HC Deb 07 August 1905 vol 151 cc453-71

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."

SIR HOWARD VINCENT (Sheffield, Central)

said that, in moving that the Bill be considered this day three months, he was actuated by no hostility towards the company promoting it, but the character of the Bill was such that, with regard to the powers it was sought to give, it ought not to be considered at so late a period of the session. It was a commentary on the procedure of the House that at the very time when every moment was required in order to get through public business a Bill of this character should be brought up to be considered. He had no knowledge that there was such a Bill in existence until by the courtesy of a member of the Private Bill Committee he learned the character of the Bill, and he moved this Resolution in order to give the House an opportunity to consider whether such powers should be given to a private company for its own ends, whether such powers ought to be granted to any private corporation, and, if granted, whether they ought not to be given by public Bill.

He had always taken a keen interest in trust matters, and was fully alive to the enormous importance of something being done which would prevent the terrible misappropriations of trust funds which had taken place from time to time in recent years. It would be well within the knowledge of the House that a Bill having that purpose in view had passed all its stages. This was not a matter which came before Parliament for the first time. A company entitled "The Executors and Trustees Insurance Corporation" promoted a Bill, which was rejected, and before very long the company got into financial difficulties. Then there was an Edinburgh company, called the "Public Trustees, Ltd.," which promoted a Bill in the House of Lords, which was thrown out on the ground that powers such as these should be given by a public Bill giving all companies interested in this class of work equal opportunities. He would not enter into the legal technicalities of the matter, but would leave them to the hon. and learned Member for Shrewsbury, who took a great interest in these matters, but he trusted the House would press for an authoritative opinion from the President of the Board of Trade and the law officers of the Crown before they agreed to grant these powers to a private corporation.

They were not without expert opinion on these matters. The present Lord Chancellor gave cogent reasons why such powers should not be granted to a private corporation in his evidence before the Royal Commission presided over by the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries in 1894, and he trusted that the House would reflect very carefully before granting these large powers, because they must remember that once given they could not be revoked and if any misfortune arose in the future they themselves would have to bear the responsibility for having granted the powers. The statements made in regard to this company in a circular issued recently were somewhat misleading. The company was a respectable company, and its directors were highly honourable men. One of them whom he now saw before him he would gladly trust with any property he had if he knew that he had the time to attend to it, but he knew that that hon. Gentleman gave all his time to the State, and would have no time to look into such matters. The memorandum said that this company had been established thirty-five years, which was in itself not a very long time, but as it at present existed it had only been established fifteen years, owing to its amalgamation with other companies. With regard to its financial condition, he had turned to the Stock Exchange Yearbook, the only authority he could turn to, which showed the state of affairs to be—revenue account £50,000 odd, investment and reserve account £40,000 odd, and the loan from the bank £30,000, and he could not understand how that tallied with the statement in the memorandum that their invested assests amounted to £1,250,000. No doubt that could be ascertained. He found that the company took such very wide powers in its articles of association that it was impossible to take wider powers, and that this company should now be entrusted with the very wide powers taken by this Bill was a matter for the very serious consideration of the House. He asked the House to say whether in a matter of this kind, having regard to the facts he had laid before them, it was not desirable that these powers should not be given by private Bill, and to say that it was not right or proper that Parliament at this late period of the session should convey to one private company these wide powers, which would be a valuable asset to the company itself, but of no benefit whatever to the public.

*MR. H. D. GREENE (Shrewsbury)

said he opposed the Bill as being utterly subversive of all the principles on which private Bills were allowed to pass the House. It had never been considered right that a particular company should obtain a concession, as it were, to abrogate the general law of the land in its favour to the exclusion of every other individual. It might be suggested that it would be a hardship to the company if this Bill was stopped at the present stage, but there was no weight in such an argument because it came before this House as an unopposed Bill and was sent to the Unopposed Bill Committee, which had not the advantage of having any discussion whatever, and which only had to see that the preamble was proved as far as matters of fact were concerned. They had nothing to do with matters of principle, and could therefore only pass it. It was therefore no hardship to the company that opposition should be taken to he Bill when it was realised that that opposition was raised upon the earliest opportunity, namely, the consideration stage.

The reason for the company coming to Parliament was because without an Act of Parliament they could not do two things. No executor could under the law of the land obtain authority to act from the Court of Probate, unless he made an oath to execute the office justly and properly, and an oath that he would return to the Court of Probate a true and proper inventory and account of the deceased's estate. And under an Act of George III., an executor had to make an oath that he would declare the true audit of the estate that came into his hands. By well-established law a corporation had never been able or been allowed to act as executors, and what they had been obliged to do was to appoint a syndic or manager to act on their behalf, because the manager could take the oaths required which a corporation could not take. What this company was now asking was that it should be allowed to act as executors without having to take the oaths required of executors that the office should be executed justly, that a true account should be rendered, and that the value of the estate should be truly declared; and also to act as administrators on giving their own bond for proper administration without finding two sureties for the bond, as was required under the present law in the case of administrators. These were very extraordinary proposals to make, and it would be still more extraordinary for the House to accept them simply because the Bill was being opposed, as it was said, at the eleventh hour.

Turning to the principle involved, he did not say that a company should not be allowed, to act as executors or administrators, and he hoped hon. Members would not be misled by any argument from the otherside as toits being a question whether any company should or should not be allowed to act in this way. That was not the point. The point was whether this company should be allowed to have all these advantages, which no one else in this country, company or individual, possessed, for the purposes of their own gain. In 1890 the late Lord Herschell introduced a Bill in the House of Lords to enable companies to act as executors and administrators. A carefully drawn-up Bill was introduced and amended in various clauses and was passed through the House of Lords; but, although it was formally introduced in the House of Commons, it never came on for Second Reading, In that Bill a sort of code was drawn up which would have been applicable to any trust company which desired to engage in business of this kind. That was a reasonable and proper proposal if the terms and clause had been suitable. The idea was that there should be a model law applicable to all companies. What a different thing that was to the present Bill! Here they were asked to sanction one company and one company alone. They had heard from the hon. Member who proposed the Motion that the Executors and Trustees Corporation had tried, and tried in vain, to get such a Bill through private legislation. It was felt to be a sine qua non that there should be a general Act regulating the manner in which companies should be absolved from the requirements of the Probate Law. That being so, he felt there was a very strong case against the Bill.

It would be said that in the other House precautions were taken and the company was required to find £50,000 and pay it into Court so that it might stand as security; but that sum was not earmarked for that particular purpose; it was only put aside out of the general assets, and would stand to the good of the company and for any of its creditors. There was £1 paid up on £5 shares, and, supposing they called up the remaining £4, what would be left if somebody made away with the trust securities, and what would become of the creditors? To talk of the £50,000 being a security was idle and childish. The Board of Trade was introduced and they would be told that the Board of Trade was allowed under the Bill to fix the amount of remuneration and, if necessary, to name the amount of costs that might be charged. He objected in toto to allowing the Board of Trade ægis to be thrown over any company. It seemed to him it ought not to be put in the power of any company to advertise that they were protected and supported by the Board of Trade and that they had got an asset of that kind in their power. Without discoursing upon the general principle, it seemed to him absolutely contrary to the interest of anyone that their affairs should be thrown into the hands of a company. A company desired, for its shareholders, to carry on a trust as long as possible so that the remuneration should endure as long as possible; but his view was that a trust should be brought to a conclusion as soon as possible. Therefore, a public or a private trustee was much the better. That, however, was not of the question that night. What they had to consider was whether exceptional and peculiar privilege should be given to this company, whether they could show a case for singular and exceptional treatment.

Amendment proposed— To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three mouths.'"—(Sir Howard Vincent.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

MR. HALDANE (Haddingtonshire)

said that, like the hon. Member who had just sat down, he had no concern or interest in the company. He knew nothing about it except what he had gathered from the Bill and the statements circulated. Unlike him, however, he rose to appeal to the House to give the Bill its Third Reading, and he agreed with the hon. Member for Shrewsbury that the question was not to be decided on any technical ground. It was not enough that the Bill had come too late, that it had passed both Houses, and that the promoters had had all the trouble of getting it to this stage. It had to be considered on its merits, and it was just because he had considered it upon its merits that he made his appeal to the House. For twenty years he had been more or less indirectly concerned with questions affecting trusteeship, and more and more, as year succeeded year, he had observed the extraordinary and increasing difficulty of getting proper and efficient people to act as trustees. The hon. Member for Sheffield had got a Bill of his own very much in his mind—the Public Trustees Bill. He was strongly in favour of that Bill, and he voted for it. He thought it would be a most useful Bill, but it would not serve the purpose of the Bill which was now before the House. The Public Trustees Bill was a Bill which would serve the purposes of the Court when, in an emergency, it was a moot point that somebody should take the place of a trustee. It would serve the purpose of small estates and poor people, but it would not serve the purpose of the ordinary testator who wanted somebody to take charge of his affairs free from the red tape which was essentially associated with every Government Department.

The case which had been made against the Bill was in the main, not that no company ought to act as a trustee, but that the conditions under which the company ought to act should be regulated by general legislation. He was also of that opinion, but what chance was there of obtaining anything of the kind? The present Government had been in office for a considerable time, but what steps had it taken to give effect to the propositions which came before the House in the Bill of 1890? What chance was there of stops being taken which would make available to the general public conditions under which the trust companies were to act? There was one chance by which they could make progress, and it was for some enterprising company, such as the present company, to succeed in getting a private Bill through, and for them then to lay the foundations on which other companies could come in. If this Bill passed, it was inevitable that Parliament must legislate at an early date and lay down conditions applicable to all companies. There was no sacredness about this Bill. He shonld be in favour of subjecting the present company to the usual stringent regulations; but, unless the House took some such opportunity as the present of making a start, what chance was there of this most useful and necessary piece of legislation being carried by which efficiency in private trusteeship should be supplemented? They were not dealing with a Bill that had passed Parliament. Aa the hon. Member for Sheffield had pointed out, the Lord Chancellor made some remarks upon the Bill when it came before the other House, and the Bill was amended by the insertion of the £50,000 and other clauses to put it on a level with, and make it subject to, the conditions of the General Trust Company Bill of 1890, with which the names of Lord Herschell and Lord Davey would always be associated. He could not help thinking that the House did not realise the consensus of opinion in favour of companies undertaking the business of a trustee. They had the sanction of some of the most eminent lawyers of the day —Lord Herschell, Lord Davey, and, he thought he might add, the Lord Chancellor himself.


I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman heard what I said.


said he had heard what the hon. Member had said. The Bill, as it came before them, was one which had received very careful consideration and had been amended at the hands of those responsible in the other House, He was not arguing that as conclusive, but that they had got a real public difficulty to deal with. There was not the smallest prospect of the House being induced to take up the general subject, pressed as it was with other business, either now or immediately hereafter, unless a start was made. He desired to see some promise made to those unfortunate testators who could not find trustees to carry out their affairs. They would not do that with the Public Trustee Bill. They would not provide for the class with which this Bill sought to deal. Those who were in favour of private companies acting under proper restrictions and conditions thought it was no longer desirable that people should be driven to hunt about for trustees.

The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down talked about this company as though a private company was something vastly inferior to the ordinary private trustee. Who was the ordinary private trustee? Generally somebody too busy to look after the affairs of the trust, or, if he was not too busy, who was not competent to look after it. He left the matter to the solicitor. He had a great appreciation for that honourable profession, which had rendered the public a great service, but it was not desirable that the trusteeship should rest with the solicitor entirely. Therefore, this Bill, to his mind, afforded a choice between leaving it to a very large extent under the control of the solicitor and putting it in the hands of somebody who would attend to the matter according to fixed rules and in a business fashion. The hon. and learned Member opposite did not mean to convey that a company could not act as a trustee under the law. Of course it could; as far as their difficulties in acting were concerned, that was a mere matter of technicality. The oath could just as well be made by the manager of a corporation as by anyone else. The deposit of £50,000 at any rate raised the wealth of the corporation, and he would ask whether a company of the kind and standing of the present was not less likely to embark in speculation than the ordinary trustee, who might be a man of business, a man of no fortune at all, and a man who wa asppointed with the risk that, if his own private fortune went and the temptation came to him, he might meddle with the securities just as much as any trade corporation. The duty of the corporation was to administer this as a matter of business, and in the vast majority of cases the corporation had to act on a businesslike footing and had to submit to audit, which no private trustee had to submit to.


By the company's own auditors.


They have to submit to audit. That is the point, and if the Board of Trade is dissatisfied—


There is no power on the part of the Board of Trade with regard to the audit.


said under Section 22 the Board of Trade might make rules as to the audit of any trust company.


What about the London and Globe Company?


asked what the London and Globe had to do with the Bill. There was a special provision giving the Board of Trade power to insist upon a private audit of the trust administration of the company. That was a provision they did not have in the case of a private trustee. He was not speaking for the corporation. It was a Bill which embodied the general conditions of the Bill of 1890, and these conditions were laid down as being essential to the security of the public. He desired to press the point as one worthy of the serious consideration of the House, that if they rejected this Bill they rejected at least that which would make it necessary for the House to proceed to the consideration of the whole of the subject on the lines of broad legislation such as would lay down conditions to which all trust companies must conform. They had reached a state at which it was impossible to find trustees to do the business as it ought to be done, in an efficient and satisfactory fashion. They had reached the state at which, unless they took up a measure of this kind, they would find more and more difficulty of getting trustees who could attend to the business entrusted to them; and, speaking for himself, he should regard it as an opportunity lost if, by rejecting the Bill upon the Third Reading, they were unable to deliver themselves from the haphazard condition of things to which they were subjected at the present time. There was not the smallest comparison between the Public Trustee Bill and the present Bill. They aimed at different classes of administration. It would not help the class of administration he desired to help and which must be helped if business was to be put on a satisfactory footing. He was anxious to see the Third Reading of the Bill assented to, believing that it would lead to general legislation which would put the whole law of trust administration on a better footing.


said the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had given a vague reason why they should pass the Bill. He asked that they should pass the Third Reading of the Bill and so enforce legislation and see what was the proper line on which to allow what was asked for. That, he thought, was a dangerous principle. If they carried out what the hon. Gentleman had recommended they would give special privileges, which the House had always hitherto refused, to a private company for private gain, and they would then, having created that vested interest, proceed to legislate upon the general law of the subject.

There was only one way in which the subject could be dealt with properly, and that was, if the House or the country thought it was necessary, to change the general law of the land, making proper restrictions under which public companies might be allowed to administer the estate of a testator. The first restriction ought to be, and would be, that the House must be satisfied, either through a Committee or some other inquiry, as to the stability of the company they were going to entrust with these powers. He did not say a word against the present company. He knew nothing about it; but up to the present there had been no inquiry whatever as regarded its position. They were asked, without any inquiry, to allow a company, which undoubtedly engaged in a business of a special nature, to associate with its business, without any restrictions whatever, the business ox acting as trustee and executor under wills in this country, and to allow the company in so acting to make a profit, even though the testator had not authorised any such action either by will or by settlement. What would be the result if the House allowed such a proposition? They would have company after company—and there were companies and companies—coming to the House with Bills framed exactly like the present one, and they would point to the present case as a precedent to show why the House should give them the same privilege without inquiry. What the result of that would be it would be difficult to say. The moment they proceeded to abrogate the requirements of the ordinary law of the land they ought to proceed, not by private Bill, but by public Bill. They ought to give the privileges they granted, not to one company but to all companies, always subject to the necessary restrictions.

The hon. Gentleman had said very properly that there was no comparison between the present Bill and the Bill for the creation of a public trustee, in which he (Sir E. Carson) was extremely interested, believing it was a necessary reform which ought to be made; but how had the House dealt with that Bill? After sending it to the Grand Committee on Law, and alter two days examination in that House, the House still thought it had not sufficient time to consider the necessary change. Yet they were now asked to change the law after a few moments consideration and without all the examination thought necessary in the case of the public Bill. He knew a great deal could be said on behalf of the promoters, that it was hard that at the last moment the Bill should be opposed, but the question of unopposed Bills stood in a very unsatisfactory condition. It was all very well in cases where there were rival interests and where some one was sure to take care that the Bill was properly discussed; but in a Bill like the present one, where the interests of the public were concerned, who would go to the expanse of opposing and in that way bringing the matter fully before the Unopposed Bill Committee or Select Committee? He was informed that there was no precedent for the Unopposed Bill Committee throwing out a Bill. He was, therefore, taking no extraordinary course, because it was not the case of a Bill coming back to them after thorough sifting, after evidence had been taken, and after a Committee had reported. It was actually a case of a Bill coming back to them almost in the same condition, as far as the result of any inquiry was concerned, as when it left the House. He was not at all sure, from what he knew of the Unopposed Committee, whether, if it had known the Bill made serious changes in the ordinary law of the land, that it would for one moment have allowed it to pass. But, as it was without precedent for throwing out such a Bill, they were confronted with the fact that serious changes in the ordinary law of the land might be made without any investigation and inquiry in consequence of the procedure of the House. The House ought not to allow a company for its own private gain to take up the position of trustee and have the privileges asked for without thoroughly inspecting every clause and every line in the Bill. The principle required the minutest examination. Of course, it was absolutely impossible at that time of the session that any such examination should take place, and he, therefore, recommended the House to agree to the Motion of his hon. friend.

MR. BRYNMOR JONES (Swansea District)

said that as a member of the Unopposed Bill Committee which reported this Bill he desired to make one or two observations. Upon the whole he agreed with the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman who seconded the Motion now before the House, but he desired the House to know the difficulty in which the Unopposed Bill Committee was placed with regard to Bills of this character. The practice in his experience of several years was for some gentleman to be asked to prove the preamble. He was asked if it was true and he simply said, "Yes, it is." They then proceeded to consider the clauses and the reports made from the various public departments, but it was really impossible for them to examine whether the allegations of the preamble were or were not true. In this case the position of the Committee was one of especial difficulty, because there could be no doubt that every allegation in the preamble was true, as it could be vouched for by public documents. The only possible question about the preamble was the question of policy. Though he did not like the Bill, when he found on the authority of the Speaker's counsel that there was no case in which a Bill had been thrown out by an Unopposed Bill Committee, he felt he could do nothing except join in the Report to the House. The Committee proceeded to consider the various clauses, and the Bill was reported in due course-He thought the House ought to understand that they were not committed in any way by anything in the Report of the Unopposed Bill Committee.

*MR. DUKE (Plymouth)

did not think the Unopposed Bill Committee really needed the apology which had just been addressed to the House. There had been raised an alarmist cry that the funds of trust estates were going to be put in danger of being fraudulently employed or embezzled. But that danger existed to a great extent at present, and there were people who seemed to regard themselves as having vested interests in that respect. The great hindrance to providing against fraud and embezzlement with regard to trust funds was the impossibility of establishing a public trustee. At the same time very great difficulty was experienced by settlers in finding anybody who would take the risk and trouble to manage their affairs as if hey were his own.

There was really no foundation for the suggestion that the trust funds were proposed to be given to a trust company to speculate with or to mix with their own funds. The Bill provided that which had never been provided for before on the part of a trust company, namely, a cash deposit of £50,000, which could be increased by the Board of Trade if the business in which the company desired to embark was a successful one. It would be an immense benefit to private persons. [Cries of "No."] He had heard the same outcry against the public trustee, and out of doors people professed to understand what that outcry meant. There was in the Bill the further security that there was to be regular audit, and the provision that the Board of Trade might make rules as to the audit of the trust securities held by the company. The Bill followed the general provisions of Lord Herschell's Bill which was carried in the Lords in 1890, with the exception that there had been introduced into it safeguards which did not exist in that measure. He was aware that that was a public Bill, but what was cried out for was that people who desired to do this business should conform to the requirements of a public standard. That standard had been set by one of the greatest lawyers this country had ever known, and acquiesced in by great masters of equity, and the present Bill offered even greater safeguards. He understood that clauses had been introduced which met all the objections raised in the House of Lords and which satisfied the Board of Trade. No one disputed that such a Bill was necessary, and the present measure tested the sincerity of the expressed desire that an existing need should be met.

MR. McKENNA (Monmouthshire, N.)

said the speech of the Solicitor-General would have left on the minds of persons who had not lead the Bill the impression that its purpose was to compel everybody who died hereafter to leave his estate in trust to be administered by the Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation All the House was asked to do was to permit a person of sound mind to leave his property to be administered by this corporation if he desired so to do. Why should that liberty be refused? What public interest would be served by refusing it? The corporation had had the enterprise to come to Parliament and ask for the removal of certain technical disabilities which stood in the way of its acting as trustee, and by passing the Bill the House would simply enable testators to do with their property what they desired to do with it, and enable an honest company to act in the way in which they desired to act. There was far more security given for proper administration by this company than there was by the ordinary private trustee, and he trusted the House would not be misled by the speech of the Solicitor-General.

MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanarkshire, Partick)

thought the question whether they should give a private company those rights and privileges was entirely different from the question whether the clauses of the Bill might be made into a general Act of Parliament. The extraordinary theory that had been advanced that because a general Act was desirable therefore this particular company ought to be allowed special privileges and other companies left to follow, illustrated the risks attaching to our present system of dealing with unopposed private Bills. Private opposition was relied upon to prevent the passage of undesirable provisions, but in the case of unopposed Bills that security did not come into operation. The House of Commons ought to place a more effective check upon these Bills. More care was certainly taken now by the Unopposed Bill Committee than used to be the case, but yet more was required. At present it was a chance whether Members looked into a matter adequately, and he thought there ought to be a permanent official whose duty it should be to raise all the points that could be raised against unopposed Bills when they came before the Committee.

*MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty)

said he desired to look at this matter from the point of view of the testator.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)

moved that the Question be now put, but the Motion was not accepted.


expressed his surprise that no reference had been made to the Royal Exchange Company, established 200 years ago, with a capital of £2,000,000, which had been carrying on this kind of business for many years, he believed, in a perfectly satisfactory manner. He had not a penny interest in any assurance company, but he objected strongly to matters of this description being rushed through in the last hours of the session. He had a fair amount of caution, and in arranging for the few bawbees he would have to deal with, he would certainly not like to leave his affairs to be managed by any company such as the one under consideration. As to the argument that sane men ought to be allowed to do as they liked, the greater part of the speculation on the Stock Exchange was carried on by sane men, and it was necessary to protect even sane men lest they should fall into any of the traps set for the unwary. He agreed that general legislation was required; it was a pity the right hon. Gentleman the Solicitor-General and his friends had not realised that fact before, and dealt with the matter during the ten years they had been in office. He did not agree with his right hon. friend the Member for Haddingtonshire that the present Bill was better than nothing. It was preferable that the matter should be left alone. He had not much faith in the so-called safeguards. £50,000 would not be much good against the operations of speculators, while, as for the Board of Trade, the scheming artful dodgers of the city of London would be too quick for them, and the Department would endeavour to make arrangements when it was too late to do any good. He was not saying a word against the particular company concerned in this Bill, but he strongly objected to measures of this kind being, rushed through at the end of the session, and he should vote against the Bill.


said there were various companies carrying on business of the description referred to in the Bill, and he thought it would be a hardship on this particular company if, after having gone through the usual forms and offered to furnish security, they were deprived of their Bill at this stage of the proceedings.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes, 101; Noes, 189. (Division List No. 344.)

Atherley-Jones, L. Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Morpeth, Viscount
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Harrington, Timothy Murnaghan, George
Benn, John Williams Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Harwood, George Nannetti, Joseph P.
Bill, Charles Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway,N.
Bond, Edward Healy, Timothy Michael O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Brown, George M.(Edinburgh) Heaton, John Henniker Paulton, James Mellor
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Helder, Sir Augustus Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley
Burns, John Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Power, Patrick Joseph
Butcher, John George Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Randles, John S.
Buxton, Sydney Charles(Poplar Higham, John Sharp Rankin, Sir James
Caldwell, James Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside Remnant, James Farquharson
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. Rickett, J. Compton
Causton, Richard Knight Jacoby, James Alfred Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson
Coddington, Sir William Joicey, Sir James Robson, William Snowdon
Coghill, Douglas Harry Jones, Leif (Appleby) Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Crean, Eugene Jones, William(Carnarvonshire Royds, Clement Molyneux
Cremer, William Randal Jordan, Jeremiah Runciman, Walter
Cullinan, J. Kennaway, Rt.Hon.SirJohnH. Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopfond-
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath,N. Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Kitson, Sir James Shipman, Dr. John G.
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Lamont, Norman Skewes-Cox, Sir Thomas
Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) Sullivan, Donal
Edwards, Frank Liddell, Henry Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) Lloyd-George, David Thompson, Dr. E. C (Monagh'nN
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc' r Long, Col.Charles W.(Evesham) Tully, Jasper
Findlay, Alexander(Lanark,N.E Lough, Thomas Ure, Alexander
Flynn, James Christopher Macdona, John Cumming Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) MacIver, David (Liverpool) Wallace, Robert
Gladstone, Rt.Hn. Herbert John MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Gorst, Rt.Hon.Sir John Eldon MacVeagh, Jeremiah Woodhouse, SirJT.(Huddersf'd
Goulding, Edward Alfred M'Crae, George
Grant, Corrie M'Kenna, Reginald TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Mr. Duke and Mr. Slack.
Griffith, Ellis, J. Martin, Richard Biddulph
Acland-Hood, Capt.SirAlex.F. Burke, E. Haviland- Dewar, SirT.R.(Tower Hamlets
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Campbell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ. Dickson, Charles Scott
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Dixon-Hartland,SirFred. Dixon
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden Cautley, Henry Strother Dobbie, Joseph
Anson, Sir William Reynell Cavendish, V.C. W.(Derbyshire Doogan, P. C.
Arkwright, John Stanhope Cawley, Frederick Doughty, Sir George
Arrol, Sir William Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Chamberlain, RtHnJ.A.(Worc. Doxford, Sir William Theodore
Baird, John George Alexander Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton) Dunn, Sir William
Balcarres, Lord Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)
Balfour, RtHnGeraldW.(Leeds Cheetham, John Frederick Esmonde, Sir Thomas
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Clancy, John Joseph Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Clare, Octavius Leigh Fabor, George Derison (York)
Banner, John S. Harmood- Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Fellowes, RtHn.Ailwyn Edward
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Cohen, Benjamin Louis Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Bigwood, James Colomb, Rt.Hon.SirJohn C. R. Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.
Bingham, Lord Compton, Lord Alwyne Finlay, RtHnSirR.B.(In'vrn'ss
Blundell, Colonel Henry Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas
Brassey, Albert Cripps, Charles Alfred Fisher, William Hayes
Bright, Allan Heywood Crooks, William Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon
Broadhurst, Henry Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Flannery, Sir Fortescue
Brymer, William Ernest Davenport, William Bromley Flavin, Michael Joseph
Bull, William James Davies,SirHoratioD.(Chatham) Flower, Sir Ernest
Burdett-Coutts, W. Delany, William Forster, Henry William
Gardner, Ernest M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) Majendie, James A. H. Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby- Marks, Harry Hananel Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Grenfell, William Henry Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. Sandys, Lieut.-Col.Thos.Myles
Gretton, John Maxwell, W.J.H.(Dumfriessh.) Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Groves, James Grimble Middlemore, John Throgmorton Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone. W.)
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Milvain, Thomas Seely, Maj.J.E.B.(IsleofWight)
Hamilton, Marq.of(L'nd'nderry Molesworth, Sir Lewis Sharpe, William Edward T.
Hammond, John Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Hayden, John Patrick Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow Smith, RtHnJ.Parker(Lanarks
Heath, Sir James(Staffords,NW Morrell, George Herbert Stanley, Hon.Arthur(Ormskirk
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Morrison, James Archibald Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.
Holland, Sir William Henry Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Stone, Sir Benjamin
Horner, Frederick William Mount, William Arthur Stroyan, John
Howard,John(Kent, Faversham Murphy, John Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham Myers, William Henry Talbot, Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'd Univ
Hozier, Hon.James Henry Cecil Nicholson, William Graham Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Hunt, Rowland O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid. Thornton, Percy M.
Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Tollemache, Henry James
Jones, David Brynmor Swansea O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.) Tomlin on, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh) O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Tuff, Charles
Keswick, William Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury) Turnour, Viscount
Knowles, Sir Lees Parrott, William Valentia, Viscount
Langley, Batty Partington, Oswald Villiers, Ernest Amherst
Laurie, Lieut.-General Pierpoint, Robert Walrond, Rt.Hn.SirWilliamH.
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Pilkington, Colonel Richard Warde, Colonel C. E.
Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool) Platt-Higgins, Frederick Weir, James Galloway
Lawson, Hn.H.L.W. (Mile End Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Welby, Lt.Col.A.C.E.(Taunton
Lawson, John Grant(Yorks.N.R Pretyman, Ernest George Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne
Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham Pryce-Jones. Lt.-Col. Edward Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead Purvis, Robert Whitmore Charles Algernon
Leese, Sir JosephF(Accrington Pym. C. Guy Wodehouse, Rt.Hn.E.R. (Bath)
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Ranch, Sir Frederic Carne Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Llewellyn, Evan Henry Redmond, John E.(Waterford) Wylie, Alexander
Long. Rt.Hn.Walter(Bristol,S.) Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff) Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.
Lonsdale, John Brownlee Reid, James (Greenock)
Lowe, Francis William Ridley, S. Forde TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Loyd, Archie Kirkman Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) Sir Howard Vincent and Mr.
Lucas, Reignald J. (Portsmouth Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) H. D. Greene.
Lundon, W. Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Maconochie, A. W. Round, Rt. Hon. James

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Consideration of Bill, as amended, put off for three months.