HC Deb 04 December 1888 vol 331 cc1134-43

Bill, as amended, considered.

MR. W. E. LAWRENCE (Liverpool, Abercromby)

said, he had to move the clause of which he had given Notice; it was of interest to the Corporation of Liverpool and of general importance. It was really a re-enactment verbatim of the clause which was contained in Lord Cranworth's Act, and omitted, apparently per incuriam, in the Settled Land Act of 1882. It was necessary to make the Bil complete; there was no objection that he was aware of; and therefore, without more ado, he would move the clause.

New Clause, after Clause 12—

(Power to trustee to raise money to meet fines on renewal of lease.)

"In case any money shall be required for the purpose of paying for the renewal of any lease as aforesaid, it shall be lawful for the trustee effecting such renewal to pay the same out of any money which may then he in his hands in trust for the persons beneficially interested in the lands to be comprised in the renewed lease, and if he shall not have in his hands as aforesaid sufficient money for the purpose, it shall he lawful for the trustee to raise the money required by mortgage of the hereditaments to be contained in the renewed lease, or of any other hereditaments for the time being subject to the subsisting uses or trusts to which the hereditaments comprised in the renewed lease shall be subject; and no mortgagee advancing money upon such mortgage, purporting to be made under this power, shall be bound to see that such money is wanted, or that no more is raised than is wanted for the purpose aforesaid,"—(Mr. W. F. Lawrence,)

—brought up, read the first and second time, and added to Bill.

On Motion of Mr. COZENS-HARDY (Norfolk, N.) (for Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (Clackmannan, &c.) the following Amendments made:—In Clause 1, page 1, line 12, after the word "shares," insert the words— And in the application of this enactment to Scotland the expressions 'trust' and 'trustee' shall have the meanings assigned to them by 'The Trusts (Scotland) Amendment Act, 1884.' 47 and 48 Vic. c. 63.

On Motion of Mr. COZENS-HARDY, the following Amendment made:—Page 1, line 16, leave out "and also," and insert "but not."

On Motion of Mr. COZENS-HARDY (for Mr. HALDANE) (Haddington) the following Amendment made:—In Clause 3, page 2, line 35, leave out "aforesaid," and insert— That any of the conditions subject to which the sale was made may have been unnecessarily depreciatory.

On Motion of Mr. COZENS-HARDY, the following Amendments made:—In Clause 6, page 4, line 6, after "con-Bert" insert "in writing"; Clause 8, page 4, line 34, after "thereof," insert "still"; line 34, leave out "or," and insert "by the trustee or previously"; page 5, line 8, after "entitled," insert "in possession"; line 10, leave out "a," and insert "any"; line 11, leave out "his interest," and insert "the interest of such beneficiary"; line 18, leave out "passing of this Act," and insert "the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and ninety."

On Motion of Mr. COZENS-HARDY (for Mr. HALDANE) the following Amendment made:—In Line 18, after "Act," insert— And shall not deprive any executor or administrator of any right or defence to which he is entitled under any existing statute of limitations.

Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 25, after the word "Parliament," to insert the words— Including stock, shares, or bonds, the dividends or interest on which are guaranteed under 'The Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883.'"—(Mr. Murphy.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE) (Plymouth)

said, he was afraid that Amendment could not be accepted by Her Majesty's Government. It raised an important and serious question, that would have to be fully discussed. It was not discussed before the Grand Committee, and he hoped the hon. Member would not insist upon it. If he did, it might possibly have the effect of defeating the Bill.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)

said, he trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman would not maintain his opposition; perhaps a compromise might be suggested. The Amendment was thoroughly acceptable in Ireland; it had been discussed in all the financial organs there, and it had met with the approval, as he understood, of the Irish Solicitor General. So far as Ireland was concerned, there was no objection to it. He would suggest a compromise. Why not allow Irish Trustees to have this power? They would be glad to use it. Much had been heard about the necessity of developing Irish capital in Irelend. He did not ask this for English capital; but here was Stock upon which the Treasury guaranteed 2 per cent—an Imperial guarantee of 2 per cent—and yet it was said the Irish guarantee of 1 per cent on the Stock was good enough to allow trustees to invest in it. Take the case mentioned lately by the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington), the direct Fermoy and Lismore Railway. That Stock paid 2 per cent and no guarantee. Thirteen years ago a connection was made to Waterford, and a charge of no less than £14,000 a-year the taxpayers had paid from that day to this, and although there was no guarantee whatever that Stock commanded a good price in the market. But here, on the other hand, was Stock with an Imperial guarantee of 2 per cent. in which it was proposed to allow trustees to invest their money, and the Government refused! Surely this was watering down Imperial credit and dangerously imperilling the security while they were seeking to put their money in these tramways. The Government said to the capitalist, "Put your money in these tramways, because you have an Imperial guarantee; and surely Irishmen are not afraid to back their opinion to the extent of 1 per cent;" and then, when they asked that Trustees should be allowed to invest on the faith of the guarantee, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "No; Ireland is not to be trusted to the extent of 1 per cent." Take the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own 2¾ Stock, standing at 96¾ in the market; investment was allowed in "Goschens," but not in Irish Tramway Stock, guaranteed and commanding very nearly the same price! He was sure they would have the support of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite. They did not seek English investments; all they asked was that the Imperial Parliament, so far as Ireland was concerned, should give Irish investors some of that care English investors would get from this Bill. Hang it! let the Irish do what they liked with their own money; let their Trustees have this liberty. Were they to be told that they did not know the value of a sovereign in Ireland? The hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Macartney) knew something of these matters. His respected father was Chairman of one of these Companies, and a sound financial judgment had the late Member for Tyrone. I say he should not be allowed to invest the money of wife or daughter in these securities—it was one of the greatest instances of English bumptiousness he knew. Let not Irish securities have this stamp of inferiority.

MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)

said, he hoped on consideration the Government would accept the Amendment. He did not see why Irish Trustees should be excluded. He did not wish to add to the debate beyond expressing the hope the Government would see their way to accepting the Amendment to that extent.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN) (Dublin University)

said, the view he took of the Amendment was, that if persisted in it might prevent the passing of a very useful Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman was quite correct in stating that when he was spoken to on the subject he did not express any personal opposition to it. But they could not shut their eyes to the fact that this was not an Irish Bill. It carried out the views of the Grand Committee and it was not an exclusively Irish Bill, and the hon. and learned Member would see the difficulty of distinguishing between English and Irish trusts as regards the powers of trustees in their dealings with money, nor was he aware of any Statute making such a distinction. But what he would press on hon. Members was that all were desirous of passing this Bill, a valuable one for the protection of trustees, and it would be most unfortunate if by insisting on the Amendment the Bill were imperilled.

MR.T.W.RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

said, he thought the Government were a little unreasonable; surely if Irish Trustees were willing to take the risk of these investments they ought to be allowed to do so. He hoped the Government would not persist in opposing the Amendment.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square)

said, they were not denying to Irish Trustees what was being given to English Trustees. The object of the Bill was to define certain classes of securities Trustees might invest in; the Bill did not allow Trustees to invest in any securities they pleased, or the Government would have opposed the Bill. No disqualification was being put upon Irish investments, no Stock of a similar character in England would be admitted for English Trustees.

An hon. MEMBER

There is no such Stock.

MR. GOSCHEN

No similar Stock would be admitted. The provisions of the Bill applied to Ireland as well as to England, placing the two countries on the same footing; neither more or less discretion was given to Trustees in either. He was not prepared to widen in England or in Ireland the facilities that were given to Trustees under the Bill as it stood. The Government would assist not only this Amendment, but the next Amendment standing on the Paper, which had relation to a more general matter. If the House consented to the Bill as it stood, the Bill would be passed; but any attempt to press Amendments widening the powers of Trustees would be resisted.

MR. MURPHY (Dublin, St. Patrick's)

said, when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said no similar Stock in England was admitted, it was quite true, because no such Stock was in existence; but there were English Railway Stocks admitted that were not in a better position, and almost any Municipal Stock could be invested in. True, in such cases there was a Sinking Fund; but there was no Imperial guarantee such as was the case in the Stock referred to in the Amendment. There was the fullest security for the investments. As had been mentioned, there were many Baronial guarantees existing without any Treasury guarantee, and in no single instance had there been a failure to meet the interest. The Stock guaranteed by the Treasury had a peculiar position; he did not think there was anything like it in this country. In the general interest the Amendment ought to be accepted.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

found in the attitude of the Government another argument in favour of Home Rule for Ireland. The declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer amounted to this—that on no consideration, if a Bill related to Ireland, would the English Government have regard to the local circumstances of Ireland. That was the declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that was the attitude of the Government.

MR. GOSCHEN

, interrupting, said, the Dublin Corporation and every Municipal Body in Ireland had exactly the same privileges Municipal Bodies had here. No distinction was drawn, and there was no disqualification whatever of Ireland.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

, continuing, said, he did not allege any disqualification put upon Ireland; but in this Bill, which related to Ireland, there was a refusal to recognize local circumstances peculiar to Ireland. It could not be alleged that the circumstances were different. The Amendment dealt with a class of Stock that did not exist in England—that only existed in Ireland. There could not be any question that the Stock was fit and proper for Trustees to invest in. It was guaranteed by the English Exchequer to the extent of 2 per cent. and by Irish Baronies to the extent of any margin that might exist over and above 2 per cent. Was it reasonable or not, when passing a Bill relating to Trustees—including Irish Trustees—to refuse to have regard to the fact that such a class of Stock existed in Ireland and not in England? This was a moderate proposal which, if Ireland had a National Parliament, would pass into law without a moment's doubt or hesitation. Hon. Gentlemen must know that in a general Bill of this kind was the only possible opportunity of passing such a clause. If they introduced, an independent Bill exclusively for Ireland, it would not have the slightest chance of passing. Their only opportunity of amending the law was by taking advantage of a general Bill of this kind; and when they took this opportunity they were met with the declaration, forsooth, that because there was no such Stock in England, therefore the Government could not allow Irish Trustees to invest their trust funds in a class of security which it was undisputed was favoured by the whole financial opinion of Ireland.

DR. KENNY (Cork, S.)

said, the refusal of this Amendment did really put certain Irish Stock under a disability. At present nearly all Stock in which Trustees in Ireland could invest were really English securities; and here was a purely Irish Stock, with an Imperial guarantee of 2 per cent. with a supplementary Baronial guarantee of 1 per cent. perfectly secure, and producing as good or better interest than the converted Three-per-Cents of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the Amendment were not accepted, it would really be putting a considerable disability on certain Irish. Stock, and, as had just been pointed out, it afforded an admirable illustration of the necessity of Home Rule. Undoubtedly the matter would be dealt with in a very different way in an Irish Parliament.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

hoped the Government would re-consider their attitude. Irish Members were often told that if the different classes amongst them would only agree, they would not have the slightest difficulty in getting from the House such measures as they thought necessary. Now here was an absolute unanimity of opinion, a strong Tory representative taking part with the Nationalist Members, and the almost unprecedented fact of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who usually disagreed with both Parties, now joining with them. Every Irish Member who had spoken from the three Parties had supported the Amendment, and, if the Amendment was not accepted by the Government, then he hoped they would hear less in future about Irish Members agreeing among themselves. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said Irish securities were not in any way branded with inferiority; but he thought they were, for if hon. Members would look at the previous part of the clause it would be found that Debentures and British Railway Stocks were made proper objects of investment, and this Stock in question was not Debenture or Preference Stock guaranteed by a Railway Company, or a single line's earnings. It was guaranteed by the British Parliament and taxpayers. Two per cent was guaranteed by the Exchequer and the remainder by the whole of the district through which the line passed. This last amount was levied by the Grand Jury, in whom Government usually professed so much confidence; and, as a matter of fact, there was not the slightest difficulty in collecting payment of the rate. In a great many cases the rate became less and less necessary, every day the line becoming self-supporting. It was only necessary to look at the prices at which these securities were quoted to see that they had all the advantages of English Railway Stock, with the addition of a public guarantee, and yet in the face of all this Trustees were to be forbidden to approach these investments. It was an unreasonable position, and he trusted the weight of opinion in the House would be brought to bear against it. After the example of absolute unanimity among Irish Members of all sections, the Division, if Division there was to be—[An hon. MEMBER: There cannot be.]—would not be of a Party character. He was sure if Government Whips did not bring in to vote Gentlemen who had not heard a word of the discussion, the Amendment would be carried.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

, as an English Trustee, thought the position the Government had taken up was most extraordinary, and he could only find a motive for it in the fear that money might be diverted from the pockets of the landlords. In England Trustees were permitted to invest in ordinary Railway Stocks, which had paid a dividend regularly for so many years. Surely what was good enough for English Trustees was good enough for Irish Trustees, and if all Irish Trustees were in favour of being permittted to make such investments, why in the name of common sense should they not be allowed to exercise their judgment? If in England Trustees were permitted under the law to invest in Stock of Railways which had paid a dividend for ten years, why should not Trustees in Ireland be permitted to in-vast in Stock of Tramway Companies which had not only paid dividends for the same number of years, but had an Imperial guarantee to the extent of two per cent? He was in favour of extending the discretion of Trustees; it would be better for the trusts if they had more power in matters of investment. On broad, general principles he advocated the Amendment as a step in the right direction. To prevent its passing would be not only an injustice to Ireland but a retrograde step so far as the power of Trustees generally was concerned. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did nut see anything wrong in the principle.

MR. GOSCHEN

Yes!

MR. CONYBEARE

, continuing, said, that no reason had been given for the assertion; it had not been explained how it was wrong in principle. The argument from the Treasury Bench was that it would be difficult and inconvenient to make the distinction between England and Ireland. But why? It was well known that in many general Acts of Parliament distinctions were constantly made in the case of one or other of the three Kingdoms. There had not been one word of explanation why there should be any difficulty in making the Amendment applicable to Ireland only, and, in order to afford time for the Government to consider such an explanation, he moved the Adjournment of the debate.

MR. GOSCHEN

We do not object to it.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Conybeare.)

Motion agreed to.

Debate adjourned till Friday.