HC Deb 30 June 1909 vol 7 cc395-403
Mr. H. BOTTOMLEY

asked leave to introduce a Bill" to provide for the disclosure and handing over by bankers to the Department of the Public Trustee of the amount of the dormant balances and securities in their possession, and of un-presented old bank-notes issued by them."

I have an apology to offer to the House for intruding in this way, but the intention is twofold—first, because the Government has need of money; and, secondly, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has on many occasions thrown out invitations to Members of this House to indicate sources of revenue alternative to some of those contained in the Budget. This Bill proposes that after a certain date, and every year thereafter, every banker in the United Kingdom shall furnish a return showing what dormant balances and what securities have remained in his possession for a period of six years, and have not been operated upon in any way by the customers in whose names they stand. Further, what bank-notes have been issued for a period exceeding six years shall also be returned. A year ago I had a similar Bill, and since then I have inquired very deeply into the subject, and accumulated an immense amount of information. After one or two illustrations which I will give I venture to say that even the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be grateful to me for the information. The proposition of the Bill is this: Through deaths, removals abroad, the extinction of families, the carelessness of testators, and in various other ways, an enormous amount of wealth, which I do not hesitate deliberately to place at many, many millions of pounds, has accumulated in the hands of bankers of the United Kingdom. It consists partly of liquid assets in the shape of unclaimed bank balances, and it consists partly of securities and valuables now in the offices of the bankers, to which no claimants can be found. So far as the first class is concerned I can establish beyond dispute that the amount runs into millions. As regards the second, it is no exaggeration to say that the strongholds of the bankers are to-day groaning with wealth which is at the service of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A year ago I put before the House one or two instances within my own knowledge of this mine of wealth. I mentioned the case of an old lady who had upwards of £20,000 in one bank, the name of which I offered to give to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has not so far honoured me by an invitation to do so. This old lady had been in the habit of going periodically and examining her money, having it counted, and then putting it back again. She had not been heard of for many years, but as a result of that revelation last year the old-lady has been traced, and found in a lunatic asylum. I heard of a case of an officer, a friend of mine, who lost his life in South Africa. He was known to have large sums in the banks to which there can be no clue obtained. I will give one or two other illustrations, which I think will convince the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this is a proposal of great substance and of great urgency. The principal culprits in the matter are the private banks. Until we had strong rooms and modern institutions, it was the custom for most families to hoard their wealth in the cellars of the private banks. Since I introduced this Bill a year ago, I have been inundated with cases, mainly from private French families, who, during the Revolution, sent their valuables and their securities over here, and millions of which remain here to-day unclaimed. Let me give the House one or two cases showing the vitality of this proposal. Here I have a case which, I am sure, will receive the sympathetic consideration of every Member of the House when I mention that it comes from a lady who is the mother of a gallant officer who lost his life by the disaster to His Majesty's Submarine A 8, which went down, with all hands, in Plymouth about a year ago. This is a concrete modern case, and I respectfully ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give his attention to this letter. This lady writes:— My son, George Beedham, was chief engineer of H.M. submarine A8 which went down at Plymouth in June, 1905, when he lost his life. For some years previously he had given me accounts of his savings and on August 3rd, 1904, he told me he had got together £380 During a period of about six months after his death every bank in the United Kingdom was circularised, but without result. I say that is a scandalous shame. There is no obligation on any bank to disclose the whereabouts of that money. I observe with pleasure that both Members of the City of London are present, and I respectfully call the attention of the Leader of the Opposition and his colleague (Sir F. Banbury) to a case which I am also prepared to verify, showing that enormous balances of old Mansion House Funds— this is a matter which deeply touches the honour of the City—have accumulated in the hands of private banks, which have been absorbed by joint stock banks, and not a penny of which has yet been accounted for. I hope the junior Member (Sir F. Banbury), in view of that deliberate statement, will think there is a case for further inquiry. I have here a letter from a gentleman who states—and I know it to be the case—that he was for some years the manager of a private bank—a well-known private bank. In describing the respectable methods of that bank, he states how it would never allow gas, much less electric light, in its premises, only candles with old candlesticks, every member of the staff being a venerable grey-haired man with a frock-coat. He goes on to say:— One day it was discovered that damp had penetrated into the strong room and had rusted many of the security boxes to such an extent that the lids of some of them were loosened through the rust having eaten away the hinges. One of them fell to pieces whilst being handled in my presence, and displayed an enormous assortment of Indian jewellery, bangles and many packets of priceless precious stones. It was decided that a correct list of the contents of the box was to be made This was done and they were replaced in a new box A short time afterwards the private bank to which I have referred was amalgamated with a new joint stock bank and all the partners retired. But they did not hand over either the unclaimed balances in their hands or the security boxes which were in their charge, and the former alone of which amounted to my knowledge of upwards of one million sterling. I have a letter from a solicitor stating:— Some clients of mine have proved that a relative left Brazil some years ago having first deposited securities of considerable value in a chest, and placed it aboard the ship in which he intended himself to sail, and consigned to himself, care of a certain bank in London. He however could not sail by that boat but boarded the one following, but was lost with all hands. The chest reached its destination and is now in the hands of the consignee bank, but no efforts up to the present have succeeded in revealing the name of the bank. I have a letter from a well-known auditor, who states that in the course of auditing he discovered various accounts which had been overlooked by other clients of his, and put them on the road to get their money. I have particulars of the case of a Scotch earl who, having deposited a box of securities with a well-known private bank, went one day to check them, as a result of the agitation arising from the Bill of last year, and to his great surprise was shown three boxes. It turned out that his grandfather, who was of a similar name, had a box there for 150 years containing valuable securities I have a veritable library of cases of this kind. May I submit to the House that it is time this matter was looked into? There can be no question that the amount of the wealth is enormous. A member of the Bankers' Institute stated within the last few months that to his knowledge in certain banks, he mentioned twelve, over five millions of unclaimed securities were resting. What is the objection to this matter being investigated? The Chancellor of the Exchequer told me he had not personally inquired into it, but that he had been advised a year or two ago, as the result of some inquiry, that the amount was five or six hundred thousand pounds. Even if that were so, it is not to be despised in these times. In view of the facts I have mentioned the figure is ludicrous. Last year I referred to a well-known bank, which admittedly has two millions (sterling) of unclaimed securities. It is common knowledge, I read it in the newspapers, that the Messrs. Coutts' in changing their premises took a whole month to remove the boxes of securities from their vaults. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Why not—the answer is that that bank dates back to the days of the French Revolution, and the majority of the boxes are sealed up, and there is no legal power to open them except by order of this House. That is one of the many aspects of this case.

But this is no novel proposal. In many foreign countries, in many of our own Colonies, in Canada, and in the United States this practice exists. In the comparatively small colony of South Australia, before that Colony was fifty or sixty years old, and when its population was not more than a quarter of a million, an Act to this effect was passed, and in the very first year nearly a hundred thousand pounds was recovered for the State. If that is possible in a young Colony like South Australia, what must be the circumstances here? The case is unanswerable. Banks have no right to object to a proposal of this kind. The other argument used is that it would dislocate the banking industry of the nation. I have too much respect for that industry to believe that it wishes to rest on a foundation of the wrongful possession of other people's property. I submit that this Bill is one well worthy of consideration if only as a first step towards obtaining a full inquiry into the whole matter. It does not propose to take one penny of the result of any man's industry, enterprise, or judgment. It does not propose to take one penny of any man's property which is really his. It proposes to remedy the anomaly of having a Public Trustee on the one hand and enormous public funds in the hands of private persons on the other. It proposes to bring relief to many a family who to-day are struggling in penury because they are kept out of that property which is their own. In addition to all that, it is calculated to bring to the coffers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer a really mighty hoard of which he is greatly in need. For all these reasons—and again apologising for trespassing on the time of the House—I beg to move.

Mr. J. D. REES

I rise to oppose the Motion. The case put by the hon. Member is by no means unanswerable; and, unworthy as I am, as nobody else has risen to answer it, I will endeavour to do so. I submit that a possession which in its origin was rightful cannot by mere flux of time become wrongful. The hon. Member in describing these possessions as wrongful brings a charge which is unsustainable against men who are just as honourable in the conduct of their business as the hon. Member himself or anybody else. The instances quoted by the hon. Member to prove the necessity for this Bill I think prove that it is unnecessary. He gave the case of an old lady—there is always an old lady in cases of this sort—and he said that when inquiry was set on foot the lady was found somewhere in a lunatic asylum. That shows that when inquiry is made heirs to property like this are found. Why is the State to come in just because heirs are not forthcoming at the moment, and make a "scoop," as I think the hon. Member called it, of property belonging to other people? It is not alleged that the property belongs to the State; and it is somewhat astonishing that the hon. Member, who on other occasions has lifted up his voice—and I heartily agreed with him—against propositions of a Socialistic character, should now propose that the State should take a large sum of money merely because it is a large sum, and because nobody at the moment comes for-

ward to claim it. The other case he gave was the extremely well-known case of a certain Noble Lord who went to a certain bank and found three boxes where he had placed only two. The hon. Member thinks it very wrong that there should be that unearned increment, and he would punish the bank that had been so honest as to keep that third box for a hundred years until the grandson of the depositor came forward. Where is there any cause to find fault with the bankers who have been so honest and so careful of property? The law as it at present stands is sufficient to enable any person to recover his own property; and if that person does not come forward I fail to see any reason why the property should be made over to the State.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY

The law as it at present stands is that after six years all unclaimed balances become the property of the bank.

Mr. REES

The hon. Member carries his feelings so far as to object to a private bank, when it moved to fresh premises, having a great many boxes of property to transfer. If that bank had not been honest, and had made away with the property, there would not have been those boxes to transfer. How it can possibly be regarded as a fault on the part of the bank, as the custodian of other people's property, that after a long time it should have this property to transfer, passes my comprehension. Nor can I understand why the hon. Member made a particular attack on private banks. I know that private banks have now gone out of fashion, and that joint stock banks have taken their place; but I do not think that anybody with any experience of banking would for a moment allege that private banks were in any way inferior to joint stock and public banks. It seems to me that this proposal savours of a spirit of seizing for the State that which can by any hook or crook be got for the State. For my part, I can see no earthly reason, to whomsoever this property may belong, why it should go to the State; and if anybody will tell with me I will divide against the Motion with all my heart.

Question put, "That leave be given to bring in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 181; Noes, 55.

Division No. 214.] AYES. [4.10 p.m.
Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.) Ambrose, Robert Ashton, Thomas Gair
Ainsworth, John Stirling Anstruther-Gray, Major Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Armitage, R. Barlow, Percy (Bedford)
Barnes, G. N. Haworth, Arthur A. O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Barrie, H. T (Londonderry, N.) Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
Beck, A. Cecil Hedges, A. Paget O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) Parker, James (Halifax)
Boulton, A. C. F. Higham, John Sharp Paulton, James Mellor
Bowerman, C. W. Hobart, Sir Robert Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Branch, James Hogan, Michael Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Brigg, John Holland, Sir William Henry Philips, John (Longford, S.)
Bright, J. A. Hope, John Deans (File, West) Pointer, J.
Brocklehurst, W. B. Horniman, Emslie John Pollard, Dr. G. H.
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Power, Patrick Joseph
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Hudson, Walter Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Idris, T H. W. Pullar, Sir Robert
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles Illingworth, Percy H. Radford, G. H.
Byles, William Pollard Jardine, Sir J. Rainy, A. Rolland
Cameron, Robert Jenkins, J. Raphael, Herbert H.
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Johnson, John (Gateshead) Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester).
Cawley, Sir Frederick Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) Reddy, M.
Channing, Sir Francis Allston Jones, Leif (Appleby) Redmond, William (Clare)
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Jowett, F. W. Rendall, Athelstan
Cleland, J. W. Joyce, Michael Renwick, George
Clive, Percy Archer Kavanagh, Walter M. Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Courthope, G. Loyd Kennedy, Vincent Paul Robinson, S.
Cox, Harold Lamont, Norman Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) Roe, Sir Thomas
Crooks, William Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) Rose, Sir Charles Day
Crosfield, A. H. Levy, Sir Maurice Rutherford, W W. (Liverpool)
Crossley, William J. Lundon, T. Sears, J. E.
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Seaverns, J. H.
Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.) Lyell, Charles Henry Seely, Colonel
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Silcock, Thomas Ball
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P, Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Du Cros, Arthur MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) Snowden, P
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) M'Callum, John M Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) Scares, Ernest J.
Esslemont, George Birnie M'Micking, Major G. Summerbell, T.
Evans, Sir S. T. Maddison, Frederick Sutherland, J. E.
Everett, R. Lacey Marnham, F. J. Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)
Faber, G. H. (Boston) Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Fell, Arthur Massie, J. Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Fenwick, Charles Meagher, Michael Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Ferens, T. R. Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Tomkinson, James
Flavin, Michael Joseph Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Toulmin, George
Flynn, James Christopher Middlemore, John Throgmorton Walters, John Tudor
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Molteno, Percy Alport Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Gill, A. H. Mooney, J. J. Waterlow, D. S.
Ginnell, L. Morrell, Philip Watt, Henry A
Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.) Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.) Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Glover, Thomas Myer, Horatio Weir, James Galloway
Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) Nannetti, Joseph P. White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Nolan, Joseph Whitehead, Rowland
Gulland, John W. Norton, Captain Cecil William Whitley. John Henry (Halifax)
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Nuttall, Harry Wiles, Thomas
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Bottomley and Sir H. Cotton.
Hart Davies, T. O'Doherty, Philip
Haslam, James (Derbyshire) O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Rt Hon. Sir Alex. F. Hamilton, Marquess of Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)
Anson, Sir William Reynell Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) Oddy, John James
Astbury, John Meir Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Baldwin, Stanley Holt, Richard Durning Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Joynson-Hicks, William Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Barran, Rowland Hirst Kerry, Earl of Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Bowles, G. Stewart Lambton, Hon Frederick William Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Bryce, J. Annan Lane-Fox, G. R Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Carlile, E. Hildred Lehmann, R C. Stanier, Beville
Cave, George Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)
Chance, Frederick William Lonsdale, John Brownlee Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)
Cheetham, John Frederick Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Tuke, Sir John Batty
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) M'Arthur Charles Waring, Walter
Craik, Sir Henry M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
Cross, Alexander Magnus, Sir Philip Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, w.)
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Menzies, Sir Walter
Faber, George Denison (York) Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Gardner, Ernest Moore, William TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Rees and Mr. G. A. Hardy.
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Morpeth, Viscount
Guinness, W. E. (Bury St. Edmund) Newdegate, F. A.

Leave given; Bill presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read second time upon Monday, 5th July.