HC Deb 18 December 1906 vol 167 cc1328-68

Considered in Committee:—

(In the Committee.)

[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]

Clause 1:—

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

moved to add words to the clause restricting its operation to "cases where the trust property is sworn to be under the value of £500." He said he approached the first Amendment on this most important Bill with great diffidence because the points at issue did not merely touch matters of temporary interest, but dealt in a most vital way with interests of the greatest possible magnitude. Personally he had a very large experience to guide him as to what this section would be likely to do if not amended. There were some hundreds of millions held in this country subject to trusts. Therefore the Bill proposed to deal with a subject of enormous importance to the community, and one the consideration of which should be approached with the utmost care and diffidence. He could understand that a very good case might be made out under certain circumstances for appointing a public trustee to deal with small estates. In regard to small estates under £500 it was frequently necessary to wind them up in a speedy, reasonable and safe manner, and to ensure nothing should be lost by the appointment of a person of little education and position. But that argument did not apply to the larger trust estates where there was no necessity for immediate winding up and where it was often necessary that they should be administered for a long period of time. When he saw the machinery that was proposed to be set up by this Bill, he was anxious to prevent its being applied to the larger estates. He noticed that six kinds of trustees were to be set up— the official trustee, the public trustee, the judicial trustee, the custodian trustee, the ordinary trustee, and the managing trustee. If all those trustees were to be appointed, he could only say God help the estate. He further noticed that a public trustee need not take up an appointment; that he could pick and choose the estate that he would administer, which seemed to him a ridiculous proposal. If the Government were inclined to accept this Amendment it would so modify the measure that almost all the rest of the Bill might be allowed to go through as an experiment. It would be perfectly easy if it were found to work well to extend the limit. But, if the Government did not accept it, it might be necessary to devote some weeks to the Committee stage in order to take the Bill clause by clause and word for word. He was tempted, however, to think that the Government were not serious in taking the Bill at this period of the session, but were only marking time. He noticed in the Bill some indication that certain powers of the Bill should be confined to estates of small value, particularly in regard to Clause 3and the whole of the sub-clauses. He suggested that the whole of the operation of the Bill should be limited to small estates. It would be far easier to extend its operation to larger estates than, in the event of its being a mistake, to turn back after setting up offices and machinery the cost of which no one could tell. The position of this country in respect to its system of dealing with trusts had been for centuries past remarkable as against all other countries in the world. It had created the great investments which were the backbone of our enterprise, and he thought that the unhallowed hand proposed to be laid on this system should be restricted as far as possible.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 1, line 6, at end, to insert the words "for cases where the trust property is sworn to be under the value of five hundred pounds."—(Mr. William Rutherford.)

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

SIR E. CARSON (Dublin University)

said that when a Bill with the same object as the present one was introduced by a private Member in a previous session it received assistance from every quarter of the House. He was quite sure that if hon. Members had read, as he had done, the correspondence in favour of that Bill from numbers of people, rich and poor, throughout the country they would think it a pity that it had not then become law. It had been said that the present Bill was revolutionary and would shake the system of trusts to its foundation. But this was not a compulsory measure, and that fact ought to be borne in mind throughout the discussions. They were not compelling anybody to employ the public trustee; all they were doing was to give people who found very great difficulty, more especially in large estates, in getting people to act as trustees and look properly after the estates, the opportunity of receiving the services of a public official whose duty it would be to take over the ordinary duties of trustee. He saw no reason for limiting the measure to small estates. Undoubtedly the Bill would confer large benefits on poor and rich alike. He would therefore have great pleasure in doing everything he could to promote its passing into law. It had been said that the system of trustees to be set up would involve a considerable cost to the country. That assertion, however, was refuted by the calculations on the subject made by the Treasury before sanctioning the Bill of last year. It had been computed that with a very small percentage of fees on estates, and if a reasonable number of estate, came in, there would be no expense on the public at all as the office would be self-supporting. If he understood the Bill aright the department would not be expensive, because existing offices were to be used. He trusted that the Bill would be passed with the greatest possible speed. It would be a great convenience to the public, it put no compulsion on anybody, and at the same time it relieved many people from grave difficulties.

*MR. R. PEARCE (Staffordshire, Leek)

said the hon. Member for the West Derby division of Liverpool had spoken of the estates in trust in the kingdom as amounting to hundreds of millions. That was very far short of the total. The evidence before the Income Tax Committee showed that the income of the country was £1,100,000,000 a year. If they capitalised that at twenty years purchase they would have a sum of £20,000,000,000. He ventured to say that a very large proportion of that—more than a half—was in the hands of trustees and that these trustees managed that vast amount of private property. The proposal of the Bill was that instead of its being managed by private person sat their own expense it should be managed by the State. [Cries of "No."] The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University had said the cost would not be very great. But there was another element arising from consideration of what had happened in New Zealand which ought not to be lost sight of. When the Bill was introduced the Attorney-General referred to the experience of New Zealand in favour of this proposal. That experience was also referred to in the Report of the Select Committee which reported in 1895. The experience of New Zealand opened up an extremely interesting note to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. New Zealand was very much in want of money. Under the New Zealand law an enormous amount of the private property of the country had been brought into the hands of the Government. Whether that was a desirable thing or not he would not stop at present to consider. The Government of New Zealand had at the present time about 4,000 estates representing a capital value of some £4,000,000. Looking at the process which was gradually going on in this country in connection with the savings of the working classes—

MR. EUGENE WASON (Clackmannan and Kinross)

asked whether the hon. Member was in order.

THE CHAIRMAN

As often happens, a Member came to speak to me privately, and I have not been able to listen to the hon. Member who was speaking.

*MR. R. PEARCE

said he was calling attention to the large amount of private property which was already in the lands of the State in the shape of the savings of the working classes, and to the fact that, under the proposal in this Bill, further large sums of money would come into the coffers of the State.

THE CHAIRMAN

This is not a question of putting property into the hands of the State, and therefore the argument of the hon. Member is not in order.

*MR. R. PEARCE

said the trust funds would be guaranteed by the State, and therefore to some extent the State would become liable for all the moneys which came into the hands of the public trustee.

*THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir John Walton, Leeds, S.)

said it was impossible to accept the Amendment, because it was absolutely destructive of the Bill. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment proposed to reduce the application of the measure to estates of the value of £500. Were the mischiefs which were sought to be remedied by this legislation confined to small estates? A person wishing to leave money was anxious that it should be safeguarded, and that the provision he made for his widow or children, when he had gone, might be above the reach of avarice, and might not be subject to dishonesty, carelessness, recklessness, or improvidence. That happened in cases where the estates were over the value of £500. Then there was the difficulty to which the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University had referred—the difficulty which many persons had in finding someone to fill the position of trustee. The hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool had said that the measure should be experimental. It would be experimental; it was not compulsory. It was a facility which was demanded and afforded. If the public availed themselves of it, it would be a success, and if they did not, it would be a dead letter. In that way it would be seen whether there was a real necessity for this legislation.

*MR. RADFORD (Islington, E.)

said he was surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman had not said a word as to the financial effects of this Bill, especially in reference to the appointment of officers in a large number of small towns.

THE CHAIRMAN

said that that had nothing whatever to do with the Amendment before the Committee.

*MR. RADFORD

said that he could not support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liverpool because he thought that the poor man, of whom the hon. Member said he was particularly solicitous, was not likely to profit by it. The poor man would not know that there was such an official as a Public Trustee. The only man outside the House whom he had met who was in favour of this measure was an ill-conditioned millionaire who thought he had not a friend in the world—and in that opinion he was quite right—and said that he would be glad to have a Public Trustee with the security of public funds to administer his estate.

*MR. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston)

said that he knew only too much of the losses which had been incurred through the defalcations of private trustees. He thought that the provisions of the Bill as to the appointment of a custodian trustee and as to compulsory audit were excellent; but if it was proposed or intended either at once or eventually to hand over a large number of private trusts to a public official, they were, he believed, going in the wrong direction. The appointment of a public trustee should not be the rule but the exception. He agreed that they should limit the size of the estates to be administered by the public trustee as a general trustee, and he had an Amendment on the Paper to that effect. But he thought that the Committee ought to pause before throwing all ordinary trusts into official management. It had been admitted that the present Bill was going to make a revolutionary change—

THE CHAIRMAN

said that the hon. Gentleman was not now speaking to the Amendment.

*MR. CAVE

said he could not support this particular Amendment because it would limit the amount of an estate to be entrusted to the public trustee in his capacity as a custodian trustee.

*MR. BILLSON (Staffordshire, N.W.)

said he took it it would not be an ordinary testator who would appoint a public trustee. He had known many cases in which men of the world and not ill-conditioned millionaries desired a public trustee to whom to entrust the administration of their estate. The hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill had only said that a public trustee should be available into whose hands trust funds might be placed. He should oppose the Amendment.

*MR. J. M. HENDERSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)

said he was not a great believer in this Bill, but he advised the hon. Member for Liverpool to withdraw his Amendment. If a public trustee were appointed he had always been afraid of a charge being placed each year on the Exchequer to support the large administrative staff that would be required for the work. He was not and never had been opposed to the principle of a public trustee. He asked his hon. friend to withdraw his Amendment because if they were to have a charge on the Exchequer it was better they should get big estates as well as little ones into the hands of the public trustee. The difficulty of getting a private trustee had been spoken of, but there was a limited company registered and called "The Public Trustee, Ltd," and further every insurance company and even banks could be appointed trustees and they would all compete. Therefore if they were going to have the Bill, let the public trustee get as many estates as he could. What he was afraid of was that the public trustee would never have enough estates to pay his expenses. Therefore he asked the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said that the Attorney-General in making an appeal to him rather misunderstood what he had said, because when the Bill passed the Second Reading last year his was the only voice in the House raised against it. He had never assented to the principle of the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that there were two reasons why this Bill should apply to large as well as small estates. One was that there was a considerable amount of dishonesty that required to be provided against and that if an official trustee were appointed he might be availed of. He would say that there was not one estate in a thousand in which money was lost through default of the trustee. He did not think that there was any kind of business in the country in which there was less dishonesty and loss of money than in the administration of trust estates, and that spoke well for the country. He had often been nauseated when he saw cases in the newspapers about defaulting trustees, because they had been referred to 500 times before; but on each occasion that case was referred to as if it were a new default. The Attorney-General had said that another reason for passing this Bill was that there was great difficulty in testators finding trustees to administer their estates. That was the case some ten or fifteen years ago because of trustees having been made liable to banks and insurance companies for investments even after they had done their best for the estate of the testator. Therefore they fought shy of accepting trusteeships. But since then the air had been cleared, and his experience which was probably greater than that of, any other Member of the House, was that there was now no difficulty in securing gentlemen to act as trustees for private estates. Another point was that if his Amendment were passed it would not do any damage to the audit clauses of the Bill. He would, however, withdraw the Amendment under compulsion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 1, line 9, at end, to add "But any instruments sealed by him shall not, by reason of his being a corporation sole, be rendered liable to a higher stamp duty than if he were an individual."—[Mr. William Rutherford.)

Question "That those words be there added," put and agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

moved to omit the words "for the purpose of saving expense to persons of small means" in sub-section (a), on the ground that they were unnecessary in that place. He wished to alter the position of the words. At present they simply dominated sub-section (a), but if they were put in the position in which he wished them to be they would dominate sub-sections (a) (b), (c) and (d).

SIR JOHN WALTON

accepted the Amendment.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 1, lines 14 and 15, to leave out the words 'for the purpose of saving expense to persons of small means."—(Mr. William Rutherford.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. DUNN (Cornwall Camborne)

moved to omit the words "of small value" in sub-section (a) and insert, "unless the instrument (if any) creating the trust otherwise directs." His object, he said, was to allow the public trustee to administer rich and poor estates alike on the motion of any person who at present had a right to apply for administration to a Court of law. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University had pointed out that this was not a compulsory provision, but there was distinction between the administration of the estate by the ordinary trusteeship under the Act and the action of a custodian trustee who was voluntarily appointed. It was easy to see at a glance that where they had a legatee who was discontented with his legacy he might, although not entitled to apply for administration in a Court of law, come and set the public trustee in motion, while other persons who might have a larger interest than the person aggrieved might not want to have the public trustee. He knew that the word was "may" and not "shall," but the public trustee "may" move in spite of the objection of those other persons who had a larger interest than the person aggrieved. The Bill provided that the fees paid should be sufficient to discharge the salaries of the officials and other expenses incidental to the working of the Act, and the expenditure might be very large. To a great extent the estates which would come under the management of the trustees would be estates of under £1,000, and this Amendment proposed to do away with that limitation. If the proposal was a good thing for small estates it was a good thing for large estates. If the administration was economical let it also be applied to large as well as to small estates, and then if the experiment was a failure the expense would not fall wholly upon the small estates but upon the large estates also. It was for that reason he proposed this Amendment, so that there should be no difference between rich and poor estates.

Amendment proposed—

"In, page 1, lines 15 and 16, to leave out the words 'of am ill value,' and insert the words 'unless the instrument (if any) creating the trust otherwise directs."— (Mr. Dunn.)

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

SIR JOHN WALTON

said he had some sympathy with the hon. Member, but he could not accept the Amendment. The object of the measure was to put the administration of estates where the trustee became the administrator into an entirely different category from those in which he acted as custodian trustee, and it had been felt that it was desirable that that category should include only estates of a somewhat limited value. That there should be some limit as to the amount of estates to be dealt with under Clause 2 he thought would be apparent if Clause 3 were looked at. That was to say, they might go to the public trustee and point out that they would be entitled to an administration order. That might be an expensive proceeding. That was an important power to give to an official who was not an officer of the Court, and it was obvious that it could not be extended without any sort of limitation. It was obvious also that a summary power of that kind should be limited, and for that reason in Section 3 it had been limited to estates of small amount. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*MR. CAVE

said he now moved his Amendment to limit the power of the public trustee to act as an ordinary trustee to small estates. He had no desire to limit the power of the public trustee to act as custodian trustee, but he did not want to bring about a state of things by which a number of trusts would come into the hands of the public trustee as an ordinary trustee. Everyone knew that millions of money were in the hands of private trustees, and by far the greater part of those trusts were being administered carefully and with every desire to keep to the terms of the trust, and to consider the wishes of the beneficiaries, and were administered at little or no expense. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred no harm resulted. When a beneficiary desired to change his investments he went to his trustees and put his case before them, and the matter was considered. But if the power were transferred to the public trustee rules would have to be complied with and the investments chosen might be such as would give a small income instead of a large one; the beneficiaries would lose, and nobody would gain except the officials employed in a Government office. He did not think that was a state of things that the country desired. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that all the Bill did was to enable a testator to appoint the public trustee as his trustee, but that was not so. It went further and enabled the person having power to appoint new trustees, to appoint the public trustee, and it enabled a beneficiary to go to the Court and ask for the appointment of this public trustee. This was an experiment, and the Government had very properly limited the amount in respect to the administration of estates, and he did not see why they should not limit the amount in regard to ordinary private trusts. He asked the Committee to consider whether it was not a wise thing to do. He did not propose to put so small a limit as that moved by his hon. friend on a previous Amendment, but he proposed by a subsequent Amendment to limit it to estates not exceeding £2,000. With the hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman would give it his careful attention, he begged to move.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 1, line 18, after the word 'trustee' to insert the words 'in cases where the trust property is of small value."—(Mr. Cave.)

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

SIR JOHN WALTON

said the proposal was one of weight, but he felt it would be unwise to fetter by this financial limit the discretion of the Court, or of the public trustee, or to limit the rules which the Lord Chancellor might make in the matter. The adoption of the Amendment would leave many estates outside the reach of this beneficial legislation, and would largely curtail its useful experimental character.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said it would relieve the anxieties of many Members on both sides of the House if the hon. and learned Gentleman would give some indication of whether he would limit the operation of the ordinary trustee to some reasonable amount of estate. If he could give some idea that. an Amendment would, either at this or some subsequent stage of the Bill, be accepted, it would relieve them of a good deal of anxiety. With regard to larger estates, the Bill, it was quite clear, should be experimental.

Question put, and negatived.

SIR JOHN WALTON

moved an Amendment to enable the public trustee to take possession of the estates of persons convicted of a felony, and whose estates were in the hands of the Crown.

Amendment proposed—

"In page, 1 line 19, at end to insert—(e) be appointed to be the administrator of the property of a convict under the Forfeiture for Felony Act, 1870."—(Sir John Walton.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. DUNN

moved an Amendment to prevent the trustee refusing to take up an estate because of the character or disposition of the cestuique trust or beneficiary. There were persons who would go two or three times a day to know how a trust was progressing and such persons would be known to the public trustee, but he did not think it would be right for him to say, "I will have nothing to do with this estate, because if I do I shall be pestered to death." In order that the public trustee might not pick and choose, he moved the Amendment.

Amendment proposed—

" "In page 2, line 9, after the word 'property,' to insert the words 'or the character or disposition of the cestuique trust or beneficiary."—(Mr. Dunn.)

SIR JOHN WALTON

explained that the words were necessary.

MR. DUNN

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said the next three Amendments standing in his name practically amounted to a Motion to leave out all the words in sub-section (4) after the word "business."In the first place there was no indication whatever as to what rules might be made although reference was made "to rules under this Act."

SIR JOHN WALTON

said the rules which the Lord Chancellor would make under this section were simply rules to allow the business to be carried on.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said if the intention in these rules was to confine the expenditure to cases where the business was carried on simply for the purpose of winding up such business there could be no objection to the words remaining.

*MR. R. PEARCE

asked why the words "except for the purpose of winding up such business" should not be inserted if that was all that was intended. He would move the insertion of such words.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 2, line 11, after the word 'business' to insert the words 'except for the purpose of winding up such business."—(Mr. R. Pearce.)

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

SIR JOHN WALTON

pointed out that the insertion of these words was not required to secure the object of the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

move to leave out the words "nor any trust under a deed of arrangement for the benefit of credtiors." If the words in question were to make it clear that the public trustee was not to become the liquidator of the estate, he agreed with them, but if they were to have a more extended application, and prevent the public trustee from undertaking any trust where there happened to be a trust for payment of debts or expenses he thought the words would be found to be very objectionable and would probably lead to a mass of litigation. He certainly thought the public trustee should have the right to refuse in his district any kind of trust so long as it was understood that he was not going to be a winder-up. If he took that attitude, there was no occasion to insert these words which might create a confusion which was entirely unnecessary.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 2, lines 13 and 14, to leave out the words 'nor any trust under a deed of arrangement for the benefit of creditors."—(Mr. William Rutherford.)

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

SIR JOHN WALTON

thought the hon. Member would recognise that a technical expression appeared in the matter which was quite intelligible to persons engaged in the practice of the law. It would not do to deprive persons of the right to have an estate administered in this way simply because there were trusts in settlement, but he did not think such a settlement could be properly described as a deed of arrangement, and it was intended that the function of the public trustee should be kept as widely as possible apart from the functions of the official liquidator or the trustee in bankruptcy or from functions which were connected with the winding-up of insolvent estates. The words had been used with that object.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

moved an Amendment to leave out the words which provided that the public trustee should not accept any trust which involved the administration of an insolvent estate. He said in a very large number of cases estates which were understood to be solvent turned out to be insolvent and vice versa.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 2, line 14, to leave out the words 'nor the administration of any insolvent estate."—(Mr. William Rutherford.)

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

SIR JOHN WALTON

said he quite appreciated the point, and he was prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Watford if that would meet the point.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said that quite met the point, and he would ask permission to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 2, line 14, to leave out the words 'insolvent estate,' and to insert the words 'estate known or believed by him to be insolvent."—(Mr, Micklem.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:—

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

moved to omit the words in the first line "apply to" for the purpose of substituting "an order of."Anybody was entitled to apply for, although they might not be entitled to an order, and those who were to have this privilege ought to be the persons who were entitled to an order, which was quite a different thing. Although this Amendment looked simple as far as the words were concerned, it was nevertheless of considerable importance.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 2, line 22, to leave out the words 'apply to,' and insert the words 'an order of."—(Mr. William Rutherford.)

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

SIR JOHN WALTON

admitted that the words of the clause were open to misconception. He suggested that they should omit the words "entitled to apply to" in order to insert "who in the opinion of the public trustee would be entitled to an order of."

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said he was willing to accept those words, and asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 2, line 22, to leave out the words 'entitled to apply to,' and insert the words 'who in the opinion of the public trustee would be entitled to an order of."—(Sir John Walton.)

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

MR. MICKLEM

pointed out that at the present time nobody was entitled to an order, and all that they had was a right to apply. He suggested that the words should be "any person who, in the opinion of the public trustee, is entitled to apply for an order of."

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said the Attorney-General's words were quite satisfactory, and if they were found to be unsuitable they could be put right on the Report stage. Any person who was reasonably entitled to an order should be at liberty to apply.

*MR. BERTRAM (Hertfordshire, Hitchin)

said there was a great difference between a man making an application and being entitled to make an application. The words suggested by the hon. Member for Watford would limit the privilege to the person who was entitled to apply for an order. No one was nowadays entitled, as of right, to an order for administration, and the class of persons entitled to apply for such an order was strictly limited and easily ascertained.

*MR. R. PEARCE

said it was very desirable that beneficiaries should be entitled to apply for an order asking the public trustee to take up the administration of a small estate.

SIR JOHN WALTON

said that, upon reflection, he felt inclined to adopt the words suggested by the hon. Member for Watford, and he hoped the hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool would be satisfied with the alteration. He begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 2, line 22, to leave out the words 'entitled to apply to,' and to insert the words 'in the opinion of the public trustee would be entitled to apply for an order of."—(Sir John Walton.)

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

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said he was sorry that the Attorney-General had allowed himself to be talked out of his own Amendment by an hon. Member behind him. He withdrew his own Amendment in favour of that proposed by the Attorney-General, and he thought it was rather unfair to him that the hon. and learned Gentleman should now withdraw his Amendment. The effect of the original Amendment was—

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

We cannot go into the effect of the original Amendment which was withdrawn.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

On a point of order. I am entitled to have my original Amendment reinstated.

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

No, it cannot be reinstated; it was withdrawn.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said his Amendment was withdrawn on a promise which had not been carried out.

Question put and negatived.

Words proposed there inserted.

Amendments proposed—

"In page 2, line 23, after the second 'the' to insert the word 'gross."

"In page 2, line 27, after the word 'persons' to insert the words 'other than creditors."—(Mr. Micklem.)

Amendments agreed to.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 2, line 27, after the word 'creditors' to insert the word 'beneficially."

Question, "That the word 'beneficially' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said the next Amendment he had to propose was to make it clear that an estate, whether it was worth £50 or £950, should be administered by the person whom the testator had appointed, or the trustees of a settlement, unless it could be made manifest to the public trustee that the estate would be mal-administered, and that someone would be injured if he did not take it over. He hoped the Attorney-General would accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 2, line 28, after the word 'means' to insert the words 'and that the estate would be likely to be mal-administered otherwise."—(Mr. William Rutherford.)

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

*SIR JOHN WALTON

said that the Amendment would unduly limit the scope and object of the clause, which was intended not only to provide a method of administration in reference to estates in danger of mal-administration, but also to provide a cheap method of administration in small estates as an alternative to what would be a more elaborate and costly system. Moreover, the Amendment would impose upon the public trustee an invidious duty without giving him the means by which he could make the necessary inquiries.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said that the Courts to-day never made an order for the administration of any estate, however small, unless it could be shown that there was some reason to suspect that something was wrong in the action of the trustees appointed by the testator. That was all that he wanted. For half a century they had been trying to release themselves from official control in the management of estates. He knew that it was no use his going to a division, but he wished to raise his solemn protest against the Government's handing over the administration of small estates to officials without any suggestion that there was likely to be mal-administration.

Question put, and negatived.

*MR. BERTRAM (Herfordshire, Hitchin)

moved an Amendment to provide that on the public trustee's undertaking to administer an estate, the trust property, other than stock, should vest in him. This would bring the wording of the clause into line with the Trustee Act 1893, and the Definitions Clause at the end of the Bill.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 2, line 32, to leave out from the word 'estate' and to insert the words 'trust property other than stock."—(Mr. Bertram.)

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

Question put, and negatived.

SIR JOHN WALTON

accepted the Amendment.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 2, line 35, to leave out the word 'a,' and insert the words 'as if vesting orders had been made."—(Mr. Bertram.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. MICKLEM

said it was quite certain that under the Bill questions might arise between the original trustees and the public trustee. The Amendment which he proposed to add to sub-section (2) provided for an indemnity to the original trustees at the time when the trust was handed over to the public trustee, except in respect of past acts.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 2, line 37, at end, to add the words, 'and from such vesting any trustee entitled under the trust to administer the estate shall be discharged from all liability attaching to the administration, except in respect of past acts."—(Mr. Micklem.)

Question proposed, "That the words to there inserted."

SIR JOHN WALTON

said he did not think the words were required, but he saw no objection to accepting them.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

moved to leave out sub-section (3), which provided that the public trustee might exercise such of the powers of the High Court as might be conferred upon him, subject to certain conditions. He said that in a few years the public trustee would have become a Judge having the powers of the High Court. The effect of the proposal would be to establish another set of judicial functionaries in the kingdom. The public trustee would have to deal with small estates in Cornwall and Yorkshire, and if the Act were extended to Ireland and Scotland, with that class of estates in remote parts of Ireland or Aberdeen. Naturally the public trustee would have his office in London. The result would be that all the advantage we now had of using the County Courts for dealing with small estates would be lost. Applications in regard to estates of under £50 would have to be made in London, and probably another large public office would have to be built in Whitehall to accommodate the public trustee and his assistants. By this means the Government would create the most difficult, and most absurd tribunal which by legislation it had ever been sought to set up in this country. He could not too strongly protest, not only against the appointment of this public trustee, who was to be given judicial functions, but against a single official being appointed to sit in London to deal with estates all over the country. He objected to judicial powers being given to one man who would be trusted alone to deal with matters. They had come to a point where it seemed to him they ought to protest as strongly as they could against the provisions of the Bill.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 2, line 28, to leave out sub-section (3)."—(Mr. William Rutherford.)

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

*SIR JOHN WALTON

said the whole object of the clause was to lead to simplicity and economy and to prevent estates being wound up in Chancery. Under these circumstances the public trustee, who would be responsible, must as a matter of administration have some powers to enable him to discharge his duties.

MR. MICKLEM

had great difficulty in seeing the necessity for the clause or its beneficial nature. He thought the clause might be omitted.

*MR. BERTRAM (Hertfordshire, Hitchin)

wished to say a word in favour of the clause. It was often necessary, even in the case of very small estates, to make applications to the Court for leave to take some formal step, and it was desirable that power should be given to the official trustee to do what might be necessary without going to the High Court.

*MR. J. M. HENDERSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)

pointed out that it was provided that the Act should not apply to Ireland or Scotland as hon. Members seemed to assume. He did not understand what were the powers to be given to the official trustee. If he was to have judicial functions he disagreed, but if he was to have administrative powers he agreed to that proposal.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

reiterated that if these powers were conferred upon a single individual sitting in London to deal with small estates the effect would be that the jurisdiction of the County Court would be ousted. The whole policy of the legal system of the country was to bring justice home to the doors of the people. If this matter were referred to a Central Board in London, it would not be satisfactory, and in the end they would have to have a hydra-headed trustee with a representative in every town. If this proposal were carried it would mean that they would have to have a new Chancery Judge sitting in London to deal with small estates. For these reasons he respectfully insisted upon his Amendment.

MR. DUNN

said they had been assured by the Attorney-General that the clause was merely a matter of administration and did not confer judicial power. He suggested that they should, after the first "the" in line 39, insert "administration."

THE CHAIRMAN

said that if the Amendment before the Committee was withdrawn that Amendment could be moved.

SIR E. CARSON

urged the acceptance of the suggested alternative Amendment.

SIR JOHN WALTON

said he would consent to the words suggested in amendment of that sub-section.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said he would withdraw his Amendment if the words suggested were inserted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed—

In page 2, line 39, after the first 'the' to insert the word 'administration."—(Mr. Dunn.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

moved to leave out all the words after "administration." He said if these words were left out and the clause ended with the word "administration"it would meet every purpose. If the opinion of the High Court had to be taken it was obvious that there must be some amount of judicial proceeding. Again, it was perfectly obvious that whatever rules were made a certain amount of expense and complication was bound to arise. If the rules were made with intelligence they would make the procedure as simple and inexpensive as possible. But why should they complicate the matter by putting into the Bill words of the sort he proposed to leave out. Why not say the rules should be made in order to enable the trustee to obtain the opinion of the High Court? He begged to move.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 3, line 3, to leave out from the word 'administration,' to end of sub-section."—(Mr. William Rutherford.)

Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

*SIR JOHN WALTON

said the object of this clause might be very briefly stated. If no rules were prepared and no power was to be given to the public trustee to obtain the opinion of the Court in the inception of a matter he would only be able to approach the tribunal in the ordinary way as a private trustee, which might be a more or less costly proceeding. In dealing with these small estates it was hoped to escape all that expense and therefore it was provided that the opinion of the Court might be obtained by this official without resort to the same proceeding as the private trustee. Under ordinary circumstances the procedure would be prescribed by the rules. He imagined that the result would be that the public trustee might have a right to resort to the Court, it might be by some document which might raise a point of law, without expense. He could not imagine why anyone who desired to ensure inexpensive administration of these estates should seek to omit these words. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. DUNN

moved to substitute "estate being under the value of £1,000" for the words "small value of estate." That, he thought, would get rid of the objection of leaving the Court to decide the very difficult question of what was a small estate. He moved.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 3, lines 7 and 8, to leave out the words 'small value of the estate,' and insert the words 'Estate being less than £1,000."—(Mr. Dunn.)

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

SIR JOHN WALTON

said the hon. Gentleman by this Amendment sought unduly to fetter the discretion of the Court. He would have observed that this clause dealt with an entirely different state of things from that with which the public trustee had to deal in the earlier part of the Bill. That was to say, that in an application to the Court he would prevent the Judge coming to the conclusion that the estate was a small estate, that the people were poor people, that this would cause a great expense, and that under the circumstances it was advisable that the estate should be handed over to the public trustee.

MR. DUNN

said he quite appreciated the point. He had intended his Amend- ment to be an extending Amendment, but in the form it was moved it became a restricting Amendment, and he therefore begged leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said he understood that the limit of £1,000 applied to the whole of Clause 3, because although the capital value was first mentioned in the second line of the first sub-section, the whole clause was headed "in the administration of small estates." If that was so it would meet all the difficulties which the hon. Member for Camborne raised by his Amendment. When there was a clause with two or three sub-sections, and one referred to a £1,000 limit, whilst in the other cases there were only general words about the smallness of the estate, they might be held to refer to estates under £100. Was it understood that £1,000 was to refer to the whole of the sub-sections?

SIR E. CARSON

hoped the Attorney-General would adhere to the clause as it stood. It might be that the Court found that there was nothing to be done but pure administration; and it was almost a disgrace to keep the matter in the Courts, involving expense, when it could be handed over to somebody and the money divided in accordance with the wishes of the testator.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 4:—

MR. MICKLEM

moved an Amendment to provide that the public trustee might be appointed to be custodian trustee of any trust in any case where the Court was of opinion that, having regard to the nature of the trust estate or its protection or security, or the wishes of the beneficiaries, such an appointment was desirable. As the Bill was drafted there was nothing to indicate on what principle the order should proceed. He thought there ought to be some indication on the face of the Act as to the grounds for the appointment.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 3, line 23, after the word 'trustee,' to insert the words 'in any case where the Court shall be of opinion that, having regard to the nature of the trust estate, or its protection or security or the wishes of the beneficiaries, such an appointment is desirable."—(Mr. Micklem.)

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

SIR JOHN WALTON

agreed that the considerations in the Amendment were such as would influence the Court in making an order for the appointment. They were obvious considerations, and he could not understand how any applications could be determined without regard being paid to them. Therefore he did not agree that the words were necessary, and that being so, they were dangerous, because the moment they began to specify considerations they were apt to be construed as the only considerations that ought to be regarded.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

moved to leave out sub-section (c), which prescribes one of the methods by which the custodian trustee may be appointed, namely, "by the person having power to appoint new trustees."There were, he said, three ways of appointing a custodian trustee. The first was that in which the Court made an order, the second in which the testator, settler, or other creator of any trust appointed the trustee, and the third, which he desired to leave out, by the person having power to appoint new trustees. The effect of this section, if passed, would be that a trustee on a large estate might want to get rid of his trust, possibly under circumstances in which he ought not to Should there be a right to complicate the trust at an inconvenient juncture? Was the individual to import one or other of these fancy trustees into that particular trust? It was perfectly unreasonable to allow the retiring trustee, who would in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred be the person referred to in sub-section (c), to anyhow the estate was to be conducted is the future.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 3, line 25, to leave out sub-section (c)."—(Mr. William Rutherford.)

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

MR. EUGENE WASON

said that if the hon. Gentleman would refer back to the beginning of the clause he would see that the public trustee would only consent to the appointment in question if he thought fit, so that there was no obligation upon him. He begged the hon. Member to allow the Bill to proceed.

SIR E. CARSON

said that where a person having power to appoint new trustees came to the conclusion that the public trustee was the best possible person to appoint, he ought to appoint him.

MR. MICKLEM

said that if the testator or settler deliberately left out the public trustee, it was a strange thing to say that a person who had only a modified interest in the estate, but had power of appointment, should appoint the public trustee, and thus take the property out of the hands of the managing trustees.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 3, line 25, after the word 'trustees' to insert the words 'if expressly authorised in that behalf by the will, settlement, or other instrument creating the trust."—(Mr. Micklem.)

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

SIR E. CARSON

opposed the Amendment on the ground that if it were accepted the Bill would not operate in respect of existing wills and settlements, In case a testator who had no opportunity of judging did not put into the will the words here proposed, there would be no alternative but to appoint probably a man of straw, although there was the Government official who might be appointed and who would keep the property perfectly safe.

SIR JOHN WALTON

said it would be a relief to the trustees to have some person who could be charged with the custody of the property. The balance of the argument was in favour of leaving the sub-section as it stood.

*MR. J. M. HENDERSON

said that this provision provided that any trustee should be able to go to the public trustee and get him appointed as the custodian trustee, and so remove the securities out of danger, which was one of the great objects they had in view in this Bill.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said it had been stated that this clause would enable a trustee who was dissatisfied

with a co-trustee to require a custodian trustee to be appointed. That was exactly what the clause did not do. There was not one word in it which enabled one of the trustees to make the other trustee do anything at all. He was very much in favour of the words of the Amendment, as it would have the effect of preventing hardships which might otherwise arise.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 17; Noes, 213. (Division List No. 500.)

AYES.
Banner, John S. Harmood- Keswick, William Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) Walker, Col. W. H.(Lancashire)
Berridge, T. H. D. Radford, G. H. Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Boyle, Sir Edward Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Bull, Sir William James Salter, Arthur Clavell TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Fell, Arthur Scott, Sir S. (Marlyebone, W.) Mr. Micklem and Mr. Watson Rutherford.
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Hamilton, Marquess of
Adkins, W. Ryland D. Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis
Agnew, George William Cawley, Sir Frederick Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil
Ainsworth, John Stirling Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Hart-Davis, T.
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A (Worc.) Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Chance, Frederick William Harwood, George
Anson, Sir William Reynell Channing, Sir Francis Allston Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Armitage, R. Cheetham, John Frederick Haworth, Arthur A.
Astbury, John Meir Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Hazel, Dr. A. E.
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Cleland, J. W. Hedges, A. Paget
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E. Clough, William Helme, Norval Watson
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Clynes, J. R. Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Cobbold, Felix Thornley Henderson, J. M.(Aberdeen, W.
Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight) Collins, Sir W.(J.(S. Pancras, W Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)
Barker, John Cooper, G. J. Hervey, F. W.F.(Bury S. Edm'ds
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd Higham, John Sharp
Barnes, G. N. Cowan, W. H. Hills, J. W.
Barran, Rowland Hirst Cox, Harold Hobart, Sir Robert
Beauchamp, E. Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Hogan, Michael
Beaumont, Hn. H. (Eastbourne) Cremer, William Randal Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N
Beaumont, Hn. W. C.B. (Hexham Crooks, William Horniman, Emslie John
Bell, Richard Crossley, William J. Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Bennett, E. N. Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Hudson, Walter
Bertram, Julius Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness) Hunt, Rowland
Billson, Alfred Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Idris, T. H. W.
Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff.) Essex, R. W. Jackson, R. S.
Boland, John Fenwick, Charles Jardine, Sir J.
Bowerman, C. W. Everett, R. Lacey Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Brace, William Ferens, T. R. Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)
Bramsdon, T. A. Ffrench, Peter Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea
Branch, James Findlay, Alexander Kearley, Hudson E.
Brigg, John Fullerton, Hugh Kekewich, Sir George
Brooke, Stopford Gilhooly, James Kincaid-Smith, Captain
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Gill, A. H. Laidlaw, Robert
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Ginnell, L. Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Burnyeat, W. J. D. Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn. Lambert, George
Byles, William Pollard Goddard, Daniel Ford Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)
Cairns, Thomas Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Lee, ArthurH.(Hants., Fareham
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Lehmann, R. C.
Carlile, E. Hildred Gwynn, Stephen Lucius Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Halpin, J. Levy, Maurice
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Lough, Thomas Reddy, M. Sullivan, Donal
Lundon, W. Redmond, John E.(Waterford) Summerbell, T.
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Redmond, William (Clare) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S. Rendall, Athelstan Tomkinson, James
M'Callum, John M. Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th Toulmin, George
M'Crae, George Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n Trevelyan, Charles Philips
M'Kean, John Richardson, A. Ure, Alexander
M'Kenna, Reginald Rickett, J. Compton Valentia, Viscount
M'Killop, W. Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
M'Micking, Major G. Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Maddison, Frederick Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Ward, Jn. (Stoke upon Trent)
Manfield, Harry (Northants) Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston) Robinson, S. Waterlow, D. S.
Massie, J. Robson, Sir William Snowdon Watt, H. Anderson
Mond, A. Rogers, F. E. Newman Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Money, L. G. Chiozza Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) White, George (Norfolk)
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Scott, A.H. (Ashton under Lyne White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Murphy, John Seddon, J. White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Nicholson, Chas. N.(Doncast'r Seely, Major J. B. Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Nolan, Joseph Shackleton, David James Wills, Thomas
Norton, Capt. Cecil William Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R..
O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Sherwell, Arthur James Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Shipman, Dr. John G. Winfrey, R.
O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N Silcock, Thoms Ball Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Parker, James (Halifax) Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Partington, Oswald Soares, Ernest J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Herbert Lewis.
Paul, Herbert Spicer, Sir Albert
Power, Patrick Joseph Steadman, W. C.
Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Rainy, A. Rolland Strachey, Sir Edward

Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.

MR. MICKLEM

said he understood the Attorney-General intended to accept his next Amendment.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 3, line 34, to leave out sub-section (b) and insert, '(b) As between the custodian trustee and the managing trustees, and subject and without prejudice to the rights of any other persons, the custodian trustee shall have the custody of all documents of title relating to the trust property."—(Mr. Micklem.)

Question proposed, "That sub-section (b) of Clause 4 stand part of the Clause."

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said it was quite clear that this Amendment ought to be adopted, because there were numerous cases in which the managing trustees had not the custody of all documents.

Question put, and negatived.

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

*MR. BERTRAM

moved to insert in line 3 of the Amendment after the word 'all' the words 'securities and,' in order to provide that stock certificates and bonds should be included as well as legal documents and title deeds.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—

"In line 3, after the word 'all,' to insert 'securitiesand."—(Mr. Bertram.)

Words proposed, as amended, there inserted.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said he hoped the Attorney-General would see his way to accept his next Amendment which entitled the managing trustee to have access to all documents, and to take extracts from them.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 3, line 35, at end, to insert the words 'but all interested parties, including the ordinary trustees and the managing trustees, shall have free access thereto, and be entitled to take copies or extracts thereof."—(Mr. William Rutherford.)

SIR JOHN WALTON

said he would certainly accept the latter part of the Amendment which, would enact that the managing trustees should have free access to the documents and be entitled to take copies of and extracts from them. If the hon. Member would limit his Amendment to those words he would accept it.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said he would move the Amendment in that way.

THE CHAIRMAN

said the best way would be for the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment and move it in its altered form.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said he would withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 3, line 35, at the end, to insert the words, 'but the managing trustees shall have free access thereto, and be entitled to take copies or extracts thereof."—(Mr. William Rutherford.)

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

moved the omission of the words providing, that the custodian trustee should not concur in any act the effect of which might be to vest in him property involving a personal liability on him in respect of calls on shares. He did not see why the trustee should take over the whole estate and leave out shares as to which there might be only a nominal liability.

SIR JOHN WALTON

accepted the Amendment.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 4, to leave out lines 10 to 14 inclusive."—(Mr. William Rutherford.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments proposed—

"In page 4, line 14, to leave out sub-section (e)."—(Mr. Micklem.)

"In page 4, line 28, after the word 'direct,' to insert the words 'or into such bank to the credit of such person as they may direct."—(Mr. William Rutherford.)

"In page 5, line 16, to leave out sub-section, (3), and insert, '(3) The provisions of this section shall apply to any banking or insurance company or other body corporate entitled by rules made under this Act to act as custodian trustee, with power for such company or body corporate to charge and retain or pay out of the trust property fees not exceeding the fees chargeable by the public trustee as custodian trustee."—(Mr. Micklem.)

Amendments agreed to.

MR. DUNN

moved that an Amendment to provide that solicitors might become custodian trustees. He said he moved this Amendment because custodian trustees had for the first time been given a legal status. The Government had recognised the advisability of appointing bankers and insurance companies, and a clause had been inserted for the purpose. There was a body of men known as "family solicitors"who had practically been custodian trustees for many years. It might be said that some of them had abused their trusts, but they were exceptions and exceptions were not the rule. He proposed by this Amendment to permit the Court to appoint a solicitor as a custodian trustee, and he safe-guarded matters by directing that he should give such security as the Court might direct in making the appointment. He hoped the Attorney-General would accept the Amendment which, in practice, he thought would be found very advantageous.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 5, line 31, to insert the words, 'Provided that any solicitor may be appointed custodian trustee provided he gives security for the due administration of the trust in such manner and for such amount as the order making the appointment shall direct."—(Mr. Dunn.)

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

*SIR JOHN WALTON

said the acceptance of the Amendment would be unfortunate from the point of view of the inference that might be drawn from it. It would be invidious to suggest that members of an honourable profession should be compelled to give security. By this Bill they were only providing for a public trustee acting as a custodian trustee. They were making a provision for safeguarding the trust where persons were dissatisfied. In such a case it was desirable that the property should go into the hands of a public official. The only reason for the insertion of the clause was that it was part of the business of bankers and insurance societies to take charge of securities and valuables of all sorts. A solicitor might be a poor man, though he was none the worse for that, with only one small room, which he occupied himself, and no place in which to keep property or securities. He saw no reason why solicitors should wish to become mere custodians of property over which they had no function of administration.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4, agreed to as amended.

Clause 5:—

Amendment proposed—

"In page 5, line 41, after the words 'new trustee' to insert the words 'or as an additional trustee."—(Mr. Hills.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 6, line 9, to leave out subsection (3),"—(Mr. Dunn.)

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

SIR E. CARSON

said if they took away from the testator the right of handing over the property to the public trustee they would seriously infringe one of the main principles of the Bill.

MR. MICKLEM

hoped the Committee would not agree to allow this sub-section to be omitted.

SIR JOHN WALTON

said he could not agree to the Amendment.

MR. DUNN

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 6, line 12, to leave out the words 'unless the court otherwise order."—(Mr. Micklem.)

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

SIR JOHN WALTON

said he could not accept this Amendment.

MR. R. PEARCE

supported the Amendment.

Amendment negitived.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 6, line 20, to leave out the words 'one week,' and insert the words 'twenty-one days."—(Mr. Micklem.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 6, line 23, to leave out from the word 'made,' to end of sub-section, and insert the words, 'a person dealing in good faith with the public trustee is not concerned to inquire respecting the giving of any such notice as is required by this section."—(Mr. Micklem.)

SIR JOHN WALTON

said that serious consequences might follow from the adoption of this Amendment, and he could not accept it.

MR. MICKLEM

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments proposed—

"In page 6, line 26, after the word 'trustee,' to insert the word 'or."

"In page 6, line 26, to leave out the words 'or next person in the entail."

"In page 6, line 27, to leave out the word 'in,' and to insert the word 'under."—(Mr. Micklem.)

"In page 6, line 30, after the word 'accordingly,' to insert the words 'even though there is no vacancy."—(Mr. Hills.)

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

THE CHAIRMAN

The Amendments to Clause 7 must be held over until the other clauses have been disposed of.

Clause 8:—

*MR. R. PEARCE

moved to add the words:—"But no such appointment shall be made, nor salary or fees be provided out of taxes, while the other charges on such taxes exceed £100,000,000 in the year." His only anxiety was that they should redeem the pledges which they gave at the general election. There was hardly a Member sitting on the Ministerial side of the House who did not issue placards and circulars calling attention to the extraordinary increase of expenditure during the last few years. A good deal yet remained to be done before they reduced the expenditure to the extent continually referred to at the election. To establish a new department and create a large number of public trustees all over the country to manage private trusts at the expense of the public purse was hardly the way to begin a career of economy such as that to which hon. Members were pledged. In the present session the House had already voted £1,000,000 a year as the price of the settlement of the education question. Was there any way during this long and extraordinary session in which the House had saved a single pound per annum beyond a small amount in Army and Navy expenditure? The Bill meant no benefit to the people. He ventured to say that the wage-earning class that would come within the purview of the Bill was very small in comparison with the persons of means whose estates were well able to pay the expenses of administration. He would be ashamed to go to his constituents and tell them that he had voted for the management of private property at the public cost while children were not fed and while old age—

*MR. BERTRAM

asked whether it was in order to discuss the general taxation of the country.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must cease to discuss these outside matters, and confine himself absolutely to his Amendment.

*MR. R. PEARCE

said he was not discussing the general taxation of the country when he pointed out that there were claims of a pecuniary kind for the benefit of all classes.

THE CHAIRMAN

That has nothing to do even with the form of the Amendment. The hon. Member must entirely avoid the question of the other purposes on which money could be spent.

*MR. R. PEARCE

said it was his duty to call attention to the fact that there would be startling expenditure under the Bill at a time when members of the House had not been able to keep their promises to the country in respect of the reduction of expenditure generally. The nearest analogy that he could give to the present proposals was the case of the Charity Commissioners who managed public trusts. That Commission cost the State £40,000 a year. If this Amendment were not accepted by the Government there would be an expenditure of something like that sum. That would be an addition to the national expenditure, and he thought he might rest his case on that fact in view of the pledges which had been given to the country. He wondered how those who had pledged themselves to bring about economies would be able to justify their action in voting for the erection of a great State department of this kind for the management of private trusts at the public expense. If the general expenditure were reduced to £100,000,000 they would perhaps be justified in undertaking this new expenditure. He appealed to the Government not to create a new department, which would involve the expenditure of money which was wanted for other and more urgent matters.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is again beginning to talk about the Bill. I warn him that he is becoming highly irrelevant; he must keep to his Amendment.

Amendment moved—

"In page 7, line 36, at the end, to add the words 'But no such appointment shall be made, nor salary or fees be provided out of taxes, while the other charges on such taxes exceed £100,000,000 in the year."

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

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said he thought the Attorney-General would have had something to say in regard to this most important point. He was entirely in sympathy with the Amendment, though he thought an extraordinary impasse would be created if they were to say that no salary or fees should be provided out of taxes to the holder of the office of public trustee "while the other charges on such taxes exceed £100,000,000 in the year"when they knew that the present Government had not the slightest intention of so reducing public expenditure. He thought they were entitled to some information as to what the Government proposed to spend on this important new scheme. The cost of the Charity Commission was upwards of £40,000 a year, and they carried on their business exclusively in London. In connection with the public trustee's department there must be offices all over the country involving heavy cost on the Treasury. He believed the department would cost £240,000 a year.

THE CHAIRMAN

It does not seem to me that the hon. Gentleman is in order. The clause says— The Lord Chancellor shall appoint a fit person to the office of public trustee, who shall hold office during pleasure, and receive such salary or fees and be appointed on such terms as the Treasury may determine. The Amendment is to add some words at the end. I think the hon. Member is not talking about that.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD

said all he wanted from the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill was some information as to the expenses involved. He did not think the clause should be passed sub silentio.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. RADFORD

moved an Amendment that the officers of the Public Trustee, who were not already in the public service, should be appointed by the Treasury after open competition, the same as in the Civil Service. His reason for asking for support for his Amendment was, first, that the system of open competition for posts in the Civil Service was an excellent one; secondly, because the patronage of the Lord Chancellor, which was very considerable, had not been exercised by the ex-Lord Chancellor in such a way as to meet with the general approval of mankind; and thirdly, it must be a painful, tedious and invidious thing for any Lord Chancellor to make such appointments.

THE CHAIRMAN

said that the hon. Member was entirely out of order in reflecting on the late Lord Chancellor.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 7, line 37, to leave out from the beginning to the word 'may' in line 39, and to insert the words. 'The appointment of officers of the public trustee not already in the public service shall be governed by the Order in Council of the fourth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and seventy, establishing the system of open competition for posts in the Civil Service of the Crown, and such officers shall be appointed as the Treasury."—(Mr. Radford.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause," put, and agreed to without a division.

SIR JOHN WALTON

said that while they were all glad that the system of open competition for posts in the Civil Service had been established, he thought it would be generally admitted that the men wanted for the class of work which would have to be done by public trustees were men of a special character whose qualifications could not be gathered from a public competitive examination.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.