§ Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."—(Mr. Stuart-Wortley.)
§ MR. WHITLEYsaid, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not press this Bill now. It was a Bill that contained some details of a serious charac- 1825 ter, some of which seemed to him were, by the clauses of the Bill, very difficult to determine. There were some parts of the Bill of which he believed Friendly Societies and Savings Banks approved; but there were other clauses to which they had determined objection. By some of the clauses of the Bill Directors and Managers of Savings Banks were made responsible for the duty payable to Government. It might be true that they were not made legally responsible in one sense; but they objected to the responsibility being thrown on them of saying when duty was payable, and they considered the obligation should not be cast upon them of determining whether a customer had duty to pay, and they preferred that the present system should exist—that in all cases probate or letters of administration should be produced. The only argument against that was that there must be some expense; but by this Bill it was proposed that they should be called upon to pay on legacy receipts, which simply added to the expense. The clause was somewhat confused, because it placed nominations and wills and intestacies in the same category. A nomination for £100 of a person coming with a legacy receipt might be dealt with; but in cases of intestacy or wills there might be five or six legatees to be dealt with, and that was a responsibility the banks objected to. A probate would be granted free of duty up to £100, and therefore there could be very little expense, and it was only when the assets amounted to more than £100 that probate would be payable; and why a legacy duty stamp should be required in addition, it was impossible to conceive. To make banks responsible for paying legatees when there was a simple way of payment by executor or administrator, was a new feature altogether to which Savings Banks decidedly objected. Why were they to be placed in a position so different to other banks? Why were they to make inquiry into the circumstances of their customers?
§ MR. SPEAKERI must remind the hon. Member that he is discussing the whole of the Bill. According to the Standing Orders the House should properly proceed with the consideration of the Amendments, unless the hon. and learned Member in charge of the Bill should wish to postpone the Question that the Amendments be now considered. It 1826 is properly my duty to call on the Secretary to the Treasury to proceed with his Amendment.
§ MR. BUCHANANasked, was it not open to raise the whole question on a Motion for the re-committal of the Bill?
§ MR. SPEAKERI will read the new Standing Order in reference to the matter, which will answer the question whether it is possible to move the recommittal of the Bill—
When the Order of the Day for the consideration of a Bill as amended in Committee of the Whole House has been read, the House do proceed to consider the same, unless the Member in charge of the Bill shall desire to postpone its consideration, or a Motion is made to re-commit the Bill.Therefore, at this stage, a Motion to recommit the Bill could be made.
§ MR. WHITLEYsaid, he was in hopes his hon. and learned Friend would agree to a postponement; but that not being so, he begged to move that the Bill be re-committed.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be re-committed."—(Mr. Whitley.)
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, he was in the hands of the House. But hon. Members had had full warning of the Bill coming on in all its stages, and the Amendments made in Committee were brought fully to the notice of those the Bill most affected. Of course, if the Bill were re-committed now he would lese a stage, and the House knew that was a serious thing at this period of the Session. His hon. Friend's objections were directed against Clause 9; but there were many Amendments before that clause would be reached which might be disposed of now. Then, if the questions raised by Clause 9 appeared to be of such difficulty and complexity that the House was unwilling to discuss them now, it would be for the House to say when further progress should be made with the Bill as amended. At all events, his hon. Friend might agree to allow the Amendments to be disposed of until those to Clause 9 were reached.
EARL PERCYsaid, his hon. and learned Friend might be assured that neither the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) or anyone else had any 1827 desire to impede the progress of the Bill; but he imagined the reason for the Motion of the hon. Member was to give his hon. and learned Friend the opportunity to see if he could accept such modifications in the Bill as would make it satisfactory to those who complained of its present form. He was sorry his hon. and learned Friend did not now see his way to accept the views of the hon. Member for Liverpool; and he confessed he thought the hon. Member was, under the circumstances, justified in opposing the present stage, and he trusted that with some further consideration the Bill might be made more acceptable. He (Earl Percy) had received many communications on the subject, which showed there was a very strong fooling on the part of Managers of Savings Banks and Friendly Societies in reference to it; and he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would think it advisable to postpone this stage of the Bill, or assent to some amendment in the points in dispute on Clause 9.
§ MR. DILLWYNsaid, he had given Notice in reference to the Bill a week ago, and he was quite ready to proceed with the consideration. But he thought it would be wiser on the part of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield to consent to the re-committal of the Bill. There was a great deal of apprehension in regard to the Bill on the part of Managers of Savings Banks, and he felt sure that if the Bill were re-committed there would be no desire to impede it. He hoped the hon. and learned Member would consent to the proposal, and he did not think time would really be lost by so doing.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, he thought it was rather to be regretted if the Bill were re-committed. The whole difficulty arose upon Clause 9, as to which there was a great deal of apprehension; but he thought that a little attention paid to the wording of that clause would remove all alarm. He observed that there were no Amendments directly attacking that clause; but the House might deal with the Bill until that clause was reached, and then adjourn further consideration until time had been given to draft Amendments.
§ MR. WHITLEYexpressed himself as quite willing to agree to that proposition, and begged leave to withdraw his Motion.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he thought it would be a good thing to carry out that suggestion, provided that the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield would not bring on the Bill for discussion at an unreasonable hour. The Half-past Twelve Rule could not, in this case, be applied by means of a Notice of opposition; so, before the House proceeded with the earlier clauses, the hon. and learned Member should give a pledge that Clause 9 should only be discussed at a reasonable hour of the night.
§ MR. BUCHANANsaid, if the Bill were re-committed it would be a more convenient method of discussing the clause. In a discussion upon this stage the hon. and learned Member himself could only speak once in explanation of his measure; but, in Committee, the discussion would have much more freedom.
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, only by the indulgence of the House could he speak again. He was willing to give the undertaking not to proceed with Clause 9 on the present occasion; but to comply with the demand of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) would be almost to give an undertaking that the Bill should not proceed this Session. How would he define a reasonable hour? At the latter part of the Session, 1 or 2 o'clock was not an unreasonable hour. At all events, he would not discuss Clause 9 that night.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Bill considered.
§ On the Motion of Mr. COURTNEY, the following Amendment made:—In page 2, after Clause 4, insert the following Clause:—
§ (Nominations by Savings Bank depositors.)
§ "A depositor in a Savings Bank, not being under sixteen years of age, may, by writing under his hand delivered at or sent to the office, nominate any person, not being an officer or servant of the directors (unless such officer or servant to the husband, wife, father, mother, child, brother, sister, nephew, or niece of the nominator), to whom any sum not exceeding one hundred pounds, which may remain due to such depositor at his decease, may be paid at such decease, and may from time to time revoke or vary such nomination by writing under his hand similarly delivered or sent; and, on receiving satisfactory proof of the death of a nominator, the directors shall pay to the nominee the sum duo to the deceased depositor, provided it does not exceed one hundred pounds."
1829§ Clause 1 (Extent and short title of Act).
§
On the Motion of Mr. COURTNEY, the following Amendments made:—In page 1, line 18, after "Britain," insert "and;" line 18, after "and," insert—
Except section nine of the same, and so much thereof as relates to Trades Unions to;
and in line 19, after "Islands," insert—
And except the said section nine and so much as relates to Industrial and Provident Societies, and to Trades Unions to the Isle of Man.
§ On the Motion of Mr. STUART-WORTLEY, the following Amendment made:—In page 1, line 19, leave out "Friendly, &c. Societies Nominations," and insert "Provident Nominations and Small Intestacies."
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 2 (Definition of terms).
EARL PERCYrose to ask the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield whether he would give the House some further pledge that he would not introduce the Bill for discussion at an inconvenient hour? His intention, doubtless, was fair enough; but he had said nothing as to the hour after which he would not bring on the Bill in future. They had a right to press the hon. and learned Member to name some definite hour.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe noble Earl is not speaking to the Question.
§ On the Motion of Mr. STUARTWORTLEY, the following Amendment made:—In page 1, line 26, after "in," insert "and whose affairs are actively managed by."
§ On the Motion of Mr. COURTNEY, the following Amendments made:—In page 1, line 2,5, after "bank," insert "and of a Post Office Savings Bank Insurance;" page 2, line 7, leave out "or 'The Government Annuities Act, 1882;" line 8, after "applies," insert "and a Post Office Savings Bank;" line 18, after "Bank," insert "and of a Post Office Savings Bank Insurance;" and leave out "the Post Office where the same is established," and insert "the General Post Office."
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 4 (How a nomination may be made).
§ On the Motion of Mr. COURTNEY, the following Amendment made:—In page 1830 2, line 30, leave out "of a society or registered bank."
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 6 (Provision in case of intestacy and no nomination).
§ On the Motion of Mr. STUARTWORTLEY, the following Amendment made:—In page 3, line 8, leave out "trustees," and insert "directors."
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be postponed to Monday week."—(Mr. Stuart- Wortley.)
EARL PERCYsaid, he would now ask the hon. and learned Member to name an hour after which he would not bring on the Bill?
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, He was entitled to ask in return what, in the opinion of the noble Earl, was a reasonable hour?
§ MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, it was obvious that, to a private Member at that period of the Session, any time before 2 was reasonable.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Further Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday, 9th July.