HC Deb 13 June 1884 vol 289 cc327-44

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 6 (Power of court, trustees, &c., in relation to exchange of stock).

MR. GREGORY

said, that, in the absence of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), he begged to move the first Amendment standing in that hon. Gentleman's name. He explained that the object of the Amendment was to exempt Chancery Funds and Bankruptcy Funds, which ought not to receive a less interest than that at which they had been originally invested, otherwise injury might be done to parties who had no means of helping themselves in the matter.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 20, after first "of," leave out to end of line 40.—(Mr. Gregory.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, this was a point of very great importance indeed, and he trusted it would receive very careful consideration. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the view that he held—namely, that it was the duty of the State to endeavour to borrow money at the cheapest rate the market would afford; but this clause dealt with trust funds—funds of which the State was trustee — under circumstances which gave the persons really interested no option in the matter. These persons were brought into Court, and the State was in the position of guardian and protector; and it was incumbent on the Courts to be most jealous of doing anything which would be, in the slightest degree, dangerous to the funds, or calculated to decrease them. The right hon. Gentlemen the Prime Minister, in 1853, at that time Chancellor of the Exchequer, said— I do not propose that the Accountant General in Chancery, or the Attorney General in Bankruptcy, shall have the power to exchange. Now, the interest of the trust funds which are in Chancery is of comparatively inferior consideration; but the integrity of the capital is a matter of very great importance. It is extremely hard that the property of parties who are debarred by legal difficulties from its enjoyment should be subject to great and vital changes from circumstances entirely independent of their wills. Under the clause, the proposal of the Government would lay the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Lord Chancellor open to the possibility of the imputation that they were dealing with trust funds for the purposes of the State, and not for the benefit of their wards. He thought it might happen—he did not say it would, but it might—that an exchange might be made from Consols to Two-and-a-Half per Cents, on the terms suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which might next year, or the year after, bring about a loss to the person in the exchange. The State, he thought, had no right whatever to expose this property it held to the possibility of such a loss. It had no right to deal with such property under such circumstances. If there was a compulsory conversion of Stock, then, undoubtedly, the fund in Chancery would come under the same conditions and the same misfortunes, if there were to be misfortunes, to which every other holder of Stock might be liable. But to exercise an option, and to make an exchange by reason of their position as trustees, appeared to him to be exercising a power which would possibly be injuirous to the person who was interested in the exchange, and which would certainly expose them to the imputation of a breach of trust. He could not believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Lord Chancellor together would for a moment enter into a transaction which they did not at the time believe to be for the advantage of those for whom it was carried out. They might not be open to the ordinary failings of men—they might suppose that the transaction was one that was more favourable than it really was. It was natural that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should think exceedingly well of a proposal of this kind—should believe that it would be beneficial to the fundholder and to the State—and that, therefore, it was his duty to carry it out. But there were other persons who might subsequently be affected, who might not take that view; and he (Mr. W. H. Smith) ventured to say that the doctrine laid down by the Prime Minister in 1853 was a doctrine that should be adhered to until it was plain that the conversion might be affected by reason of such a fall in the value of money that it was to the interest of all parties to accept the arrangement. Anything short of compulsory conversion would hardly be justifiable in the case of trust funds under such circumstances as those which he had referred to. He ventured to think that it would be felt, if this large fund was held by the Accountant General in Bankruptcy, or the Paymaster General, and used, as to all appearances it might be used under this clause, in order to carry out an operation, or to give effect to an operation to create a large fund of Two-and-a-Half per Cent Stock—it would be felt by a large number of persons that that operation was effected, not in the interest of persons who might be ultimately declared to be the possessors of the property, but in the interest of the State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That would be an immoral transaction, and contrary to public policy and to the principles which were laid down by the Prime Minister in the speech he had referred to, and he thought it would also be injurious to the finances of this country. He did not think they could afford to take advantage of anybody, least of all of those who could not defend themselves, and could not express a deliberate and responsible opinion on a matter of this kind. These were the people who had no voice in the matter, who could express no opinion, and were absolutely in the hands of the Government. Their interests, he thought, should be most jealously and most carefully guarded. He thought their interests would be most carefully guarded by the acceptance of this Amendment.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he regretted that he was not in his place to move the Amendment when his name was called, and was obliged to his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Gregory) for taking charge of the proposal in his absence. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them this morning that he proposed to go into Committee at half-past 12, and then, when pressure was put upon him from both sides of the House, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that he would go into Committee about 12 o'clock, and that was the reason why he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had not been in his place.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

By 12 o'clock, I said.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Well, before 12, or about 12 o'clock. That was his apology for leaving the Amendment to his hon. Friend. The position he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had taken up on the subject was not in hostility to the financial operation the Chancellor of the Exchequer was now endeavouring to carry out. If the state of the Money Market would allow the interest on the National Debt to be reduced, it was the duty of everyone who had the interest of the State at heart to reduce that interest. But that was a tentative operation. Everyone who had his own money in the Funds was competent to form his own opinion as to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. If he had £100 in the Funds at the present moment, he would be entitled to an interest of £3 per annum upon it; and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer said to him, "if you -will take £2 14s. 6d., instead of £3," and he consented, that would be a bargain, for it was a question investors, sui juris, were able to settle for themselves; but there was an element, if not of speculation, at least of contingency, in the whole transaction. In the event of a European War breaking out in the course of the next 12 months, or in the event of a great revival in trade, which they all hoped was not an impossible contingency, he had great doubt whether that transaction would be a financial success. At the present time, for instance, it would not be a financial success, for if he had, say, for his £100, taken the Chancellor of the Exchequer's terms, he would have found that at this moment £108 of Two-and-a-Half per Cents was worth only £99 on the English Stock Exchange. The clause dealt with a sacred trust fund, money amounting to near £100,000,000 —at any rate, to between £70,000,000 and £80,000,000—belonging to widows and orphans who were not sui juris. That was money that had been put into the Court of Chancery on the understanding that those people should receive either £100 in money for each £100 invested, or £3 per cent. The Lord Chancellor would never discuss the soundness or the unsoundness of any other investment. For instance, he might propose to the Lord Chancellor to invest in London and North-Western Debenture Stock, which so far as they knew was about the soundest and best investment of the kind; but the Lord Chancellor, in spite of the fact that a larger interest might be safely made, would not listen to the proposal. He would run no risk, but would say— "You must have your £100 in Consols, and in nothing else, as that is absolutely safe. You shall have £3 for ever, or £100 in money." This clause, however, was to enable the Lord Chancellor, not acting judicially—because it would be impossible to put him in the exercise of a judicial function in this matter—but acting Ministerially as a Member of the Cabinet, anxious to carry out a great financial operation—it would enable him, without the consent of, or without hearing a protest on behalf of, the persons who were interested in the money, to reduce the interest to which they were entitled by 10 per cent. It would be also possible for him to reduce the amount of the capital. No such proposition, he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) contended, had ever been submitted to Parliament before, and he trusted Parliament would not accept it now. It had never been proposed before to enable the Court of Chancery, without the option of those interested, to consent to the reduction of the capital. He supported this Amendment which had been moved for him in no hostile spirit to the Government. He was anxious the operation of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer should succeed; but if it did succeed, at any rate let it succeed bonâ fide by the open, action of the Money Market and by the open action of people capable of taking care of themselves. One other consideration was this. In what position would the Lord Chancellor be, supposing at the end of 12 months all the funds held by the Court, on behalf of those entitled to them, were reduced 10 per cent?

MR. COURTNEY

was understood to say, that no one could in the least degree complain of the extreme jealousy which had been exhibited by the Committee in favour of the State creditor. It was the duty of every hon. Member to scrutinize, with the greatest care, every proposal which in the slightest degree affected the relations between the State and its creditors; therefore the observations made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) and of hon. Gentlemen could not be objected to on the question of principle. He should put out of question, of course, what had been said by the hon. Member for Sussex (Mr. Gregory) in relation to the commutation of funds in the hands of the Paymaster General—that was to say, the reduction of those funds from their original form to Terminable Annuities. That was beside the present question. The Paymaster General, whatever might be done under the Acts of last Session, or any other Statutes, was accountable for the exact funds that had come into his hands in the form in which they originally stood. These accounts remained in Three per Cents, Consols, New or Reduced, as the case might be, and these funds would require to be paid, and the Paymaster General was accountable for them, as if no commutation into Terminable Annuities had been made. Turning to the immediate question whether the Bill provided a sufficient guarantee that any exchange of funds held by several State Officers would be properly guarded, he bad remarked an extraordinary omission on the part of hon. Gentlemen who had spoken in the debate. They had altogether omitted to notice the particular check and control contained in the option that would be exercised. It was true that the Lord Chancellor, or in Scotland the Lord Advocate, and the Lord Chancellor in Ireland, might make arrangements for the transformation of a certain sum in Consols to Two-and-a-Half, or Two-and-Three-Quarters per Cents, or Three-and-Three- Quarters per Cents; but that transformation could only be effected by the consent of the person by whom the dividends on the Stock for the time being were received. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had not referred to that.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he had referred to the fact that infants and persons interested in a fund in Court, but under disability, could not help themselves.

MR. COURTNEY

said, he had not caught the reference. He agreed with the statement quoted from a speech of the Prime Minister. He acquiesced in the importance of discriminating between changes as they affected interest and capital. In the present case everything turned on this, that the commutation was one that affected the interest payable for the time being in a prejudicial and injurious way; but if they had regard to the capital it would be increased. Therefore, as between the person entitled to the interest and the person entitled to the capital—a point specially dwelt upon by the Prime Minister in 1853—there was no danger that the person entitled to the capital would be damnified. If the person receiving interest, who would suffer a loss, acquiesced, the person entitled to the capital, who would receive an increase, might be assumed to consent. The proposition was one prejudicial to the person receiving the interest, but beneficial to the person entitled to the capital; therefore, if they had secured the consent of the person entitled for the time being to the interest, to whose prejudice the change was effected, they must rely upon, that as a sufficient guarantee that those who were to receive the capital would not be losers. He was entitled to look at what the proposition meant. The hon. Member proposed to have recourse to machinery which reminded him of the practice of the Courts of Chancery in old times. He proposed to revert, if not in form in principle, to the practice of the Leases and Sites of Settled Estates Acts, before the passing of Lord Cairns's Act, a few years ago.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he proposed nothing of the kind. That was in a subsequent Amendment, and the hon. Gentleman was quite in error. What he proposed was, that there should be no consent given whatever by the Lord Chancellor, acting on behalf of the infants, to this tentative process. If the conversion was made compulsory, he should then have nothing to say against it.

MR. COURTNEY

said, that, according to the Amendment, even where a trustee h-ad the power of exchanging at this moment to Two-and-a-Half per Cents, with or without the consent of the tenant for life, he would require, also, the consent of a great number of other persons. He submitted, with confidence, that if they considered the matter with the strictest regard for the interests of persons entitled in remainder—they being alone the persons who could be injuriously affected against their will—and to the fact that the commutation was one of a large nominal amount, which would be redeemed only by the payment of a greater sum, the guarantee was ample. On these simple grounds he could not consent to the Amendment.

MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)

said, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had referred to two things—political complications, which might render the scheme unlikely to succeed; also to an improvement in trade, which might have the same effect. He wished to remind the Committee of what happened 30 years ago, when the present Prime Minister made and carried a similar proposition. That was a great scheme for the reduction of the Debt similar to that now proposed. Shortly after the proposal was introduced the Crimean War broke out. In regard to the more important portion of the measure—namely, the reduction of Consols —the measure was inoperative. Money had for many years been falling to a low rate. Before 1852 and 1853 the average rate of money had been lower than in the previous five or six years. There were about £10,000,000 of Stock which, under that Act, were paid off at par. The Society of Friends were very fortunate in that transaction. The Three per Cent Stock of 1726 was their favourite took, because they objected to hold any Stock borrowed to carry on war, and that Stock had not been borrowed for that purpose, but to pay the Duchess of Kendal's debts; therefore, that excellent Society did not feel that they were compromising their principles by holding that Stock. Most of those excellent persons took their money at par, and invested in Consols at about 90. He hoped there would be no such complications during next year as would make this scheme as unfortunate as that was; but there were many contingencies, such as foreign complications and bad harvests, and, what he hoped was more probable, an improvement in trade. Therefore, from one cause or another, Consuls might fall, and the scheme might not answer the expectations of the right hon. Gentleman. The Motion of the hon. Member was to provide that the Members of the Government should not have an opportunity of dealing with funds which they held, as trustees, in the interest of their Colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That certainly seemed to him to be a most reasonable proposition under the circumstances to which he had referred. The Lord Chancellor of that day had felt bound to take the money in his charge, and reinvest it; and it seemed to him that the Lord Chancellor, or other Member of the Government, ought not to be placed in such a position. He should, therefore, support the Amendment.

MR. WHITLEY

said, he also should support the Amendment; and he could not help thinking that the Secretary to the Treasury had taken a very mistaken view of the question. It was quite true that in certain cases the persons receiv- ing the dividends might give their consent; but he held that there were many cases in which a portion only of the dividends was payable to the tenant for life, while the rest accumulated for the persons in remainder, and according to the clause, as it now stood, the Lord Chancellor would have entire control. As he understood, the view of his hon. Friend was this—and he entirely concurred in it—that the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Advocate, and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland were, to some extent, political persons, and they would not constitute that safety which Judges in Chancery constituted; therefore, if the clause remained at all, it would be safer for trustees that any political element should be expunged. He thought the Secretary to the Treasury had forgotten that to-day it was ex-dividend; and it was absurd to tell the Committee that the current price of Three per Cents was below par. He agreed with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) that this would place trustees in a very difficult position. He himself was trustee for a large amount of these Consols; and he confessed that he should feel very great difficulty indeed if the clause passed in its present form. The Lord Chancellor could, of course, make arrangements. In some cases the consent of the persons who received their dividends was necessary; but in regard to accumulated funds, no such consent was necessary, and therefore he thought that was a very perilous clause to introduce into this Bill. It was the duty of the Opposition to criticize propositions of this kind; but it was also the duty of the whole House, for this was not a political question. It was a serious matter, affecting every Member of the House, not as politicians, and it was in that view that he should support the Amendment; and he trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he had seen the bearing which this might have on trustees, and that, while the Lord Chancellor would have control over the accumulated funds, there was no one to interfere on behalf of those who were entitled in remainder, would accept the clause. He and other hon. Members thought the whole clause should be expunged; but, at all events, he hoped the Committee would adopt the clause, in order to provide protection for infants.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

said, he could not speak on this subject in technical language, for he had not the good fortune to be a lawyer, and so he could only use ordinary terms. First of all, he must separate the first half of the clause from the last, upon which his hon. Friend had another Amendment. He assumed that they -were now dealing with estates which were in the hands of the Court of Chancery, and the question was this— Supposing £10,000 were under the control of the Court of Chancery, and the dividends were to be paid to particular persons, whether they received them for their own benefit or as trustees, under what circumstances ought those persons to be able, if they thought the commutation now proposed was a good one, to accept the proposed terms? The clause, as it stood, provided that if the dividends were payable to some person who was in the enjoyment of the dividends, or if they were payable to trustees for the benefit of other persons who would receive the dividends, then those persons should be empowered to consent to the commutation under a general rule to be laid down by the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Advocate, or the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. That was the provision of the Bill as it stood. And then the Bill said that if the dividends were not being received, but were being accumulated, the consent should be given by the Lord Chancellor. He would dismiss the latter part of the clause, because he was prepared to accept the proposal of the right hon. Member for Westminster, agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman that where dividends were accumulated, and not actually received, in the case of England or Ireland, the consent should be given by the Judge of the High Court of Justice having jurisdiction over the matter. Then the question arose as to the great mass of estates which were in Chancery, and the dividends for which were not accumulated, but actually received. The proposition of his hon. Friend, if he understood it correctly, was that under no circumstances should the commutation take place, because he proposed to strike out of the Bill altogether the power to commute with regard to an estate that was in Chancery. If there were £10,000 in Chancery, the interest of which was payable either to those who would enjoy it, or to trustees for the benefit of someone else, then, if the proposal of his hon. Friend was acccepted, the power of taking a larger amount of Stock of a lower denomination would be refused. That was not, he believed, the intention of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley), nor, as far as he understood it, was that the general view of the Committee. What the Committee appeared to him to wish was, that where property of this kind was in Chancery, and those who were now receiving the interest, whether they were the persons who would enjoy it themselves, or were trustees for others, assented to a commutation to lower Stock, there ought to be, in addition to their consent, some judicial consent; and the suggestion had been made by the hon Member for Liverpool, that the judicial consent should be that of the Judge of the Court having jurisdiction over the cause or matter relating to the estate. Having listened very carefully to the speeches of Gentlemen on both. sides, he was prepared to say that he thought that proposal would be an improvement to the clause; and, therefore, if the Committee would take that view, he would undertake, with his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, to prepare words to carry out that proposal, not only with regard to cases where the interest was accumulated, but also in respect to all other estates in Chancery. He was glad to find that the suggestion was well received, and he hoped that, under these circumstances, the controversy would now cease.

MR. WARTON

said, he felt bound to express his sympathy with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton as to the breach of the engagement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the Sitting to-night. It was clearly understood, if not stated, that the House was not to go into Committee of Supply until 12 o'clock, and, therefore, the hon. Member was right in regard to the complaint he had made. He held that absolute faith should be kept with regard to all Ministerial pledges, which were often very politely made, and equally politely broken.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must call upon, the hon. and learned Member's attention to the Amendment before the Committee.

MR. WARTON

said, he thought there was some latitude allowed in such a case as this; but he would not pursue the subject. He did not wish the House too readily to consent to the agreement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was not a trustee; but he was one of those unfortunate people who had been in Chancery for many years. Every now and then some money had to be invested in Consols or taken out, and from time to time he received dividends. He did not like to receive only 3 per cent for his money; but he still less liked to find that, in order to make this bad scheme appear a success, the money of people who could not help themselves was to be taken. He believed this clause was brought in for the purpose of making an unsound financial scheme appear to be a success; and not only that, but it was proposed to dishonestly lay hold of money which ought to be regarded as sacred.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had very fairly met one part of the objection he had expressed to this clause; but the Secretary to the Treasury had based his argument on two ideas, which were both unsound. In the first place, he had assumed that the assent of all the parties concerned would be required; but the practical effect of the working of the Court of Chancery would be that there would be no person to give consent; and in all these cases the matter would really be in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. Then the hon. Gentleman said the amount of the commutation would be the same; but that would depend entirely on the market value of the Stock. What he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say was, that he would strike out the clause requiring the consent of the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Advocate, and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and substitute for their approval, the approval of the Judge to whose Court the specific cause was attached. That alteration applied to the former part of the clause; and in reference to the second part of the clause, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he would accept the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Westminster. But there was another class of trust funds referred to in the Amendment, and to which the right hon. Gentleman had not alluded— namely, charity funds. He, himself, was at present a member of a Com- mittee engaged in investigating the working of the Charity Commission, and that Committee had ascertained that between £11,000,000 and £12,000,000 of Consols were standing in the name of the judicial trustees of charity funds. According to the doctrine of the Charity Commissioners, the Governing Bodies of the various Charities lost all control over those funds when those funds were in the hands of trustees. Assuming1 that the Chancellor of the Exchequer effected or proposed a conversion from Three per Cents to Two-and-a-Half per Cents, would the trustees be entitled to consent to a commutation, not only without consulting the Governing Body of the Charity, but against the wishes of the Governing Body? He had himself put that question, and the opinion of the Charity Commissioners was that they would have that power. He hoped that, in addition to the concession which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made, he would omit from the operation of this clause any power on the part of a trustee of charitable funds to agree to a commutation without the consent of the Governing' Body.

MR. DIXON - HARTLAND

said, there was another class of persons besides those receiving the dividends for their own benefit, and those for whom the interest accumulated. He was a trustee for a fund, a small portion of the interest upon which was paid up, while the larger portion was left to accumulate. How would the Chancellor of the Exchequer deal with such a case as that? Would he consider it a case in which the interest would not be liable to reduction, or, that being a case in which part of the money was received by trustees, would the trustees have power to consent to the reduction of the whole of the funds?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, he would endeavour to make clear what was the proposal to carry out what his hon. and learned Friend and others had been advocating. It was not exactly proposed to substitute the consent of the High Court of Justice for the approval of the Lord Chancellor. It was a matter of addition, rather than substitution, although that part of the clause would probably need some amendment in language. That did not propose to deal with cases in which conversion was to take place, but to arrange the machinery by which the conversion would be carried out. It provided that the Lord Chancellor and others might "make arrangements," &c.; but he thought it would probably be better to say—" make regulations as to the mode in which," &c., in order to make the matter more clear. Where the person to whom the dividends were payable for the time being was the only person interested, there his consent would be quite sufficient; they could guard their own interests. But the question was really as to cases in which there were other persons interested, and in those cases the Government proposed that although the person receiving the dividends consented, the transaction should not take place without the consent of the Judge of the High Court concerned with the case; and then the same provision was proposed with regard to moneys that were being accumulated, so that in no case where there was any person interested beside the person receiving, should it take place, except by the consent of the Judge to whose Court it was attached. He quite agreed that it was not enough to have the consent of the official trustees of charity money, but there must be the consent also of the Governing Body. He would consider how that could be met in the clause.

MR. GREGORY

, said there were cases, not of charitable funds, but of funds belonging to Charities of which there was no Governing Body. He hoped the Solicitor General would look into such cases.

MR. TOMLINSON

wished to know how the necessary cost of these transactions were to be provided for? In the ordinary course, where the sanction of a Judge was required, an order would be necessary; but an order was not obtained without a Court fee, and, as a rule, not without the services of a skilled practitioner, which it could not be expected would be obtained gratuitously. That was a point which might be considered by the Solicitor General.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

in reply, said, that that question was easily answered. The parties interested would have to pay the expenses. Did the hon. Member expect the taxpayers to pay the expenses of the holder of Government Stock altering their investments?

MR. TOMLINSON

said, that the object of making these applications was not to obtain a benefit, but to escape the prospect of a loss. It was very important that these funds, which were frequently small in amount, should not be burdened with expenses for carrying out these transactions.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, he thought that, speaking generally, a very great improvement had been made in this clause in consequence of the discussion; and he also thought the Government had acted with great propriety in so arranging the matter as to do away with all suspicion even of a political element. The matter was obviously one which depended greatly on the actual wording of the clause; and what he wished to say was that he hoped that Notice would be given of the words which the Solicitor General might decide upon, so that there would be time to consider whether they fulfilled and carried out what was desired.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

said, it was intended to bring up an Amendment on Report, and the proposed words would be previously placed on the Paper.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 32, to leave out all the words after "consent" in order to insert "in the case of England or Ireland of the Judge of the High Court of Justice having jurisdiction over the cause or matter in which such dividends are being accumulated."—(Mr. W. S. Smith.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

Question put, and negatived.

Words inserted.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the next Amendment was upon a matter altogether different from that which the Committee had been discussing last. They had been discussing the case of funds in Chancery; but now he wished to consider funds in the names of private trustees. He proposed that no such person should carry out a conversion without the consent of the person interested. He could quite understand it being impossible in some cases to ob- tain such consent, and in that case he proposed to act under this clause exactly in the manner which had been suggested, and to which the Solicitor General had agreed—namely, with the consent of the Judge. A similar provision was inserted by the Prime Minister when he proposed his commutation scheme in 1853; and if that was right and just where there was compulsory power, and the parties had a chance of receiving money in place of Stock, he thought à fortiori it should be inserted here, where there was no compulsory power. The principle was one to which he thought the Committee should adhere, even if modifications were made in the wording of the Amendment.

Amendment proposed. In page 5, line 8, after "section," insert— "Provided, That, in all cases in which any trustee, executor, or administrator shall hold, or be entitled to any Three per Cent. Stock upon trust for or for the benefit of any person having* a limited interest or under legal disability, no such trustee, executor, or administrator shall be at liberty to exchange such stock, or any part thereof, for Two and Three Quarter per Cent. Stock or Two and a Half per Cent. Stock, without the consent in writing of all persons beneficially interested in such stock if competent and willing to consent, but if such persons shall not agree, or if any of the parties shall be under legal disability, or if the Trust be such that persons yet unborn may become interested under the same, then, and in any or either of such cases, every such trustee, executor, or administrator may exchange such stock so held by him in such manner only as a Judge of the High Court of Justice in England or Ireland, or of the Court of Session in Scotland, may direct."—(Mr. H. H Fowler.)

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

THE SOLICITOR GENEEAL (Sir FARRER HEESCHELL)

thought the clause, as at present drafted, went somewhat further than the Amendment of the hon. Member, because at present in certain and many cases a trustee had power to change an investment, and to sell out Three per Cents and buy Two-and-a-Half per Cents. He did not think it was reasonable that where a trustee could take that course, a limit should be put upon him to require him to do by a process of that kind what he could do ill an easier way by conversion. Therefore, he apprehended that the hon. Member would rather wish to confine this clause to cases in which, but for this clause, a trustee could not change an investment. There, no doubt, the case was different, because the trustee had not been entrusted with the power of exercising his own judgment, and there he thought it would be reasonable, where there were persons interested, who were not sui juris, or not able to agree, to have this Amendment. Therefore, he would accept the clause in spirit, and would consider the exact words with the hon. Member.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he was quite satisfied with that statement, and would withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 15, leave out from "and," to end of Clause.—(Mr. W. Fowler.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, (Mr. CHILDERS)

thought some such provision might be perhaps necessary hereafter, though he should be sorry to commit himself on the subject now; but the Amendment was not applicable to this Bill, which was merely a Bill to allow holders of Government funds to exchange from one to another denomination. The Amendment, however, would alter the power of trustees as to investments generally, and he could not consent to it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 7 to 9 agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.