconvenience. Although it is perfectly easy to procure copies of Measures that have been passed, because they are 131 all published for the use of the inhabitants of the countries which they affect, Measures that have been simply proposed and not passed could only be discovered by very long and careful investigations into the daily reports of the various Legislatures to which the noble Lord has referred. I think, therefore, he must assist us in order to obtain this information. We have not asked the Hungarian Government for a copy of the Official Report of the International Agricultural Congress held at Budapest last September. I do not know whether the noble Lord is of opinion that it is our duty to ask for Reports of the Congresses held upon the Continent. There is no particular reason to make us ask for Reports of this kind. But if the noble Lord entertains these strong opinions, and if he can find a sufficient number of noble Lords who take the same view, the best course for him to take is to move for a Committee to report to the House upon this subject. At present the progress of economical science at the Board of Trade, or elsewhere, is so backward that I do not think there is enough sympthy with the object which the noble Lord is pursuing to induce them to make any great efforts to obtain the information which he requires.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of SEL-BORNE)said there was no objection to the noble Lord's request that the sections of the Canadian Act referred to in the Question should be laid upon the Table.
*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYwas obliged to the noble Marquess for his suggestion that there should be a Committee of Investigation. That was all that was asked for last year.
§ THE PRIME MINISTERDid the noble Lord move last year?