The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-28 00:00:00

,MPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS--(YESTERDAY.)
SOUTH. SEA. AND OTHER ANNUITIES
COMMUTATION BILL.
On the motion for the third reading of this bill,
Sir. F. KELLY, after apologisingfotrhhie
csoanbsisedranecetlinaost
night, when the bill was brought under
of the house at a late hour, which was entirely owing'to
his ignorance that the bill-was
on the notice paper.
that
portant as the measure was it was most desirable
It should not be hurried through with too great haste or
precipitation. (Hear.) He had two Clauses to propose--
one to regulate the mode of conversion of stock
by parties beneficially interested or trustees.
____
said
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
that a clause had been prepared to carry out the object
which the hon. and learned gentleman had in view, but
as the Solicitor-General, who had drawn it up, was for
the moment absent, perhaps the hon. and learned gentle-
man would postpone moving his first clause until the
return of the Solicitor-General.
Sir FITZROY KELLY said he would willingly
postpone his first clause, and proceed to the second,
which was to limit the creation of two-and-a-half per
cent. stock (proposal No. 2) to ten millions. He be-
lieved that there was no instance of any great operation
shown, as was proposed by the Government, having
been effected solely by the means, and at the rate fixed
absolutely by the Finance Minister. The usual mode
was to submit the bargain to public competition, and
in this mode it was easily ascertained what were the
lowest terms on which the public were willing to effect
the operation. Either the Chancellor of the Exchequer
possessed the gift of divination to which other men were
strangers, or else he was advancing blindly into the
money market, careless of the loss which he might pro-
duce to the public by the manner of his operation. He,
therefore, wished to limit the scope of such a blind
operation.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said be
objected to the proposal of the hon. and learned gentle-
man, both on the ground of precedent and reason. He
must give a most unqualified and positive denial to the
statement of the hon. and learned gentleman, that there
was no instance of a Finance Minister having proceeded
in the manner in which he now proposed, to act. In
point of fact, he was persuaded that he was now pur-
suing the very course which had always been
reposed in cases of conversion of stock. No doubt,
in point of technical law, the stock which they were
about to create was a new stock ; but in fact it was a
mere conversion, and not creation, of stock which they
were about to effect. He admitted that the Exchequer
Bonds which he proposed to create were a new stock ;
but here he proposed not a fixed rate, but according
to what could be obtained in the market, due care of
course being taken of the interest of the public. With
regard to the reasonableness of the hon. and learned
gentleman's proposition, he contended that there never
had been such a thing known as
to raise money in the
market for the purpose of applying it' to the extinction
of stock. In doing that, the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer would be creating just an artificial scarcity
in the market by going into it to borrow
30,000,0001., and then directly after an artificial glut
when he went in to pay off the stock. Such a proceed-
ing would be most irrational, and cause enormous loss
to the public. ‘The operation which was now proposed
would ilot, in fact, increase the amount of debt, as the
fund which would be at the same time provided by the
house would reduce the debt to a- much greater amount
than that ty which it would be necessarily increased by
this operation. If the operation were limited to the sum
proposed by the hon. and learned gentleman it would be
much too small ever to come properly into the view of the
public, and would not afford a fair test of the working
of the principle on which it was founded. The objection
of the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. Baring), who
spok,e on Friday night in favour of the hon. and learned
gentleman's motion, was that even 30,000,0001. was too
small a sum fairly to test the principle, and he (the
Chancellor of -the Exchequer) could certainly not con-
sent to reduce its scope to 10,000,000/. alone.
Mr. HUME thought the mode of operation was the
very best which could be adopted.
,Mr.' SPOONER said that the bargain was a bad one
altogether, and a great deal too much in favour of the
capitalist. The balance against the state and in favour
of the capitalist would be about 7 per cent. It was on
that ground he supported the motion of his hon. and
learned friend. He thought, looking at our prospects
of prosperity, that 40 years was too long a period to
guarantee a fixed rate of interest merely for the sake of
the miserable saving between paying 2/. 17s. 9d., and 3/.
per cent. He thought it was the height of folly to, tie up
the hands ofthe Chancellor of the Exchequer for so long a
period, taking into account the fluctuating and uncertain
state of things in the money market, and the large im-
portations of gold into the country.
Mr. WILKINSON supported the amendment.
Sir F. KELLY said it was not his intention to go to
a division, because he did not think he was justified ih
opposing his own judgment to the declared opinion Of
tim house. Though he had ventured to differ from the
Chan cellnr of the Exchequer, he should exceedingly rejoice
to find that his experiment had succeeded, and that it
had proved not only unjust to the state, but advanta-
geous to the shareholder.
Mr. WILLIAMS would have been glad if the right
hon. gentleman could have made a better bargain for
the public, but he was obliged to look at the great diffi-
culties which beset him in dealing with this 500,000,0001.
of stock. He thought the propositions which he had
made would on the whole be productive of great benefit
to the public.
The clause was then withdrawn.
Sir F. KELLY then proposed the insertion of another
clause for regulating the mode for the conversion of
stock held by trustees in trust for others.
Mr. HUME approved of the object of the clause.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL apprehended that no
substantial difference of opinion existed on this subject.
He had drawn up himself a clause which he thought
would meet the views of the hon. and learned member.
It was to the effect that all persons holding stock in
trust for the benefit of others, should not be at liberty
to commute that stock without the consent in writing
of all the persons beneficially interested, or in the event
of their being minors or under legal disabilities, without
the consent of the Court of Chancery. The clause also
provided for an appeal to that court when the parties
beneficially interested differed as to the propriety of con-
verting the stock.
Mr. MITCHELL objected to that part of the clause
requiring the consent of the Court of Chancery.
Mr. S. WORTLEY warned the house of the danger
of extending the jurisdiction of that court to these
matters. Of the 500,000,000/.- of stock, a vast portion
was in the hands of trustees, and the expense of an
application to Chancery would, in cases in which the
trust was for small amounts, operate as an obstacle to
the conversion of the stock.
Sir F. KELLY entirely agreed that there should be
no kind of proceeding which would entail any great
expense in the conversion of: the stock, and he, there-
fore, objected.to the clause of the Solicitor-General, so
far as it allowed an appeal to the Court of Chancery
where parties refused their consent to the trustees.
Looking at the important nature of the bill, he thought
it would be better to postpone the discussion until to-
morrow, in order that they might have an opportunity
of well considering the clause.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL reminded the house
that the Court of Chancery was now very much altered,
and the application which was proposed to be made in
this bill was in a form which, until lately, was entirely
unknown to that court. It was an application to a judge
of the Court of Chancery at Chambers, which would cost
only a few shillings, and occasion only a few hours' de-
lay.

The provision with regard to the Court of Chancery
was also objected to byMr. MULLINGS and Mr. SPOONER,
who both urged delay.
Sir J. GRAHAM said considering the immense in-
terests involved in the bill he would recommend the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to agree to the proposed
delay if both sides of the house concurred in the prin-
ciple embodied in the clause, but though hon. members
opposite admitted that the common consent should be
required of all the parties beneficially interested, they
objected to the intervention of a judicial tribunal in cases
where those parties were not all agreed. He was satis-
fied that the effect of such a decision would be an
entire bar to the operation of the present bill.
(Hear, hear.) Though very great improvements had
been introduced into the Court of Chancery, he was not
so sanguine as to believe that it was altogether inexpen-
sive, yet he conceived there could not be a greater slur
on the judicature of the country than the assertion that
an appeal to Chancery where parties did not agree would
be ruinous in its effects. If so, all the late reforms of
that court had been altogether nugatory and vain. He
believed that further reforms were indispensably neces-
sary, yet he was confident and sanguine that the mea-
sure of last session would be productive of beneficial re--
sults.

Mr. HENLEY considered that the appeal would do
a great deal more harm than good. Why did not the
Government adhere to the principle universally acknow-
ledged in these matters, that if there was no necessity
for parties to do anything, they should be left alone ?
The amendment was also opposed by Mr. CARDWELL,
and supported by Mr. NEWDEGATE.
REPLY OF HER MAJESTY TO THE ADDRESS
OF THE HOUSE.
Viscount DRUMLANRIG, who wore the uniform of
the Comptroller of the Household, appeared at the bar
and
an read the following reply on the part of her Majesty
house address which had been presented to her by the
princey
:
Cones
her Majesty upon the birth of a
" I have
%ye r your loyal and.
dutiful address.
The interest wthhianchil Y Lave expressed in my domestic
happiness is highly gratif3 ing to me.'
NEW DIEISIBER.
the
M countyr. BIINB
of Carlow. URY took the oaths and his seat for the
SOUTH SEA. &e,., ANNITITIE
The house then divided (An the clause of Belly.
The numbers were—
For the clause.—..-:....
Against it

......... 128

the clause,
Majority ..................
The SOLICITOR-GEN ERAL th ........... 67
gi• en aboveen moved
the purport of which is
After some observations from the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER, the clause w: is agreed to.
Another clause was proposed by the SOLICITOR-GzxE.
BAL with regard to the heArings in the Court of Chancery.
Mr. HUME hoped 4 „hat as the judges of the court
were well paid, a prov ision would be made for enabling
parties to have a hearir g without any expense. (Laughtm-.)
Mr. HENLEY observed that it was a new doc-
trine to lay down,, that because the judges were
paid, therefore, the practitioners in the court should
forego their fees. (Wear, hear.) He doubted very much