§ Clause 14 (Arrangements for conversion, exchange, or redemption); Clause 15 (Application of Act to Stock Certificates); Clause 16 (Provisions as to Savings Banks); and Clause 17 (Powers of Investment), agreed to.
§ Clause 18 (Application to new Stock of trusts, powers, &c., affecting old Stock).
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 9, at end of Clause, add the following sub-section;—"(2.) In any Act passed or instrument executed before the passing of this Act references to any Stock liable to be converted or exchanged in pursuance of this Act may, if the Stock is so converted or exchanged, be construed as references to new Stock."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ MR. COZENS-HARDY (Norfolk, N.)said, that the clause provided that a distringas which was now operative upon Stock which would be converted should also be operative on the Stock to which it would be converted; but it did not deal with the case of Stock as to which there might he dissent. He hoped the Government would inform the Committee in what way effect would be given to the numerous cases in which there would be such a distringas.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)said, he was obliged to his hon. and learned Friend for calling attention to this matter. The Committee would observe that by Clause 21 the Treasury had power to make rules, and it was proposed, in accordance with the existing practice, that a rule should be made, providing that the money which would be paid would be under the control of the persons having the charge.
§ MR. COZENS-HARDYsaid, the Amendment the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given Notice of was no 1833 doubt designed to meet cases where there was a change produced by conversion under the Act. But there was a large class of cases which would not be met by the words proposed. It was doubtful whether this clause as it stood would have any effect upon the will of a living man, and he would propose an Amendment to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment, which he believed the hon. and learned Attorney General assented to.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed, clause 18, page 9, at end of preceding sub-section, add—
And in the case of any testamentary instrument executed before the passing of this Act, any disposition, which, but for the passing of this Act, would have operated as a specific bequest of any such Stock, shall, if the same is so converted or exchanged, be construed as a specific bequest of such new Stock, and if the same is not so converted, but is paid off or redeemed, shall be construed as a pecuniary legacy of a sum of money equal to the nominal amount of the Stock so paid off or redeemed."—(Mr. Cozens-Hardy.)
§ Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 19 (Indemnity to trustees and others) agreed to.
§ Clause 20 (Application to Court in respect of questions arising out of conversion or exchange).
§
On the Motion of Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, the following Amendments made:—In page 9, line 41, after "stock," insert—
And in particular as to the cases in which, and extent to which, capital may be applied towards meeting any deficiency in income;
page 10, line 4, after "England," insert "or Wales, subject to the provisions of the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 to 1887;" line 5, after "Wales," insert "either on their own motion or on application;" and in line 7, after "court," insert "in the matter of such a charity."
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 21 (Power to make Rules), agreed to.
§ Clause 22 (Provisions as to Bank).
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 10, at end of Clause, add the following sub-section:—" (5.) Any payment which the Bank are authorized by or under this Act to make to a holder of Stock may be made by war-
1834
rant, and any such warrant shall be deemed to be a cheque within the meaning of 'The Crossed Cheques Act, 1876,' and the posting of the letter containing the warrant, addressed in the prescribed manner, shall, as respects the liability of the Bank, be equivalent to the delivery of the warrant to the stockholder."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 23 (Remuneration of Banks of England and Ireland); Clause 24 (Definitions); and Clause 25 (Short title), agreed to.
§ On the Motion of Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, the following new clauses:—
§ (Provisions as to Stock belonging to Duchy of Lancaster, &c.)
§ "(1.) The several provisions of this Act shall extend to stock held on behalf of the Crown, or of the Duchy of Lancaster, or of the Duchy of Cornwall, and to the dividends on such stock.
§ "(2.) With respect to any stock standing in the mine or to the account of the Duchy of Lancaster, any dissent or assent authorized by this Act may be signified by the clerk for the time being of the Council of the Duchy.
§ "(3.) With respect to any stock standing in the name or to the account of the Duchy of Cornwall, any dissent or assent authorized by this Act may be signified by the Receiver General of the Duchy.
§ "(4.) With respect to any stock to which the foregoing provisions of this section as to dissent and assent do not apply, and which stands in the name of any public officer or body in trust for the public service, any dissent or assent authorized by this Act may be signified by the public officer or body entitled to receive the dividends on the stock.
§ "(5.) Any stock held by any officer on behalf of the Court of Chancery, of the county palatine of Lancaster, or of any other Court in England, may be dealt with under this Act in such manner as may be directed by regulations made by the Lord Chancellor,"
§ agreed to, and added to the Bill.
§ New Clause—
§
(Power to hold new stock on different accounts.)
In the registers of new stock, the Bank may allow any holder or joint holders to have more than one account, provided that each account is distinguished either by a number or by each other designation as may be directed by the Bank, and that the Bank shall not be required to permit more than four accounts to he opened in the same name or names,"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer,)
—brought upand read a first and second time.
§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
1835§ MR. SYDNEY GEDGE (Stockport)said, that the clause as it stood gave the bank power to do what it could do already. It stated that the bank might allow any holder to have more than one account. The bank could do that now. It was only according to the rule of the bank that it had not been done. In order to make the thing compulsory the word ought to be "shall," and he moved the omission of the word "may" in line 1 in order to insert the word "shall."
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square)said, that he would agree to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, in new Clause, line 1, to leave out "may" and insert "shall."—(Mr. Sydney Gedge.)
§ Question, "That the word 'may' stand part of the new Clause," put, and negatived.
§ Question, "That the word 'shall' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
§ On the Motion of Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, the following Clause:—
§ (Provision as to annuitants.)
§ " (1.) Where under any trust or arrangement Other than a charitable trust any stock has been appropriated to provide an annuity, and is, under this Act, liable to be converted into or exchanged for new stock, the person in whose name the stock is standing may, at the request of the annuitant, or, in the case of several annuitants, the majority of them, and at the expense of the annuitant or annuitants, sell the stock, and invest the proceeds either in any manner authorized by the trust or arrangement, or in any manner in which cash under the control of the High Court, or the Court of Session, may for the time being be invested, and shall not be liable for any loss arising from any such sale or investment.
§ " (2.) In the case of stock standing in the name of Her Majesty's Paymaster General on behalf of the Supreme Court of Judicature in England, or of the Accountant to the Court of Session in Scotland, or of the Accountant General of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland, any such sale or investment may be authorized by the High Court, or the Court of Session, as the case may be.
§ " (3.) Where, in execution of any trust, or in performance of any duty, and whether in pursuance of the order of any court, or otherwise, any stock has been appropriated to provide an annuity, and is under this Act converted into or exchanged for new stock, the trust or duty shall, so far as relates to the payment of the annuity, be deemed to be executed or performed by the 1836 payment of the dividends on the new stock; but nothing in this section shall affect any power of any Court or other authority to make any order as to the application of capital in such cases,"
§ agreed to, and added to the Bill.
§ New Clause—
§ (Provisions as to stock mortgages. [See 7 and 8 Vic. c. 5, ss. 15,10.])
§ " (1.) An agreement to transfer any amount of New Three per Cent Stock, Consolidated Three per Cent Stock, or Reduced Three per Cent Stock, or generally any amount of Three per Cent Stock, may be satisfied by making a transfer of an equal amount of now stock, or, at the option of the person entitled to the benefit of the agreement, by paying a sum of money equal to the nominal amount of the stock so agreed to be transferred.
§ " (2.) Where under any mortgage or agreement for a loan any person is bound to pay half-yearly sums equal to the dividends on any specified amount of stock, and that amount of stock is under this Act converted into or exchanged for new stock, the obligation shall be satisfied by the payment of [qu.] quarterly sums equal to the dividends on the same amount of new stock,"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer,)
§ —brought up, and read a first and second time.
§ Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Ise of Wight)said, that it would be necessary to make a slight alteration in the clause. The words "or, at the option of the person entitled to the benefit of the agreement," were not necessary in the case of Stock which stood, as this stood, at or about par. He would move the omission of the words.
§ Amendment proposed, in new Clause, to omit "or, at the option of the person entitled to the benefit of the agreement."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
§ Question, "That these words proposed to be left out stand part of the new clause," put, and negatived.
§ New Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
§ New Clause—
§ (Power for majority of joint holders to dissent or assent.)
§ " Where any New Three per Cent Stock, Consolidated Three per Cent Stock, or Reduced Three per Cent Stock is standing in the names of more than two persons as joint holders thereof, the dissent or assent of the majority of those joint holders shall be sufficient for the purposes of this Act,"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer,)
§ —agreed to, and added to the Bill.
1837§ New Clause—
§ (Exemption of certain powers of attorney from stamp duty.)
§ "A power of attorney given exclusively for the purpose of empowering the attorney to signify any dissent or assent authorized by this Act shall be exempt from stamp duty,"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
§ —brought up, and read a first and second time, and added to the Bill.
§ New Clause (Provision as to Lunacy Funds)—(Mr. Attorney General)—brought up, and read a first and second time, agreed to.
§ Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)said, that after Clause 20, words ought to be inserted to enable the Lord Chancellor to deal with Lunacy Funds. He had prepared for that purpose a new Clause, which he begged to move.
§ Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
§ MR. SYDNEY GEDGE (Stockport), in moving the insertion, after Clause 17, of a now Clause, said he could not see why the State should pay commission in one case and not in the other.
§
New Clause—
The Treasury may, it they think fit, authorize the Bank to pay in respect of New Three per Cent Stock, exchanged for new Stock in pursuance of this Act, an allowance to recognized agents at the rate of one shilling and sixpence (or every hundred pounds, or fraction of a hundred pounds Stock so exchanged,"—(Mr. Sydney Gedge,)
§ —brought up, and read a first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square)said, he could not assent to the Clause, because no action of the Bank was necessary at all; in the case of assent there was no trouble whatever to be taken. The action was quite automatic. No papers had to be sent in signifying assent, and, therefore, the holders were relieved of any of the stops which had to be taken at the bank in the case of the conversion of Consols and Reduced Three per Cents.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ SIR HENRY JAMES (Bury)said, there were a great many small chari- 1838 ties in the country receiving a fixed income from Consols left them by testators, with the intention that they should receive that income. That observation also applied to individuals. Under the scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, these incomes would be diminished. For instance, if a charity or individual had been receiving £300, that sum would now be reduced to £250. He proposed to ask the Committee to carry the purpose of the testators into effect, so that charities and individuals might continue to receive their fixed incomes. He did not wish to interfere with the conversion scheme, but suggested that a clause should be inserted, to allow money in such cases as he had mentioned to be re-invested under the direction of the Court of Chancery, so as to secure substantially the same incomes as charities and individuals now received from Consols.
§ THE CHAIRMANThe proposed Amendment appears to enable a trustee to extend his power of investment. I have already considered that point in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for the Elgin Burghs (Mr. Anderson), and I held it to be outside the scope of the Bill, in the absence of special instructions to the Committee. The Amendment cannot be moved without such special instruction, but I think the proposal in the name of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Gedge) may be moved.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square)said, that by the indulgence of the Committee he might be allowed to suggest to his right hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir Henry James) whether an opportunity for bringing forward this proposal might not be secured during the progress of Lord Herschell's Bill. The question was no doubt a very important one, and no doubt the clause suggested by his right hon. and learned Friend went very far. He (Mr. Goschen) undertook to deal with it in some way or other, though it was not dealt with in the present Bill. He had had a great deal of correspondence on the point under discussion, and he was aware that very great interest was excited in regard to it; but be thought it would be much safer to examine it apart from the present measure, and either deal with it in 1839 Lord Herschell's Bill or deal with it separately in another Bill.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)said, that if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would undertake to deal with the question, he supposed that would be taken as sufficient. He had thought from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he had intended to deal with the subject in this Bill, and, therefore, he (Sir William Harcourt) had been very much surprised by the ruling of the Chairman. He took that ruling as correct; but they certainly had had a statement to the effect that it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to relieve trustees in this matter and to allow them to escape from a loss, both in the case of charities and private institutions.
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, that so far as annuities were concerned, the question had been dealt with, and it was with regard to annuities that he had made his original statement. But the present proposal went beyond annuities, and affected the case of marriage settlements and other points which were outside the scope of the clauses of this Bill. It would be best not to deal with this matter in a hurry.
§ SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he accepted the ruling of the Chairman; but if he altered the suggested Amendment, leaving out the words which rendered it open to question, he might, perhaps, obtain a ruling in his favour. But he was anxious at that stage not to introduce controversial matter, and he would defer it to the Report stage, by which time he hoped that some understanding would have been arrived at, and that the question would be dealt with. He thought they ought to deal with it in this Bill, and not trust to the Bill of Lord Herschell.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)said, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have to consider whether what he proposed would not go too far. The right hon. and learned Gentleman in his suggested Amendment said, "any person," and named no limit as to amount, and that would open up the question as to whether trustees of large amounts might not be left a great deal too free. The Government sympathized with the right hon. and learned Gentlemen's objects, but thought that 1840 the matter should not be dealt with without careful consideration.
§ MR. SYDNEY GEDGE (Stockport)said, he thought they ought to pass such a clause as he had put upon the Paper. He would point out that they had testators setting aside certain sums of money in order to produce fixed incomes for certain persons. Such testators instructed trustees and executors to set aside a sufficient amount of Stock to produce the exact sum willed to the annuitant, and to keep that stock intact. Well, the Government now proposed to take off one-twelfth of the income derived from that Stock, and at a future date to take off a sixth. Considering that it was the paramount object of such testators to provide a fixed annuity, it would only be right that the Committee should meet the views of such persons by enacting provisions to enable the stock to be sold and the proceeds invested in such a manner as would make up the amount of the annuity the testator had in his mind. No doubt, if this were not done, there would be a great outcry throughout the country on the part of persons who had money left to them in this way, when they found their incomes reduced by a twelfth, and after a time by one-sixth. There would be no chance of risk in the proposal he made, as the investments could under his clause be made only in securities allowed to Trutees by the Court of Chancery. He, therefore, hoped the Committee would accept his clause.
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, he had no objection to the principle of the clause; but he did not know how far the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) agreed with it, or might think it would interfere with the further steps which he might think it necessary to take.
§
New Clause—
When any Stock is held by any person upon trust to secure the payment of a fixed income, the holder of the Stock shall be authorised to invest the proceedings thereof in any of the securities from time to time permitted by the High Court of Justice for the investment of trust funds, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the instrument creating or regulating the trust,"—(Mr. Sydney Gedge,)
§ —brought up, and read a first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
1841§ SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he should prefer to have the Amendment accepted, but he should like to have the word "fixed" struck out.
§ MR. PARKER (Perth)asked, whether it was meant that the amount of the income must be stated on the face of the trust-deed?
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, there must be some reference to "fixed income." He did not think that any lawyer would assume that a testator intended to have a fixed income, unless there was some fixed income stated on the face of the trust.
SIB, WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that though that was good, so far as it went, it did not meet the general case of marriage settlements, especially the older marriage settlements, and other cases where people had invested certain sums in Consols. Relief was required in those cases, and not where it was intended to secure particular incomes. What was required was that where persons had only power to invest in Consols, that they should in future have power to invest in other Funds which were considered safe which would produce the amount produced by the original investment.
§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, that the proper way to deal with those cases would be by an independent Motion, or by a Bill, or by the introduction of an Amendment into the Bill in the House of Lords. The point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury referred to was limited amounts, or where it would be a great hardship to have incomes reduced. It would be a question as to how far it would be right to release trustees from the obligation of investing in Consols, when there was an express provision in a trust against any other sort of investment. Perhaps it would be well to wait and allow the right hon. and learned Gentleman to state the exact case he wished to raise on the Report stage.
§ SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he was not limiting his case to any amount. He simply referred to cases of great hardship, and he hoped there would be no limitation in the matter.
§ MR. COZENS-HARDY (Norfolk, N.)said, the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Sydney Q-edge) was limited to fixed incomes, and he (Mr. Cozens-Hardy) proposed to submit an Amend- 1842 ment to it, which he hoped would not be out of Order. He proposed to leave out the first line and to add words, so as to make the clause read—
When any Stock liable to be converted or exchanged by this Act into new Stock, is held by a trustee, such trustee shall be authorised to invest the proceeds thereof in any of the securities from time to time permitted by the High Court of Justice for the investment of trust funds, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the instrument creating or regulating the trust.A trustee should have this power if there was not any express prohibition. Such prohibitions were very rare, so rare that they would not justify the Committee in keeping back a clause of this kind which would be of great advantage to trustees. He would move the Amendment.
§ THE CHAIRMANThe clause has not yet been read a second time.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed,
In the first line of the proposed new clause to leave out the words "held by any person upon trust to secure the payment of a fixed income," in order to insert the words "liable to be converted or exchanged by this Act into now Stock, is held by a trustee."—(Mr. Cozens-Hardy.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed new Clause."
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, that this Amendment introduced rather a new question, giving, as it did, the right of conversion in all cases. It might arrest conversion to a considerable extent, which would not be the object of the hon. Gentleman. He should be sorry to accept such words without having had an opportunity of considering them; and he would suggest to the hon. Member the advisability of bringing them up on Report. He should be glad if the hon. Member would get rid of the words "liable to conversion." In cases where it was said in the trust that the money was to be invested, it did not at all follow that in the event of the amount of interest realized in such investment being changed, the testator would have desired a change to be made in the description of Stock invested in.
§ SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, that there were, no doubt, cases in which a testator had stated—"I leave £1,000, or I leave £10,000, to produce such and such a 1843 sum per annum," intending the legatee to have that fixed amount. A testator might have left a sum to realize £300 a-year, never intending, under any circumstances, that the charity or the legatee should only have £250 a-year; therefore, if they accepted the words "fixed income," this clause would become nugatory. The phrase "fixed income," if left in the clause, would, so far as old settlements were concerned, negative the whole object of this concession. Therefore, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider this matter on Report. These words were fatal to all he (Sir Henry James) contended for.
§ THE CHAIRMANWill the hon. Member (Mr. Cozens-Hardy) withdraw his Amendment?
§ MR. COZENS-HARDYYes, Sir; I withdraw it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ Preamble agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House."
§ SIR CHARLES LEWIS (Antrim, N.)May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Bill will be reprinted before the Report?
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)I am sorry to say it will be quite impossible to have the Bill reprinted before the Report stage. Indeed, we shall have to ask the indulgence of the House with the view of taking the measure at 12 o'clock to-morrow, and before the Business on the Paper is proceeded with. I am exceedingly sorry that it will be necessary to postpone the Motion on the Paper; but I think the debate upon the Report stage of the present Bill will be extremely short, as the discussion we have had this afternoon has cleared away all debatable points.
§ MR. GOSCHENThere are only two points remaining over, that is to say, the question of the Charity Commissioners, and the question which has just been raised.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTI am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has felt 1844 it necessary to make this demand upon the time of the House. He knows there is a debate of very great importance coming on to-morrow, and I do not think the Government have any reason to complain of the manner in which this Bill has been dealt with this morning in the House. There has been every disposition shown to get forward with Public Business. I trust that every effort will be made to deal with the Report stage of this Bill without interfering with the discussion which is to come on to-morrow.
§ MR. GOSCHENI would point out to the right hon. Gentleman and the House, that this Bill has to be passed in the House of Lords. The Easter Holidays are coming on very soon, and then there will be the Commission for obtaining the Royal Assent; therefore, the time at the disposal of Parliament for passing the Bill is extremely limited. If this Bill is allowed to go on to-morrow morning, I really do not think that much time will be consumed by it; half-an-hour, at the most, will suffice.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)I must say I think it a little unfair that this proposal should have been sprung upon the House without Notice in the absence of any Irish Members. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury is asking a privilege or taking a right. If he is asking a concession in appealing to the House to take the Report stage of this Bill to-morrow morning, I must say that if I am in my place at the commencement of Public Business tomorrow, I shall raise my voice against it. Of course, if he is taking this as a right, there will be no opportunity of resisting him, and there is no more to be said. I think, however, I can. suggest to the right hon. Gentleman a very easy way out of the difficulty. Let him bring on the Report stage of this Bill after the discussion of the Bill of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell.) I do not see why the discussion on the Bill of the hon. Member for the City of Cork should not close soon after 5 to-morrow evening. If the opposition offered to that Bill is obstructive, we shall be willing to assist the right hon. Gentleman in making a Motion to effect a Closure, and he would then have plenty of time to spare for the consideration of this Bill.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI have not the least desire to interpose or bring about the least delay in the consideration of the measure to which the hon. Member refers. The extreme necessity of the case is my only apology for asking the House to depart from its usual practice. I will consider the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, and if I can meet it, I will be happy to do so.
§ MR. ANDERSON (Elgin and Nairn)I do not think that the Government should make up their minds that the discussion on the Report stage of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Bill will be of a merely formal character. The proposal the right hon. Gentleman has just consented to consider, deals with matters of re-investment in Colonial and other securities which are perfectly sound. It is intended to raise that point on the Report stage, and, therefore, I do not think that the Government can assume that the debate will be a purely formal one.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL (Paddington, S.)On the question of Order, before this Bill leaves the Committee, I should like to ask if I am to understand that you, Sir, have ruled that the point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury cannot be raised in Committee, because, according to the new Rule of the House, if it cannot be raised in Committee it cannot be raised on Report? It is, therefore, important that we should know what is your ruling on that matter. If we cannot raise it on Report, it might be necessary for us to do be on the third reading, and if we cannot do so on the third reading, it might be necessary for us to move that the Bill be re-committed, in order to enable this point to be dealt with.
§ THE CHAIRMANThe question of the enlarging of the power of investment, whether by trustees or otherwise, would be out of Order and cannot be introduced into thin Bill without a distinct Instruction; but where a definite amount of income is bequeathed arising out of Consols, that question may be dealt with in this Bill, and Amendments upon the subject dealing with small amounts would be admitted.
SIR WILLIAM HAROURTMay I ask what is the small amount according to your definition, Sir, for if we are 1846 bound on the question, some limit or figure should be given.
§ THE CHAIRMANPerhaps I was wrong in using that phrase. Where Stock is left to produce a fixed income and the interest on that Stock is affected, that income is necessarily affected, but the mere diminution of income generally would not justify the insertion of any clause in the Bill to enlarge those powers.
§ SIR HENRY JAMESWhen this Bill comes before us on Report, should I be at liberty to move to strike out the words "fixed income?"
§ THE CHAIRMANI should have thought not, but that would be a question for Mr. Speaker.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill reported.
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to say that he intends to put down the Bill for to-morrow morning?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHYes.
§ MR. DILLONWhy is that?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHThere are two courses open to us—one is that the Bill should be taken to-morrow before the Business on the Paper is proceeded with, on the distinct understanding, so far as the Government is concerned, that it will not occupy more than half-an-hour; and the other is that we should suspend the half-past 5 o'clock Rule to-morrow (Wednesday), and arrange for the continuation of the Sitting at 6 o'clock, so as to make it certain that the debate will continue to-morrow. One of these two courses is necessary in order that we may conclude the measure. I will confer with hon. Gentlemen opposite, and if I have a sufficient assurance that the latter course will be the one they prefer, I will adopt it.
§ MR. DILLONWe decidedly prefer the latter course. We have sufficient evidence that an intention exists on the Benches opposite to interfere with the progress of the Bill of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. On our part, we have no desire to impede the progress of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's measure; but if the right hon. Gentleman takes the course of putting down the Government Bill in the first place on the Paper to-morrow, he will be doing 1847 a great injustice to the hon. Member for the City of Cork. Let me explain to the right hon. Gentleman that there are Members in this House—I do not wish to refer to individuals—who have a great objection to the Bill of the hon. Member for the City of Cork being brought to an issue, and we do not know that they will not enter into a long discussion of the Government Bill in order to prevent our Bill coming on.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHOn receiving an assurance that the debate on the Bill of the hon. Member for the City of Cork will be concluded by half-past 5, or before half-past 5, and that the Division will be taken, then I will move to suspend the Order with regard to the cessation of Opposed Business at half-past 5, and so regulate the Sitting that it may be possible to have the two Government Bills passed.
§ Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.