Commons Sitting of 24 November 1909

Preamble
Mr. Speaker took the chair at a Quarter before Three of the clock.
CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND.
Copy ordered of Accounts of the Civil Contingencies Fund, 1908–9, showing (1) the receipts and payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March, 1909; and (2) the distribution of the capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; together with Copy of the Correspondence with the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon.—[Mr. Hobhouse.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Navy (Aeronautical Work).
  Lord BALCARRES (for Mr. Ashley)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what percentage of those to be employed in aeronautical work in the Navy will be drawn from the engineering branch?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The number of engineers who will be employed on aeronautical work depends entirely on the future requirements of this service, of which no estimate can at present be made.

  Royal Marine Forces.
  Captain FABERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he would state whether during the next four years any officer of the Royal Marine Forces will, in the ordinary course, complete three years in command and be eligible to become a reserved colonel; and, if so, what is the name of that officer?
  Mr. McKENNA: All the colonels commandant now serving will complete the periods of their command during the, next four years. Possibly some of their successors may also be eligible for the Reserved Colonels List during the next four years, as the Order in Council refers to "expiration of command," which may take place in less than three years. Vacancies, however, are expected in the list of generals which will be filled by some of the officers
  188
  at present holding the position of colonel commandant.
  Captain FABER: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of the question and give the name of the officer?
  Mr. McKENNA: The lion. Gentleman has assumed that there would be one officer. My reply shows that there may be several. I could not give the names as it is hypothetical.

  Royal Naval Engineering College, Devonport.
  Captain FABERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state how many students are at the Royal Naval Engineering College, Devonport; what is the rank of the officer in charge; what do his pay and allowances amount to; whether he is allowed a house; and at what age was this officer promoted to his present rank?
  Mr. McKENNA: The reply to the first part of the question is 21; to the second, captain, Royal Navy; to the third. £946 per annum; to the fourth, in the affirmative; and to the fifth, 43.
  Captain FABER: May I ask if this could not be done cheaper by employing a captain of the Nore Division of the Home Fleet?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, it could, of course, but this captain was in charge of a much larger college, and it is not desirable to move in the matter at the present time.

  Electric Searchlight Carbons.
  Mr. CARLILE (for Mr. Starkey)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty purchase the greater part of the carbons for the electric searchlights of warships from Germany; and whether, in the event of the foreign supply not being available, manufacturers in this country would be able to meet a sudden demand?
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the whole of the carbons purchased by the Admiralty for searchlights of His Majesty's ships are made in this country. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

  Peruvian Amazon Company.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he could state the nature of the claims that have been preferred against the Peru-

  189
  vian Amazon Company or its immediate predecessors in title in respect of the ill-treatment of natives of Barbadoes; and if he had taken any action thereon?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): Some claims have in the past been presented to the Peruvian Amazon Company or its predecessor on behalf of British Colonial subjects through the Consular Officer at Iquitos, and these, have, I am informed, received due consideration, but the details of such claims are not at present available. Inquiry is being made through the Colonial Authorities as to the existing conditions with respect to Colonial subjects.
  Mr. HART-DAVIESasked whether any further reports as to the Peruvian Amazon Company have yet been received; and, if so, whether they can be communicated; and whether any information on the same subject has been received from the United States Government?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Only unofficial reports as to the incidents alluded to have at present been received, but I am in communication with the Peruvian Amazon Company on the subject. It has been ascertained by His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington that the reports of personal misadventure and destruction of property of the two United States citizens in that region are correct, and that payment of a sum of 500 dollars, claimed on their account as compensation, has been recommended to the Peruvian Treasury.

  North Sea Convention (Fishing Grounds).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary of State, for Foreign Affairs if he will inquire from the Powers, signatories to the North Sea Convention, what fishing grounds they would desire to see closed from the operation of trawlers, with the object of preventing the destruction of immature fish and protecting the legitimate interests of the line fishermen?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have nothing to add to the answer I returned to the question of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty on the 4th instant. The question is one of general policy, on which His Majesty's Government are not at present prepared to make any further statement.
  Mr. C. WASON: In view of the fact that it is only to ask for information from those foreign Powers, and not to commit them to
  190
  anything, will he give the matter further consideration?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am afraid I cannot add anything to the answer.

  Moray Firth Trawling.
  Mr. PIRIEasked the Lord Advocate if his attention has been called to the fact of an increase of trawling by foreign trawlers in the Moray Firth since the passing of the Prevention of Trawling Bill; if he is aware of the wreck of the Belgian trawler "Mie," of Ostend, whilst engaged in trawling off Banff, when her crew was rescued by the German trawler "Senator Bault," of Hamburg, which was also fishing; and, in view of the building and fitting up of fresh trawlers to fish the Moray Firth from Ostend, if the Government are alive to the situation, and propose taking any steps to discontinue the preservation of fish for the special benefit of the foreigner?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): My attention has been called, not to an increase but to a large decrease in trawling in the Moray Firth since the date named. I am aware of the wreck referred to but have no information as to whether the vessel wrecked was engaged in trawling; the rescuing vessel, I understand, was not trawling but was sheltering from a storm. I am not aware that fresh trawlers for the Moray Firth are building or fitting out at Ostend.
  Mr. PIRIE: May I ask if the decrease, which I do not admit, is a decrease of foreign trawlers or a decrease of British and foreign combined, or an increase in foreign trawling?
  Mr. URE: A diminution in foreign trawling.
  Mr. PIRIE: I do not think that is in accord with the facts.

  Trawling in Prohibited Areas Prevention Act.
  Mr. PIRIEasked the Lord Advocate if lie will state bow many trawlers have been reported to the Customs authorities since the coming into operation of the Trawling in Prohibited Areas Prevention Act?
  Mr. URE: I am informed that four trawlers have been reported to the Customs.
  Mr. PIRIE: If only four have been reported to the Government there must be either of two alternatives, namely, that

  191
  they are not prosecuted when they land fish in British ports; or else they land the fish in foreign ports.
  Mr. URE: They have not been observed.

  Shetland and Whaling Companies.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Lord Advocate if he is aware of the feeling that exists in Shetland against the whaling companies and the manner in which they have established themselves there; and whether, in view of the fact of the continuous decrease of the herring fishing on the West Coast, he will send a Special Commissioner to report as to the desirability or otherwise of restrictive legislation?
  Mr. URE: As I informed my hon. friend the Member for Argyllshire yesterday, there is no present intention to appoint a Special Commissioner to report into matters affecting the herring fisheries. I am aware of the existence of a certain amount of local feeling against the whaling companies, but I am unable to add to the answer given on the matter to my hon. friend on the 2nd of this month.

  Pekin (British Post Office).
  Mr. MORTONasked whether the French and German Governments had a post office at Pekin, and, if so, why had the British not got a post office there?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton): There are French and German post offices at Pekin. As regards the second part of my hon. Friend's question, so far as it is a postal matter, it does not appear that the number of British subjects residing in Pekin apart from the Legation is sufficient to justify the establishment of a British post office there.
  Mr. MORTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman further consider the question?
  Mr. BUXTON: If circumstances alter. We have consulted the Foreign Office on the matter, and they agree that under existing circumstances there is no need apart from the Legation to start a British post office there.

  Gardeners in Dublin (Bate of Wages).
  Mr. NANNETTIasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention had been drawn to a resolution passed at a public meeting in which it was alleged that the Board of Works for Ireland paid the
  192
  gardeners and labourers in its employment at a rate of wages below the standard rate in the City of Dublin; whether that was the case; and, if so, whether immediate steps would be taken to rectify a state of things which was contrary to the declarations of the House of Commons made in two successive Parliaments?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): My attention had not been previously drawn to the resolution referred to by the hon. Member. The allegation made in the resolution is, I am informed, without foundation. As pointed out in my answer to a question put by the hon. Member for West Limerick on 15th March last, the rates of wages paid by the Board of Works, allowance being made for the privilege enjoyed by the men, are not only up to the market rate, but, in the majority of cases, in excess of it.
  Mr. NANNETTI: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the rate of wages paid in the City of Dublin for this class of labourer?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: By the Board of Works?
  Mr. NANNETTI: Yes.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It varies from 16s. to about 21s. But we are not responsible for the rate of wages; we are responsible for paying the standard rate. Unfortunately, in this case, it is a very low rate indeed.
  Mr. NANNETTI: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the standard rate of wages for labourers in the City of Dublin is 21s., while the wages paid to the labourers in question are from 14s. to 16s., and does he consider that a living wage in the City of Dublin?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The wages are not from 14s. to 16s., but from 16s. to 21s. I think it is a very low rate, unfortunately, but we cannot raise the standard rate of wages in this particular place.
  Mr. NANNETTI: Are not the Board of Works bound by the Fair Wages Resolution? Will not the right hon. Gentleman see that the standard rate of wages is paid here the same as anywhere else?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: My information is to the effect that the rate we pay is the standard rate.
  Mr. NANNETTI: Do I understand that the Government have a right to make a standard rate of wages for one Department as against all the other labourers in the City of Dublin?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No. The question asked was whether the Board of Works pays the gardeners and labourers in its employment at a rate of wages below the standard rate in the City of Dublin. I am informed that the Board does not pay below the standard rate, and, as I have said two or three times, I regret that the standard rate is so low.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that 14s. is the standard rate for gardeners in Ireland?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have specifically denied that that is the standard rate.
  Mr. NANNETTI: Does the right hon. Gentleman think the standard rate is 16s? Will he see that it is brought up to the 21s. which is paid by the Corporation and other public bodies?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am informed that that is not the standard rate.
  Mr. NANNETTI: As a member of the Corporation I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is paid. Will he look into the matter further, and see whether it is possible to raise the wages from 16s. to something upon which the labourers of Ireland can live?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I quite agree that the rate is unduly low. I cannot go beyond that. I regret that, according to the information which reaches me, that is the standard rate. If the standard rate were higher I would gladly ask the Board of Works to pay it.

  England and Germany (Interchange of Teachers).
  Mr. CARLILEasked the President of the Board of Education whether the German teacher now employed at the council school at Holloway, who had been brought over from Germany on the interchange system, was allowed to take ordinary class work; whether the Board of Education had sanctioned this arrangement; whether his being employed to do this work was in accordance with the Board's regulations on the is subject; whether the Board would cancel its approval, if it had been given, so that an Englishman might be appointed to do this work; and whether he had any official information showing that the
  194
  Prussian Government had in any case employed its English teachers, whose services it had obtained under the interchange system, to take ordinary class work to the exclusion of German masters?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): The conditions under which German assistants are assigned by the Board of Education to English schools are regulated by the Convention between His Majesty's Government and the Prussian Government. The Convention provides, among other things, that assistants must not be required to give regular class instruction, or to take supervision duty, and that not more than 12 hours' work a week may be demanded of them. These provisions were inserted for the protection of the assistants, and in order that they might have plenty of time and opportunity to pursue their own studies. In the case to which the hon. Member refers, the approval of the Prussian Ministry of Education was asked and given to an arrangement whereby the assistant would take class instruction within the limits of time laid down toy the Convention. The Board see no reason to withhold their approval of this arrangement. I am informed that as a matter of fact the teacher in question is supernumerary to the ordinary establishment of the school, and that his removal would not necessitate the appointment of another teacher in his place; but I cannot admit that that has anything to do with the case, or that any obstacle should be raised to the appointment of a foreign teacher where such an appointment would be in the best interests of the school. The answer to the concluding paragraph of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. CARLILE: Why are there granted under these conditions to German subjects special privileges which are not allowed to British subjects in Germany under similar conditions?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that that is not the case. As a matter of fact, I am informed—not officially, but by some of the assistants who have returned from Germany—that they have had the privilege of taking class instruction in German schools.

  Foxboro' Land Sale (Extension of Sub-Tenants).
  Mr. P. O'BRIEN (for Mr. James O'Kelly)asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention had been drawn to the circumstances of the sale of certain lands at Fox-

  195
  boro', county Roscommon, by a landlord named Taafe, to a middleman named Laven, to the exclusion of the sub-tenants, 10 in number; whether the sub-tenants had declared their anxiety to purchase through the Land Commissioners and to have their present non-economic holdings increased by the addition of portions of the untenanted land upon the estate; whether the sum agreed upon between the landlord and the middleman to be advanced by the Commissioners was £4,050, which worked out at about 37 years' purchase; whether the middleman who entered into this agreement was not a farmer but a Dublin publican; whether there was any reasonable prospect of his being able to carry out his undertaking; and whether, under the circumstances, the Commissioners would be asked to review this case with the two-fold object of securing the ratepayers from future loss, and of obtaining the benefits of the Land Act for the sub-tenants.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Estates Commissioners inform me that the owner has instituted proceedings for the direct sale to the tenants of the estate referred to. The man named in the question has agreed to purchase his holding, which is stated in the purchase agreement to contain 142 acres of the lands of Foxborough, held by him as a yearly tenant at a rent of £250. He has applied for an advance of £4,050, being 16.2 years' purchase of the rent. When the estate is being dealt with in order of priority the usual inquiries will be made as to sub-tenants.
  Mr. CULLINAN: As it is in the power of the Estates Commissioners to refuse to make these advances unless the subtenants are treated with, will the right hon. Gentleman see that the sub-tenants are considered?
  Mr. BIRRELL: When they consider the case the Estates Commissioners will bear in mind the position of the sub-tenants.

  Foster Fitzgerald Estate (North Kerry).
  Mr. FLAVINasked the Chief Secretary whether he could state when the agreements signed by the tenants to purchase the Foster Fitzgerald estate, near New-towndillon, North Kerry, were lodged with the Estates Commissioners; whether the agent, Mr. J. D. Crosbie, promised the tenants whose lands were being flooded that he would immediately make up the
  196
  river banks and lay aside a fund for the maintenance of the same; and whether, before the estate was vested in the tenants, the Estates Commissioners would have an inspection of the holdings made so as to safeguard the interests of the tenants.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed by the Estates Commissioners that the purchase agreements for the sale of this estate were lodged on various dates from September, 1907, to July, 1908. The purchase agreements of the tenants who would be affected by the non-maintenance of the river embankment contain a clause to the effect that the embankment on the holding, heretofore jointly maintained by the vendor and purchaser, shall be put into such repair as the Land Commission shall require, and that such sum as the Land Commission shall think fit shall be retained out of the purchase money for its future maintenance. When the estate is being dealt with in order of priority the matter will be fully considered by the Commissioners.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Will the money retained by the Land Commission be held by them in trust, or will it be given to local trustees for the upkeep of the embankment?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It will probably be given to local trustees.

  Fitzmaurice Estate (Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants).
  Mr. FLAVINasked whether any steps had yet been taken to reinstate the evicted tenants on the Miss Fitzmaurice property, situate near Duagh, North Kerry?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that 18 evicted tenants have been reinstated on this estate.

  Old Age Pension Withdrawn (Kilflynn, Kerry).
  Mr. FLAVINasked whether Timothy Neale, of Gortclohy, Kilflynn, was in receipt of an old age pension; whether Neale had been informed by the pension officer of the district that he was to be disqualified for an old age pension; and, if so, on what grounds?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Neale was awarded a pension of 5s. a week by the Ardfert Pensions Sub-Committee. The pension officer appealed against their decision on the ground that claimant's means exceeded the statutory limit, and the Local Government Board, on full consideration of the case, upheld the appeal.

  Sands Estate (Sub-tenancy).
  Mr. FLAVINasked whether Jeremiah Carroll, of Knockanure, held as a subtenant from Mrs. Bridget Goulding, Kealid, on the T. W. Sands estate; whether Mrs. Goulding had consented to sell to Carroll on the same terms that she had bought from the landlord; whether Carroll's holding as a sub-tenant had been inspected by the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, when would the vesting order be issued to Carroll?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that Carroll holds a small plot of about an acre and a half as a sub-tenant on this estate. The estate has been inspected and reported on, and the Estates Commissioners have decided that this is not a case in which the sub-tenant should be deemed a direct tenant of the small plot in his occupation.
  Mr. FLAVIN: On what ground did the Estates Commissioners come to their decision?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Section 15 of the Act of 1903 gives the Estates Commissioners a discretion in the matter. In the exercise of that discretion they came to the conclusion that the sub-tenants in this case should not be deemed to be direct tenants.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Why should an exception be made in this case, where the tenant in possession is willing to sell to the subtenants on the same terms?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know anything about it. The Estates Commissioners have, by Act of Parliament, a discretion as to whether sub-tenants should or should not be considered direct tenants, and in this case, in the exercise of that discretion, they decided against their being so considered.
  Mr. FLAVIN: I will call further attention to the matter.

  Special Reserve (Officers).
  Lord BALCARRES (for Mr. Ashley)asked the Secretary of State for War what steps are being taken to increase the numbers of the officers in the Special Reserve from the present strength of 1,924 to the establishment of 2,808?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): No special steps are being taken in regard to this matter beyond what have been taken under the Regulations; but I have every reason to hope that candidates for the Special Reserve of
  198
  Officers will be gradually forthcoming from the Officers Training Corps.

  Cavalry Horses (Peace Establishment).
  Lord BALCARRESasked what is the peace establishment in horses of the three line cavalry brigades which were trained on Salisbury Plain this year; how many horses were brought with them when they arrived for manœuvres and how many horses were returned in the field states as fit for work after the first week?
  Mr. HALDANE: The peace establishment of the three brigades, including chargers, is 4,635. The field states available show the fighting strengths to have been 2,680 on 1st September and 2,511 on 10th September. It must be remembered that all the horses under six years of age were left behind, and that the regiments had already been undergoing severe brigade training for about a month previously.

  Royal Army Medical Corps.
  Lord BALCARRESasked whether steps are being taken to ensure that officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps serving in Ireland shall this year receive the full leave to which they are entitled by the Regulations?
  Mr. HALDANE: Under normal conditions it will now be possible to give every Royal Army Medical Corps officer serving in Ireland throughout the year full leave, provided that he is willing to take it when the exigencies of the Service permit.

  Lord Kitchener's Appointment.
  Captain FABERasked the Secretary of State for War if he would state whether Lord Kitchener will be under the orders of the War Office or the Colonial Office when performing his future duties in East and West Africa?
  Mr. HALDANE: I am not able at the present moment to reply to this question.
  Captain FABER: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any date when he will be able to give the information?
  Mr. HALDANE: All these things will be gone into by Lord Kitchener himself when he takes up his command.
  Captain FABER: What date will that be?
  Mr. HALDANE: I should think it will be some time in May.
  Captain FABERasked the Secretary of State for War if he is now in a position to state whether the Governor of Malta or the High Commissioner of the Mediterranean will occupy the palaces of Sant Antonio and Valletta; and if he would now state whether the Governors of Malta and Gibraltar will represent the Sovereign in their respective commands after the new High Commissioner has taken up his duties?
  Mr. HALDANE: I am not yet in a position to reply to either of the questions on this subject put by the hon. and gallant Member.

  Army Contractors (Fair Wages Clause).
  Mr. T. F. RICHARDSasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state the result of the inquiry into the alleged violation of the Fair Wage Clause by the firm of A. J. Bagnall and Company, contractors for painting at the barracks, Whittington?
  Mr. HALDANE: It appears that the contractors referred to have employed labourers in painting certain outside work. Inquiry shows that there is no generally accepted rule that the particular work in question should be assigned to skilled painters, but it is the view of the War Office that painters should be employed on this work, and the contractors will be informed accordingly.

IRISH LAND BILL.
  Lords Amendments further considered.
  LORDS AMENDMENTS.

    CLAUSE 60.—(Restrictions on Sales of Land in Congested Districts Counties.)
    (1) The Land Commission shall not, after the passing of this Act, enter into an agreement for the purchase of any land situated in a congested districts county, save with the consent of the Congested Districts Board: Provided that this Subsection shall not apply in the case of any land required for the purposes of the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907.
    (2) No estate situated in a congested districts county shall, after the passing of this Act, be sold under the Land Purchase Acts, to persons other than the Congested Districts Board without the consent of that Board, which consent shall not be withheld unless the Board undertake to
    200
    purchase the estate within a reasonable time: Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply in the case of any sale of a congested estate in pursuance of an originating application or request lodged before the passing of this Act.
    Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (2), leave out the words, "undertake to purchase the estate within a reasonable time," and insert instead thereof the words "to enter into an agreement or to send a final offer for the purchase of the estate within one year."
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    I think it is a reasonable one. "Reasonable time" is now defined by imposing the obligation upon the Board to make the final offer for the estate within the year.
    Mr. DILLON: I do not propose to divide the House, but I think it is a most unreasonable time, considering the progress of land purchase in Ireland at the present time under the present Bill, when an estate—many estates—that have been offered for sale are waiting for five, six, or seven years to be paid for. I think the time proposed is absolutely unreasonable, and I suggest that it is another attempt to render the powers of the Congested Districts Board absolutely nugatory.
    Mr. MOORE: I only wish to draw attention to the remarks that we have just listened to, which illustrate, first of all, another protest against the Bill which hon. Members are dying to have.
    Mr. DILLON: Not as much dying as you are.
    Mr. MOORE: Secondly, it illustrates the way the hon. Member for East Mayo and his Friends approach everything, reasonable or unreasonable, which can do the class they are always attacking some harm. See how this stands: Notice is served by the Congested Districts Board that they are going to take a man's land under their compulsory powers——
    Mr. DILLON: Not at all; the hon. Member does not know what he is talking about.
    Mr. MOORE: I am quite used to that kind of compliment. Under the proposal in the Bill this public Department has a right to serve a notice on a man that they

    201
    are going to take his land compulsorily. The Amendment provides that within a year they are to make up their minds whether they are going to do so or not. During the whole of the year the man has this notice hanging over him, and he cannot sell his land to anybody else, and he cannot improve his land in the meantime, because he might be throwing his money away if he did. The Chief Secretary, with absolute fairness and reason, says that this period of indefiniteness is only to last 12 months, and at the end the man will be told whether or not his land will be taken by the Department. Such a desire does not meet with the approval of the hon. Member for East Mayo. This notice has to be kept hanging over a man's head for five, six, or seven years——
    Mr. DILLON: No, it has not.
    Mr. MOORE: I think it is a very clear illustration of the rabid desire which makes the hon. Member for East Mayo see in every bush a bear, or some object of the sort.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

    Clause 62.—(Amendment and Withdrawal of Proposals of Congested Districts Board.)
    Where the Congested Districts Board make a proposal for the purchase of an state or untenanted land, the provisions of Part II. of this Act with respect to the Amendment and withdrawal of proposals of the Estates Commissioners shall apply, with the substitution of the Congested Districts Board for the Estates Commissioners.
    Lords Amendment: Leave out the Clause.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I move: "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment"; this as a preliminary step to further rearrangement here.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 64.—(Compulsory Purchase.)
    (1) The Estates Commissioners in any ease where they propose to acquire compulsorily an estate or untenanted land—

    (a) in respect of which a final offer has been sent by them and has not been accepted in manner provided by this Act; or

    202

    (b) in respect of which they have received a requisition under this Act from the Congested Districts Board shall publish in the "Dublin Gazette" a notice containing particulars of the final offer of the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board as the case may be and stating that the Estates Commissioners intend to purchase the estate or untenanted land described in the final offer at the price named in such offer, unless within the prescribed time an application is made under this Part of this Act to the Judicial Commissioner by any person interested in the estate or untenanted land.

    (2) A copy of the final offer and of the aforesaid notice shall as soon as possible be served in the prescribed manner by the Estates Commissioners upon all persons known or believed by them to be interested in the estate or untenanted land.
    (3) Any person interested in the estate or untenanted land who is dissatisfied with the price named in the final offer may within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner apply by way of objection to the Judicial Commissioner to fix the price to be paid for the estate or untenanted land.
    (4) The Judicial Commissioner shall, with the assistance of two specially qualified lay assessors, hear in the prescribed manner and determine all applications coming before him under this Part of this Act, and for that purpose shall have and may exercise the powers conferred on the Land Commission by Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (3) of Section forty-eight of the Act of 1381, and his decision on any question other than one of law shall be final.
    (5) An appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal from any decision of the Judicial Commissioner under this Part of this Act on any question of law and the decision of the Court of Appeal on such question shall be final.
    (6) Subject to any application to the Judicial Commissioner under this Part of this Act and the final determination of all questions arising thereon, the price named in the final offer or fixed under this Part of this Act as the case may be shall be deemed to be the purchase money of the estate or untenanted land, and shall within the prescribed time be paid into the Bank of Ireland, and the purchase shall be completed and the purchase money distributed in like manner and all the like consequences shall ensue as if the estate or untenanted land had been purchased

    203
    by the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board, as the case may be, by agreement entered into under the Act of 1903 as amended by this Act upon the date of the payment of the purchase-money into the Bank.
    (7) The costs and expenses of and incidental to any application to the Judicial Commissioner under this Section shall be at the discretion of that Commissioner, who may if he thinks fit order the same to be paid by the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board.
    (8) In fixing the price to be paid for an estate or untenanted land under this Section, no additional allowance shall be made on account of the purchase being compulsory.
    Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (1) paragraph (b) Leave out the words "Judicial Commissioner" ["Part of this Act to the Judicial Commissioner"] and insert instead thereof the word "Court."
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Cherry): This is the first of a number of Amendments of a very important description which have been moved to our Clauses for compulsory purchase. I use the term "compulsory purchase" advisedly. The phrase is popularly used, and it is the phrase used in the Bill. If in order it would be, I think, for the convenience of the House if I stated very briefly the general attitude of the Government towards these Amendments, and the difference between the scheme as it was and is, and will be if the Amendments which we propose are carried. According to our original scheme, we had, as the House is aware, general power of compulsory purchase all over Ireland, applied to classes of land whether outside or inside the congested districts: According to our proposals, the question of the necessity or expediency of putting into operation these compulsory powers rested entirely with the Departments who are entrusted with the Administration of the Act—the Congested Districts Board in the congested districts and the Estates Commissioners outside. The Congested Districts Board having for its functions primarily the relief of congestion, it was assumed that the Board would acquire land for the relief of congestion, and for that purpose only. We did not, in the Bill as it left this House, restrict it in so many words; we left it an open question whether or not it should apply, in the interest of carrying out the powers vested in them by statute, whether it should put
    204
    in force compulsory powers. We excepted a certain class of lands from these compulsory powers—demesne lands, gardens, pleasure grounds, and home farms. These are all phrases well known in Ireland, and have all received judicial interpretation in connection with matters arising under the Irish Land Acts. Every person familiar with the working of the Irish Land Act is familiar with these terms, and knows exactly how to interpret them in case it was necessary to determine whether lands came within their meaning or not. We did not except any other class of land for compulsory powers.
    It became necessary under our original scheme that some tribunal of a judicial nature should be set up for three purposes:—Firstly, to determine whether or not the land proposed to be taken came within this description of lands which were exempted from the compulsory powers contained in the Bill; secondly, for another and a very important reason. The House will remember that in the course of the Committee Stage the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. J. H. Campbell) raised the question that the Estates Commissioners might pick and choose bits of land from an owner's property, leaving the worst and taking the best, or taking a portion of land which would greatly injure the adjoining land. When the question was raised, and our attention called to the matter, we admitted the possibility, though not the probability, and we then provided that in any such case the tribunal established should determine what particular area of land should be purchased; so that if a portion of a man's estate was taken compulsorily by the Commissioners he should be able to claim that the whole of his property, or some such portion of it, as be thought desirable, should be acquired, and that the Estates Commissioners should not be allowed to pick and choose, and, perhaps, leave the owner encumbered. For that purpose some judicial tribunal was necessary. And the third and most important point of all to be determined wag the question of price.
    We proposed under our original scheme, and we still adhere to it, the Judicial Commissioner of the Irish Land Commission as the authority for all those classes of duties. We thought that was the best tribunal, and I will give the House the reasons why. In the first place we thought it desirable that there should be one tribunal for all questions of that kind that arise. If you have a multiplicity of tribu-

    205
    nals, it means a great increase in cost and trouble and delay. Each tribunal would be confined to its own particular business, and you would have questions that arose directly before one tribunal bound up with questions that arose before another. The questions of price and value, for instance, work into one another; one of the matters in determining whether land is of a certain character and value is very often its site. Land is purchased at a high price, and sometimes it is assumed it is so purchased not for its agricultural value but for its amenities, so that the question of price and the question what land should be excluded, although apparently different, are very often the same. Everyone appearing in the courts in connection with these matters knows that the question of law and price are bound up together. So we think it desirable that not only should there be one tribunal to determine all these questions, but we think it should be the same tribunal in both cases, and we think it desirable also, in the first instance, it should be one man in all three cases and not three, and for these reasons: The taking of evidence before a tribunal of three persons is always a cumbersome, difficult, and tedious task. In nearly all systems of jurisprudence, certainly under our law, and under the law of Scotland, and I think it is also the Continental system, the practice is that one judge should be the tribunal in the first instance. One judge hears the case and makes up his mind, no matter how important the issues may be, and the issues in an ordinary Common Law action or in a Chancery Action may be quite as important and more important even than in questions of compulsory purchase. We think it advisable that there should be but one judge, and we think it reasonable that there should bean appeal from him on questions of law at all events, and we are quite content and anxious that the power of appeal should be extended and should be extended to all questions except the question of price, which is one that the Court of Appeal have admitted they could not enter upon, and have refused to enter upon where they had the authority. For these reasons we have selected the Judicial Commissioner, and I think I can give three good reasons for that selection.
    In the first place he has had enormous experience in the determination of the very questions which arise. In his position as a Judge of the Land Commission, these questions are before him every day
    206
    —whether land is demesne land or not, what is the true value of the lands, what is the relation of the head rent, what is the value of the tithe rent charges and such matters as may be charged upon them. He is dealing with all these questions every day. I may say in regard to Mr. Justice Wylie—and the whole House will agree with me—there is no judge upon the bench who so satisfactorily discharges his duties; he has been a long time there, and, so far as I am aware, he has never been attacked by any individual or by anyone in the country. He discharges very difficult and important duties with great credit to himself and to his office. Of course, I could not ask the House to assent to the tribunal merely because of the high character of the judge. I think the position of Judicial Commissioner, apart from the individual, qualifies the holder of the office specially for this particular work.
    Then, again, it is a fallacy to suppose that this system of compulsory purchase is novel. We have had ever since 1889, under the Land Purchase Acts, a system of compulsory redemption of head rents. A head rent, as every lawyer knows, is generally a fee simple estate in the land; it is not merely a rent charge; it is very often a case of long lease, very often a fee simple estate, and when a fee simple estate is determined by a judge of the Land Commission he has determined the price of a fee simple interest in the land. The Judicial Commission has done that every day for the last 20 years, and that is compulsory purchase, so that not only does his position and functions admirably suit him for the duties we propose he should discharge, but he has actually been doing every day since the Judicial Commissioner has been appointed the very thing she is expected to do under this Bill, including the fixing of the price of land. The question of the exclusion of demesne lands, parks, and pleasure gardens are matters which come before him every day. As to the question of price, to say that the Judicial Commissioner or any Commissioner that may be appointed is the best person to determine the price, is a question I need not argue, because on this-point I have the advantage of the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J.H. Campbell) who on this very question approved most distinctly of the proposal of the Government that the Judicial Commissioner should be the tribunal to fix the price. I will read to

    207
    the House the right hon. Gentleman's words. He said:—
    "I have given the question of the determination of the price every possible consideration, and I am bound to say that I have come to the same conclusion as the chief Secretary. I do not think we can altogether put aside the suggestion that a member of the purchasing body should not be the judge, not that I think it will in any way, in the case of Mr. Justice Wylie, operate unfairly. I do not think it will. I have had the honour of his acquaintance for a great many years, and I think both landlords and tenants will be safe in his hands to do what is right; but it is contrary to our ideas of natural justice that the head of this same Department, which is made under this Bill the purchasing authority, should, under the Act, be the man who will fix the price. At the same time, I cannot see any different solution, and I think it will work all right, and I do not wish for one moment to oppose it. As regards arbitration, the account which the right hon. Gentleman gave of it in this country made my mouth water, because I did not recognise that it was applicable to Ireland; but it has so many objections to it that I could not think of putting it before the right hon. Gentleman."
    He goes on to say:—
    "But I ask the hon. and learned Member not to persist in the Amendment, because I think, on the whole, the Chief Secretary has adopted, under very difficult conditions, perhaps the best possible tribunal available to him, and certainly I myself cannot think of anything better or suggest any substitute."
    After the right hon. Gentleman had discussed the question of the objections he came to the conclusion that the Judicial Commissioner is the best possible tribunal available, and said, "I cannot think of anything better or suggest any substitute." After these remarkable words from a right hon. Gentleman who has had so much practical experience of the work of the Judicial Commissioner ever since he was appointed 30 years ago, I think the Government would not be justified in withdrawing the original proposal they made, more especially when it has secured such enthusiastic commendation. Just a few words in regard to the Amendment. By their Amendment, the House of Lords has restricted compulsion in the case of congestion expressly outside the congested area. This is a most important restriction and alteration in the Bill, and I think when we ask the House to agree to this restriction as we are doing we are making a very great concession indeed to the other House. Then they have enlarged the grounds upon which lands may be excluded. They had proposed a very general clause to the effect that if it appears to the tribunal they desire to set up that other land equally suitable can be acquired at a reasonable price voluntarily the Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board are to be forbidden putting into force compulsory powers. This may be all right in theory, but in practice it
    208
    will lead to great difficulties. If they propose to purchase compulsorily the owner will be able to bring forward hundreds of cases perhaps of persons willing to sell land, and this will cause very great delay, because the circumstances of each of those estates will have to be inquired into by the judicial tribunal. This will take days and weeks, because the circumstances of each property must be investigated by both parties, and it will entail enormous trouble and expense and a considerable inconvenience. For these reasons we are prepared to ask the House to disagree with that Amendment. We think the Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board may very well be trusted not to put compulsory powers into force unless they are absolutely necessary. No Government Departments are desirous of going to the trouble of compulsory purchase if they can get the land they require voluntarily.
    The Lords Amendment exempts some other classes of land, but they are not very material. The main change made is to establish instead of the tribunal which we sought to set up a composite court composed of two King's Bench judges with the Judicial Commissioner, and they propose the option of arbitration. We think that arbitration is a most objectionable system. We have had experience of it in the working of the head rents, and the result was that this House unanimously abolished the possibility of arbitration for the purpose of fixing the price of the head rent, because the system was found to work so badly and dilatory, and was expensive. Now the House of Lords proposes to establish that system again, and we certainly object to it. We are anxious that the thing should be done as expeditiously as possible. To my mind there are even graved objections to the scheme which the House of Lords propose. They suggest, in the first place, a jury of three judges. Questions raised before such a court are much more difficult to determine, because frequently the judges take different views, and considerable delay is caused, for the reason that one judge can attend only on one day, because he is wanted in another court, and these eases have to be adjourned from day to day. But there are still graver objections to this proposal. I should be very sorry to make the slightest reflection upon the impartiality with which the judges in the King's Bench Division do their business, but their business is not that of fixing the price of land

    209
    and determining questions which arise in this case. They have other very much more important questions to determine with which they are more familiar, and they this proposal you are taking them away from their ordinary duties to discharge a duty which is foreign to their purpose and their present jurisdiction. As regards the question of delay, the primary duty of the King's Bench judges is to act as criminal judges, and during the months of March and July it would be absolutely impossible to get this tribunal together. In the month of December it would be equally impossible, for there are three circuits in Ireland—the spring circuit in March, the summer circuit in July, and the winter circuit in December. There are only four judges for the winter assizes, and if they have to carry out those duties as their ordinary work they would certainly not be available for the purposes of this new court, and it would paralyse the work of the courts. The scheme in every way is ill-judged and inconvenient. It would result in this, that practically for only six months in the year should we get a court. For three months the judges would be on circuit, and would not be available, and there is the three months' vacation. Then King's Bench judges have to discharge duties at Green-street, and if one of these judges happened to be the judge appointed to go to Green-street, these cases would have to be postponed. There would in every way be delay, increased expense, and unsatisfactory treatment of the whole matter. Just let me say one word as to the reasons why the Lords have dissented from our scheme and the arguments which they advance against the position in which we desire to place the Judicial Commissioner. They say he is a member of the Land Commission, and therefore prejudiced, and it is contrary to natural justice that a member of that body should be the person to fix the price. There is a sufficient answer to that, although he is a member of that body, his functions are quite independent of the Commissioners. He is doing chamber and departmental work, and he sits in a different place, and is never brought in contact with the Commissioners except in the case of appeals and when questions are referred to him. The same objections which apply to him under this Bill would apply under the Act of 1903, where he is made the Referee. It seems to me that in substance and fact the objection has no solid foundation what-
    210
    soever. There is another amply sufficient answer. We give an appeal from every decision of his, and we are willing to even extend the right of appeal, so that there will be in every case the right of appeal to the Court of Appeal in Ireland in every question except the one of price, which the courts have declared themselves incompetent to determine. We have, then, a judge in every way suitable, and one who fills a position which in every way suits the duties he will have to discharge. We are asked to accept in lieu thereof a cumbersome, awkward tribunal which it would be difficult to get together, and which has less special knowledge for the determination of the questions involved than the tribunal we set up. For these reasons I move, "That the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: I hope to deal with the matter we have got to discuss as briefly as possible, because I want to keep faith with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Birrell) in the undertaking we gave last night, in consideration of which we adjourned; but the matter is one of great importance. I believe myself, having regard to what I consider to be the inherent justice of the Amendments inserted in another place, that the refusal of the Government to accept these reasonable Amendments puts this Bill in the gravest possible danger. I can hardly understand why, when the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his colleagues found it possible upon matters of vital importance and of principle to come to an arrangement with the Noble Lords in another place, they should have been so obstinate in reference to a matter which I think I will satisfy the House has been dealt with by the House of Lords on precisely the same principles of ordinary justice and fair play on which the question of compulsion has always been dealt with in any Act of Parliament for any part of His Majesty's dominions up to the present day. The right hon. Gentleman has said they have given way in so far as they propose to leave as the subject-matter of review the decision of the Estates Commissioners as to the suitability or necessity of compulsion. He said that, so far as he was concerned, he would have been quite prepared to have left this matter in the discretion of the Estates Commissioners, and to have trusted entirely to them. I am not going to say anything at all against the Estates Commissioners beyond this, that they themselves have made no secret of the fact that they are exposed to pressure

    211
    from all sides. They are not a judicial body that you cannot approach except under pains and penalties for contempt of court. They are an administrative body, and anybody who knows anything about their working of the last few years knows that there has been overwhelming pressure from all sides, both of a legitimate and illegitimate kind. I would remind the House of what was said by the hon. Member for Kildare in the course of the discussion of the action of the Estates Commissioners in the distribution of untenanted land when he informed the House that the distribution had been most unsatisfactory, because the land was distributed in favour of persons who had the biggest crowd to shout for them and who could bring the greatest pressure to bear upon the Estates Commissioners. That is a state of facts which we all know there is at least a danger of existing, and I am myself inclined to think the Estates Commissioners would welcome the determination of the Government to accept the proposal of the House of Lords in that particular matter. So far as I can understand from the skeleton outline of the proposed Amendments given by the right hon. Gentleman—and it is very awkward to follow them unless they are given in detail—the Government do not intend to quarrel with the exceptions from compulsory powers so far as they are contained in the Amendments from another place. I assume that applies to any land which is at present the subject-matter of purchase annuity.
    Mr. BIRRELL: Oh, yes.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: That is a substantial concession, and one required in the interests of justice. It would have been an intolerable thing to have started a campaign of eviction against men who on the faith of an Act of Parliament are on the way to become proprietors of their own holdings. That is a substantial and at the same time, I think, a reasonable concession. There remains, practically, as the only question in dispute, the court that is to determine the price. I confess I was very much surprised that for the first time in my experience some observations of mine should have found favour in the eyes of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and I rather suspected what was in store for me. I would only say this with regard to the criticism he has made. I hardly think it is quite correct to describe as enthusiastic approval of the Government scheme a paragraph in which
    212
    I denounced it as vicious in principle and contrary to natural justice But that is what the right hon. Gentleman calls enthusiastic approbation of his original scheme. Let us understand exactly what was before the House at that time. There was no alternative scheme before it. At the time I spoke the only Amendment before the House was one to leave out these provisions about the fixing of prices. There was no scheme produced in conflict with it, and all I stated, while I condemned and still condemn the principle of the entrusting the determination of the price of the land to be purchased by his colleagues to the head of the tribunal purchasing it, was that I would, in the absence of any better proposal, support it. But then I went on to say that I believed it was vicious in principle, and contrary to natural justice, that the determination of the price involving such very large interests should be left in the hands of any one gentleman, even one of the ability and admitted impartiality of Mr. Justice Wylie, because it would put him in a false position and compel him often to come into conflict with those with whom he has to sit as colleagues in other departments of his work. The right hon. Gentleman stated certain reasons which, he said, influenced the Government in deciding that they would not accept the tribunal proposed in the Amendments inserted in another place. The first of those reasons surprised me very much. It was that in the Court of First Instance the tribunal would be limited to one. But what about the fixing of fair rents under the Act of 1882? What about the constitution of the Court of First Instance in those cases? Surely what was right for the tenant there could not be unjust or unfair for the landlords now? In 1882, in every case where fair rents were fixed, there was one lawyer and one assessor constituting the court. I thought that one and one made. two. I think so still. Originally, and with the approval of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway from Ireland, when the rent fixing tribunals in the Court of First Instance were set up in Ireland, they did not consist of one person, but of three. There were never less than two constituting the court. Thus we find hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway saying when it was a case of the tenants' interests, the determination should not be left to the decision of one person, but that the court should consist of at least two or three. That seems to me to be a very striking illustration of the want of any

    213
    foundation for the suggestion that either in principle or in practice the determination of the price should be left, in the first instance, to a single individual.
    The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that there was a special advantage in this particular case in leaving this matter to be determined by the Judicial Commissioner, owing to his vast experience in questions involving the value of land. That may be sound in theory, but it is wrong in fact. The present Judicial Commissioner has only held his office 12 months, and he has neither more nor less experience in the practice of fixing the value of land than any of his colleagues in the King's Bench. We all know that they all, before they obtained the positions they now hold, practised for many years in the Land Court, and were engaged as counsel in questions affecting the value of land and in determining the principle on which that value ought to be fixed. Let me give another illustration, to be found under the Act of 1870. To whom did the appeals go in the cases of claims by tenants for compensation for unreasonable or capricious eviction? That went to a judge who had no assessor, and who had to determine all these questions for himself, and they were questions which involved just as intricate estimates of value and of the measure of the price of land as are now contemplated to be dealt with under the provisions of this Amendment. [Nationalist cheers.]
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: And what a complete and disastrous failure it was!
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: I was expecting that cheer. The hon. Member evidently did not observe the point of the cheers with which his colleagues greeted my last statement, for he speaks of the practice there referred to as a complete and disastrous failure. I will, however, accept his description of it. I will agree with him that it was a failure, and I will point out that you are now going to repeat that failure. You are going to again do what the hon. and learned Gentleman deems to have been in the past a disastrous and complete failure, and you are going to apply the same procedure to the enormous interests which are to be dealt with under the provisions of this Bill. I want to know—in the case of a great measure of this kind—on what conceivable principle the Government has strained at this gnat? What has induced them to strain at this gnat? They have swallowed a good deal. Having regard to the principles which we understood on the first and second read-
    214
    ing of this Bill the Government were prepared to die for before they would accept anything in the shape of surrender, and having regard to the surrenders they have made I cannot for the life of me understand what influence has been at work to prevent them accepting what I consider to be the most reasonable proposals contained in this Amendment. After all, what does it come to? The right hon. Gentleman says that one of the main objections is that a court of three cannot proceed as expeditiously as a court of one. I can understand that as a reason why in the case of every Court of Appeal you should confine its constitution to one. The tribunal proposed to be set up here is, however, to be practically a Court of Appeal from the Estates Commissioners. It is not a Court of First Instance, because the Estates Commissioners, under this Bill, will be the Court of First Instance, and we are not limited in this case to having a court of one. Under the Government Bill the Court of First Instance in this case will consist of at least two of the Estates Commissioners, and therefore I suggest that that in no way influenced the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, because under his scheme they have left the first determination of the matter to a body consisting of at least two persons. You are dealing not with a Court of First Instance at all, but with a Court of Appeal as to the question of price. The Court of Appeal is to be the final court except as regards questions of law. Now, the real matter involved in the determination of price is not a question of law. It is one of amount, and the court with which we are here dealing, and which the right hon. Gentleman call's the Court of First Instance, is, in fact, to be the final court as regards the main questions, mainly that of price. I cannot for the life of me understand the suggestion. I know of no analogy for it; I know of no court in England or under any Act of Parliament where you give an appeal on a question of price and that is left to the determination of a single individual. The right hon. Gentleman has-not ventured to assert anything against the integrity, impartiality, or ability of the gentlemen whom it is proposed should decide these matters, and it would not lie very well in his mouth to do so, because one-third of them are the nominees and appointees of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The suggestion made here is this, and I wonder how far it will be acquiesced

    215
    in by hon. Members below the Gangway, that the Irish judges are so overwhelmed by their judicial duties that you cannot afford even for a few months to take some of them away for a special work of this kind. The picture that the right hon. Gentleman drew of the length of time that would be occupied in hearing these appeals is not vary reconciliable with the assertion we have had in these Debates that the Government intended to resort to compulsion in a very few and exceptional cases, and I should have thought that the few and far between instances in which the Estates Commissioners would be compelled to resort to compulsion—I should have thought that the Court of Appeal to be appointed would have easily disposed of them. That, however, does not appear to be the view of the right hon. Gentleman. He seems to think they will be at work from week to week, and that they will be deluged with appeals.
    That throws a very strong light on what is going to be the actuality in regard to these appeals. It establishes what we have maintained all along, that once you let in the principle as applicable to a particular case, the pressure which is brought to bear on the Assistant Commissioner will be so great that the exception will become the rule. I am glad that to that extent the anticipations of the right hon. Gentleman as to the amount and kind of work which will be thrown upon this tribunal under the proposals of this Bill have been proved to be erroneous. What is, after all now between the right hon. Gentleman and his Government and those in another place who inserted this Amendment? He has quoted, and they have teen quoted ad nauseam, the remarks which I made when this matter was up in the House of Commons. But I have never had, and never pretended to have, in this House any title of any sort or kind to speak on behalf of the land-owners of Ireland. I do not represent them. I do not suppose 5 per cent, of my Constituents belong to that class, and I have never claimed or asserted any right to speak on their behalf. They know their own interests best, and just as the tenantry in Ireland in 1881 refused through their representatives to allow their rents to be fixed by the county court judge, and succeeded in getting a new tribunal set up, as least I should have thought that the persons who are primarily affected in this business, namely, the owners of land, should have a voice in saying what is to
    216
    be the nature and constitution of the court to which their interests are to be referred. I always listen attentively to the hon. Member for Waterford and read what he says, because he is the last Member in this House I should like to misquote, and he is scrupulously fair himself in quoting from an opponent. I have not his actual speech, but I do recall a speech he made a month ago in Ireland, in which he said that he, for one, would nave no objection to giving the land-owners in this matter the strongest judicial tribunal they could get. That was the substance, of his words, but I do not pledge myself to the literal accuracy of the quotation.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I will not contradict the right hon. Gentleman, but I have no recollection of that at all. I do not recollect making the speech.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: The hon. Member may take it from me that he did undoubtedly on a public platform pledge himself to this, that he had no objection to the landlords getting the strongest possible judicial tribunal for the purpose of determining the price of their land. The persons who constitute the tribunal cannot be impeached, and the right hon. Gentleman himself said that it is impossible to impeach them, and we have now come to this position in regard to this appeal, that after all that has been done in connection with it, and the efforts which have been made to bring about a settlement of this matter and let these appeals be brought, we are now to be told that there is to be a fight to the finish on this question of the tribunal. All I can say is I hope that this Amendment will be adhered to. I believe if there is one thing beyond anything else, that the land-owners are entitled to have, it is a thing which they have always yielded to the tenants—a strong and impartial tribunal to determine as between them and their landlords; and in adopting a tribunal which consists of the Judicial Commissioner himself, who is to be associated with two of his colleagues of the King's Bench, I think the land-owners have only insisted upon what is reasonable and just, and I again say that I trust that they will adhere, to their Amendment which they have proposed.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman was inconsistent, I think, in his statements and his arguments. At the commencement of his speech he said he could not understand why the Government were standing firm on this question at all.

    217
    He said they were straining at a gnat, but almost in the same sentence he spoke of it as a matter of such importance that the fate of the Bill would be put in the utmost danger or jeopardy if the Amendment were carried.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: I said so far as the Government was concerned it was a gnat, and so far as the owners, of property were concerned it was a vital matter.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I say as far as my view is concerned this is a matter of vital importance. We have been engaged all day yesterday in considering, and I am sorry to say in adopting, a series of Amendments by the Lords with regard to this Bill. Each one of those Amendments was injurious to the Bill, not only in the opinion of hon. Members sitting on these Benches but in the opinion of the Government and of the overwhelming majority of this House. Each one of those Amendments was bad, and the cumulative effect of them was most highly injurious to the value of this Bill, but I take such a serious view of this question that if none of those other Amendments had been carried, and if the Government accepted the new tribunal proposed by the House of Lords in this new Clause, I should say that it destroyed the value of their Bill. The right hon. Gentleman quoted from a speech which he said I delivered a month ago in Ireland, in which I said I was willing and anxious that the landlords should have the strongest possible tribunal to settle the value of their property. I have no recollection of making that speech, but I have no hesitation in repeating that today, and I regard the tribunal proposed by the Government as the strongest possible judicial tribunal which could be set up. Is it not ridiculous for the right hon. Gentleman—especially after his speech was quoted by the Attorney-General for Ireland—is it not ridiculous for him to contend that the Judicial Commissioner, Mr. Justice Wylie, a Judge of the Supreme Court, who commands the confidence of the right hon. Gentleman, does not constitute a strong judicial tribunal? What is the point? The right hon. Gentleman says, "You are going to compulsorily fix the value of a man's property, and therefore I am not satisfied that Mr. Justice Wylie, a Judge of the Supreme Court, is a fair or impartial or proper tribunal." But does the House realise that ever since the year 1881 the value of men's estates in Ireland have been from year to year compulsorily fixed, and compulsorily fixed by
    218
    what tribunal? Not by a Court of Appeal, not by Judges of the Supreme Court, sitting, as is suggested by the-House of Lords in this case, but by what may be called common or garden Sub-commissioners. There were three of them, but the last Government struck off one, so now there are only two. One is the Legal Commissioner and the other is only an assessor, and the decision in each of these cases is actually given by one man, and every decision as to the fair rents on an estate is a decision as to the value of the estate and a compulsory decision as to the value of the estate. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that extraordinary pressure will be brought to bear upon the tribunal by the Government.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: No, the hon. Member is referring to a different matter altogether. I was referring to the discretion of the Estates Commissioners in determining what estates they would deal with.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: There is no point in that contention, because the right hon. Gentleman has already conceded, and he admits as to that, that there is an appeal provided by the Government proposal on all these points to the Court of Appeal, so that the observation of the right hon. Gentleman is of no value if there is no suspicion that the tribunal set up by the Government is open to pressure. What is to be said as to the position of this one Sub-commissioner? Is he not open to pressure at this moment, and when this Sub-commissioner is sitting in the country towns, and is deciding the value of fair rents, what appeal is there from that? Is there an appeal to the Court of Appeal on the question of value? Is there an appeal to the two Judges of the Supreme Court? Nothing of the kind. There is an appeal to one man at the head of the Land Commission in Dublin, and his decision on the question of value is final. In these circumstances, and in view, of the existing law on the question of fixing fair rents it does seem to me ridiculous for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the tribunal proposed in this Bill, namely, the Judicial Commissioner, Mr. Justice Wylie, who has the rank of a Judge of the Supreme Court, and whose ability and impartiality everyone admits—it is ridiculous to say that that is not a fair tribunal. Take the tribunal proposed by the House of Lords. Two Judges of the King's Bench Division, with an appeal on this question

    219
    of value to the Court of Appeal. That does not exist with regard to any other case in Ireland.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: It is only an appeal on a question of law.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I understand, but what he has advocated is an appeal to the Court of Appeal on the question of Value.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: No, not on the question of value, but only on questions of law.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: Then, so far, the right hon. Gentleman is not at variance with the Government, and he does not suggest that there should be an appeal on questions of price to these two Judges in the King's Bench Division, who had no sort of experience in fixing questions of value at all, whereas the Judicial Commissioner proposed by the Government is engaged from day to day in doing this very work. We believe that the tribunal proposed by the House of Lords would make the working of this Bill absolutely impossible. Just consider the position in which we stand with regard to compulsion under this Bill. First of all the Bill provided a general power of compulsion. Then that general power was struck out at the instance of the House of Lords, and the compulsion was limited to compulsion for the treatment of congestion, and although we felt very bitterly the striking out of that general power we felt that the granting of compulsion all through Ireland in regard to this question of congestion would be a very valuable thing. Now the House of Lords comes along, and, having made that so-called concession on the question of compulsion in relation to-congestion, they propose a tribunal which everyone connected with Ireland knows perfectly well could not, and would not work, and they have taken away with the one hand what they professed to do with the other. Under no circumstances could we take any responsibility for a tribunal of this kind, and I am glad the Government has stood firm upon this matter. In my judgment it would be better for the right hon. Gentleman to lose his Bill than to accept this tribunal. Of course, that is a matter for himself, I cannot compel him to drop his Bill. I am powerless in this matter. He can do as he likes. He can pass his Bill in spite of what we say if he likes, but we have the duty thrown upon us of saying that, in our opinion, it would
    220
    be better to lose the Bill than to accept this tribunal. The hon. Member (Mr. Moore) just now said we were dying to get this Bill passed. I admit I was dying to get the Bill passed in the form in which this House passed it, because it was in that form a great Bill, and would have gone very far indeed to settle the Irish Land Question. If it is carried in its present form, even though this Amendment of the House of Lords be defeated, it will not settle the Irish Question. In its present form I am not dying for the Bill to pass. The people who are dying for the Bill to pass are those landlords who want to get the benefit of the £22,000,000 additional money which the Bill is providing for their benefit, both in flotation losses and in addition to the bonus. If it rested with us we would vote against the passage of this Bill with this Amendment in it.
    Mr. MOORE: I do not know that anyone really was carried away by the eloquence of the hon. Member. Those who have studied the actions of hon. Members and have listened to their protests can hardly mistake them for reality. We know what these protests are worth. I was surprised to hear the hon. and learned Member say this was a great Bill when it passed the Commons.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I said that all through.
    Mr. MOORE: No, you did not. When the hon. and learned Member was outvoted on the first sham fight on the increased interest of the tenants' annuity he told the House of Commons that the Bill was hardly worth taking.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: No; on the third reading of the Bill I said it was in my judgment a great and far-reaching method of reform.
    Mr. MOORE: I was talking of the attitude which the hon and learned Member took up when the Government rejected his own Amendment, which every Irish Unionist voted for, in protesting against the increase of the tenants' annuity. He then used different language, and said the annuity had taken half the benefit out of the Bill. With regard to the present Amendment, it has come down to this, that these compulsory powers are to be exercised for the purpose of congestion, and when you are dealing with a tribunal which has to do with the exercise of compulsory powers it is more in

    221
    relation to congested areas than to any other. What is really, as the Bill stands, the real Court of First Instance in regard to compulsory purchase in congested areas? It is a Board of nine members, who are to initiate the whole proceeding, and even the Chief Secretary cannot tell us now a single name of these nine. It will be safe to assume that 75 per cent. of them will be members or ex-members of the staff of the "Freeman's Journal," and that the remainder will be' nominated by the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) and his Friends. We shall have Mr. John Fitzgibbon, probably Mr. Denis Johnstone, and a few gentlemen who have shown what real patriots they are by undergoing the penalty of imprisonment. If a Board constituted in this way is to be the Court of First Instance to decide what powers are to be put in force for compulsion, is it any wonder that the men whose lands are to be taken compulsorily on the initiative of that Board should ask that at least the Court of Appeal, which by judicial process is to decide these matters, should be one in which the owners of the land to be taken have confidence? This is their proposal.
    Mr. BIRRELL: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman any objection to the Court of Appeal in Ireland?
    Mr. MOORE: The point, is that we are to be driven from appeal to appeal. Ultimately you are to go to the Court of Appeal in Ireland, instead of having a strong enough appellate tribunal, and there is no appeal on price.
    Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member said the Congested Districts Board would be the initiative in this matter. They would not be the initiative in the question of price; they would be the initiative in the question of what estate was to be purchased, and on the question whether that estate ought or ought not to be purchased there is an appeal under this proposal to the full Court of Appeal.
    Mr. MOORE: But the Congested Districts Board have the final offer. Is not that an initiative as to price?
    Mr. BIRRELL: But Mr. Justice Wylie determines that question.
    Mr. MOORE: The position the Chief Secretary takes up is that if you have an ultimate Court of Appeal in Ireland, inasmuch as we all have confidence in the Court of Appeal, it does not matter what
    222
    happens in the intermediate stage, what tribunal you put up, or what costs you incur so long as you have a final Court of Appeal in the Court of Appeal. Why should you be driven to the Court of Appeal in every case? I thought the Government wanted to avoid litigation and cost. But there is another objection. I say nothing against Mr. Justice Wylie. I agree with every word that has been said about him. He has the confidence of the entire profession. What is Mr. Justice Wylie's real function in Ireland? I do not believe he has heard fair rent appeals on more than half a dozen occasions, because his most important function is that he represents the State judicially in sanctioning the paying out of every farthing of public money which goes to land purchase. You have at present £62,000,000 of public money which is to be paid out under agreements which have been lodged and which can only be paid out after judicial investigation for which Mr. Justice Wylie himself is judicially responsible. Not a penny of that will be paid out without his signature. He is the only judge who is qualified to do this. If you take him from his work of passing final schedules, superintending the work of the examiners who have gone into the title and paying out this money, it is another block on land purchase, because there is no one who can take his place.
    Mr. CHERRY: I think both Mr. Justice Dodd and Mr. Justice Fitzgerald could take his place.
    Mr. MOORE: I should be glad to learn under what Statute Mr. Justice Dodd could take his place. He was appointed an ordinary Judge of the King's Bench Division on the understanding that when required he was to do Land Commission work.
    Mr. CHERRY: That was under the Act of 1903.
    Mr. MOORE: Is it desirable to take Mr. Justice Wylie away from this work? If it is not desirable, I do not think there is much in the interruption. If you remove Mr. Justice Wylie you are putting another block in the way of land purchase. I do not suppose that argument appeals to the Government because, as far as I can make out, their intention is to put every obstacle in the way of land purchase, because they say, with the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon), the Act has been working too smoothly. I think the Lords will be very ill-advised if they allow for a moment any alteration to be made in their proposal which would

    223
    lesson the value to them of the Court of Appeal which they have proposed to set up, a court against which no impartiality and no ulterior motive can be suggested but which gives confidence to those whose land is going to be taken and which in justice they ought to have, even at the risk of more protests from hon. Members below the Gangway.
    Mr. CHERRY: I made a mistake just now. Mr. Justice Dodd could not be compelled to do this work; he is only appointed for the purpose of fixing fair rents.
    Mr. MOORE: That is what I said. I do not think it very material. I trust those that moved this Amendment and carried it in the other House will adhere to it, because there is no earthly use in all these safeguards which are put into the Bill unless you have a tribunal which you can trust absolutely to carry them out, and, without saying anything against Mr. Justice Wylie, I think it would be a misfortune that he should be taken away from his legitimate work of distributing public money, provided the Government intend to apply any more money for land purchase.
    Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond) said he had no power to compel the Chief Secretary to drop this Bill. We all remember, only a couple of years ago, in the exercise of the power which we in Ireland know he possesses, that he made the Chief Secretary drop the Irish Councils Bill. In that case he only had to hold up his little finger and the Bill was dropped. I have not the slightest doubt that if it was his real wish that this Bill should be dropped he could exercise his powers in precisely the same way as he did then, but I think he has not the slightest intention of doing anything further than making the strong protest that he has made towards wrecking this Bill, and on that assumption I should certainly hope that Noble Lords in another place will stand to their guns firmly and will insist on having the tribunal which they have put in their Amendment as the tribunal which is to consider these questions, principally of the price of land to be acquired compulsorily. I am very glad indeed that the crucial question on which this Bill is either to stand or to fall, if we are to believe the Attorney-General and the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond), is being put clearly before the House of Commons. The hon. and learned Gentleman said we were occupied all
    224
    yesterday in adopting the modifications in the Bill which had been proposed by the House of Lords, and which went very far towards spoiling the usefulness of the measure. I would point out to hon. Members below the Gangway that if they have had to adopt modifications in the Bill, they must, always remember that in bargaining, whether in regard to an Act of Parliament, a pound of tea, or a horse, they always ask twice as much as they ever hope to get. Therefore. I can quite understand that they were not at all surprised when they found themselves in the position of having to accept considerable modifications when the Bill came back from the House of Lords. But they forget that, even if they made concessions yesterday, the House of Lords has made very great concessions in what they have allowed to remain in the Bill. The question of compulsory purchase, which is the most important part of the Bill, is absolutely antagonistic not only to the interests of the land-owners in Ireland but antagonistic to the interests of land-owners all over the kingdom. It is not a small concession which has been made in another place to admit the principle of compulsion to such an extent as has been done. It is not fair to assume that all the concessions have been on the part of hon. Members below the Gangway, for in reality they are getting everything, and the owners of land in Ireland stand to lose everything, unless, I admit, provision is made for their getting a fair price for what is taken from them. If that is done, they will not have very much to fear. If hon. Members on this side of the House were assured that under this Bill the landlords should get a fair price for their land, we should not raise any further objection. It is with that laudable desire we hope that the Amendment proposed by the House of Lords will be adhered to. With the exception of cases where land is compulsorily acquired for public works, railways, and so on, it has not hitherto been possible to compel landlords to sell their land, what is now proposed is a perfectly new principle in English law, and it is one which has been resisted on both sides of the House for many years. Now for the first time that principle is embodied in an Act of Parliament. In connection with everything relating to the purchase of land in Ireland there has been a great deal of dissatisfaction and disagreement as to whether the decisions of the existing tribunals were right or not. I was, therefore, surprised to hear the hon. and

    225
    learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) quoting this afternoon the case of the Sub-commissioners as the analogy on which we should act in appointing the tribunal to be set up under this Bill. My recollection of the action of the Nationalist party with relation to the fixing of fair rents is that they have invariably complained since 1881 that rents were unfairly fixed and that they were too high. [An Hon. Member: "Very properly."] An hon. Member says, "Very properly," but it is the tribunal which has fixed rents for the last 30 years. That is suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford as the analogy which he wishes to see followed in setting up this tribunal. The land-owners in Ireland are the persons who are to be compulsorily expropriated. After listening to the Debate this afternoon I venture to say that the argument used by the Attorney-General that the tribunal proposed by the House of Lords would not be able to cope with the work is of no value. The Chief Secretary himself, in putting his proposal before us, insisted time and again that it would be only in very few exceptional cases that this tribunal would be called upon to act, and that the cases would be rare where the landlords and the Congested Districts Board or the Estates Commissioners would not be able to agree between themselves on the price. If that is so, then I say the objection raised by the Attorney-General to the tribunal proposed by the House of Lords, namely, that it would be impossible to get the work done in that way, falls to the ground at once. Then the objection was taken that the Judges at the High Court know nothing of the value of land. It has been pointed that the present Judicial Commissioner, Mr. Wylie, until a year ago had no more acquaintance with the question of land than the Judges of the High Court. [An HON. MEMBER: "He was a Sub-commissioner."] That is a long time ago. [An HON. MEMBER: "He has more experience."] Unfortunately, Mr. Wylie may be called away at any time. We are asking on behalf of the persons in Ireland who are going to be expropriated, that there should be set up the strongest and fairest tribunal you can get, and I ask whether there is anything unreasonable in asking that it should consist of the Judicial Commissioner and two Judges of the High Court? That is perfectly fair and impartial, and if the Government refuse, and if hon. Members below the Gangway refuse to acquiesce in that proposal, it
    226
    must be because they have some ulterior motive. They think that the tribunal would fix the prices to be paid to the landlords at too high a figure. There can be no other assumption. Nobody would seriously contend that those gentlemen, after hearing expert witnesses, would have any difficulty in determining what the proper price was. Another objection to the Lords Amendment was that it would mean the taking away of two judges from the ordinary rota of the judges, and thereby dislocating the ordinary legal work in Ireland, but that is an objection which also falls to the ground like the others. Because the landlords ask a little bit more than hon. Members below the Gangway consider they are justly entitled to ask, they think that no good is to be obtained from the Bill and that it might as well be thrown away. If they take up that attitude, let them do so. I have always held that the Bill contains a great deal morn harm than good, but even with the depleted terms it contains I suppose there are some persons who are prepared to take the Bill. I believe the landlords who want the Bill are very few and far between, but if they want to get rid of their land at a price, I would be very sorry to stop them. With that exception and the provision which the Bill contains in the interests of the ratepayers, I do not think the measure contains anything which should make either landlords or tenants have the slightest hesitation in throwing it back on the Government at any time.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: I regret that the Chief Secretary has not said a word to us in this Debate, because, notwithstanding the impatience of some hon. Members below the Gangway, I would remind the Government that this is the most important question in the Bill. There has been some controversy as to what the exact proposals of the Government are and as to what would be the effect of the proposed tribunal upon the people whose land is to be taken. Whatever may be the case in regard to these controversies, there can be no dispute that you are asking Parliament to empower a body in Ireland which is not responsible to this House, and which is not represented by a Minister sitting in this House in the same sense that other spending departments are represented, to compulsorily acquire land for the relief of congestion, and you are taking credit to the Government for attempting to relieve congestion by this new measure. So far, so good, but you have no right to take that credit while refusing to those whose land

    227
    is to be taken the form of tribunal which is provided in every other case where land is compulsorily acquired, except in connection with allotments and small holdings. I had hoped that the Chief Secretary might have indicated to the House that there was room yet for some arrangement or compromise. We have heard the declaration of the Attorney-General that the Government cannot accept the proposal made in another place. It was said by the Attorney-General that we ought to be content with the fact that the Judicial Commissioner is to fix the price. There is no suggestion against the good faith and high minded action of the Judicial Commissioner. He is not impugned. At the same time it is perfectly true that the Judicial Commissioner is a member of the Estates Commission.
    Mr. CHERRY: The Land Commission.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: He is a member of the Land Commission, and therefore he is to a large extent a party to these proceedings. I quite understand the interruption of the learned Attorney-General (Mr. Cherry), but even he will admit that in this controversy the distinction between the people who are concerned in the administration of the Land Acts in Ireland is a very narrow one, and everyone concerned in the administration of the various Land Acts, of which this is going to form one, have a common object in view, and are working practically on the same lines. To set up the Judicial Commissioner as an absolutely independent tribunal, to whom all the landlords can look whose land is to be taken away compulsorily for the relief of congestion in which they may have no concern themselves, is to make a proposal which is asking a great deal of those whose land is being taken away, and I regret extremely that there has been no suggestion so far of any possible compromise. Various suggestions have been made outside this House for a special tribunal, or a court such as was set up in the Land Act of 1871. There is, I believe, precedent m some of these earlier Acts of a special tribunal. I could name more than one public official in Ireland whose names will be received with universal approbation both by those above the Gangway and those below the Gangway. One of those who have been suggested is the Vice-President of the Local Government Board, a man of exceptional experience in connection with congestion, and in connection with the general government of Ire-
    228
    land, against whom there never has been the smallest suggestion by anybody, either Nationalist or unionist, and a man whose services to Ireland have been of the highest possible character. I say, as an instance, that Sir Henry Robinson is one of those officials who might be selected if it were decided to have a special tribunal.
    Do not let there be any mistake about the position. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) made it perfectly clear that he and his friends do not want this Bill if there is to be the smallest change in the tribunal. I have no authority to speak for those in another House, who have put this Amendment in, but with all responsibility for my words, I say that unless an attempt is made to compromise over this question, the fate of this Bill will be gravely imperilled. When hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway say, as they said to-day, that this Bill will be taken by Irish landlords because they want money, I think they are doing a poor service to the cause they represent; because surely we know that the smooth working of the Land Acts in Ireland is at least as important to the tenant farmers in Ireland as to the landlords. The supply of money for the purpose of land purchase is as important to the general good government of Ireland and to the farmers as it is to the landlords themselves. Therefore to suggest that the landlords welcome this Bill simply because it provides money for themselves is to do a poor service to the cause which the Nationalist Members themselves represent. I do not believe, if the landlords of Ireland are not satisfied with the tribunal in all respects, that they will consider the proposals in this Bill so favourable as to justify them in accepting it. What their view may be I do not know, but I do know this, that every argument that has been addressed by my hon. Friends behind is one which rests on strong conviction, and is not addressed to the House simply because they desire to oppose this Bill. On the contrary, we should like to see this Bill passed, and should like to see an effort made by Parliament to strengthen the efforts made by the Irish Government to deal with congestion. But I cannot contemplate without dismay and without a grievous feeling of alarm any serious stoppage in the transfer of land from owner to occupier in Ireland. For these reasons I would be thankful to see the Bill passed; but I say to the Government in all seriousness, whatever may be their opinion in I regard to Mr. Justice Wylie, the present

    229
    Judicial Commissioner—and I share in that opinion—as to his competence to deal with these difficult and delicate questions, they are asked now to make a change which is not of a very grave kind, and will not, I believe, produce the result anticipated by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I believe, on the other hand, that if this tribunal which has been suggested is not one which meets with their approval, it will be possible to find one upon which all are agreed, and I regret extremely that there has been no suggestion of possible compromise. All that we have heard from the Government and from hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway is this: "There are our terms; take them or leave them. If you do not take them this Bill will drop. "If that is so, I say that the responsibility for that result will rest with the Government.
    Mr. BIRRELL: The observations of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) I think demand some sort of reply. I am not here to speculate as to what the fate of the Bill may be. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway say, I believe with perfect sincerity, that anxious as they are to have a Bill, they are not anxious to have any Bill, and hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway taunt them with the feeling that. "You would take any Bill." What Bill would the hon. and learned Gentleman take?
    Mr. MOORE: None at all.
    Mr. BIRRELL: However, I am not to speculate on that. I have my own responsibility as Minister in charge of this Bill. I listened to these accusations, which are rather of a bluffing character, from hon. Members with indifference. I am most anxious to save this Bill, because I am anxious to relieve the ratepayers of Ireland from an immediate obligation, and I am also anxious to preserve the framework, if only the framework, of land purchase in Ireland, which is imperilled, and has been almost destroyed owing to the complete financial breakdown of the whole machinery of the Act of 1902. I am anxious to go on doing what this Government has done with greater generosity than any previous Government, namely, supply five or six or eight or ten millions a year for the purpose of discharging these obligations. No other Government has ever done as much, and we have continued to do it at a rate which was never contemplated by the promoters of the Act of 1903, who took their stand
    230
    upon a certain speculation as to the price of Land Stock. They hoped that Land Stock, which they issued first at 88, would go up, and that if it had gone up they would increase the five millions a year. But instead of that it has gone down. I am most anxious for these reasons to preserve and maintain this Bill. But I stand here at this moment among the fragments of my own measure. Hon. Gentlemen opposite speak as if this was the one point as if nothing else in the nature of change had been suggested. They say, "How obstinate he is," and "it all comes down to the question of price, giving two Judges of the High Court and the Judicial Commissioner the right to determine the price and having to appeal to them for every acre of land required by the Congested Districts Board and by the Estates Commissioners for the relief of congestion, and the relief of congestion alone. Surely you will not wreck the Bill on that." But in answer to this I may point out that in this Bill I have given way already. I have been doing nothing yesterday, all day and all night, but giving way, and now that this particular point is reached they say that there is nothing at issue except the price. The price is made the principal point. But if that be so, then why, may I ask, did they insist in the House of Lords on an appeal on the ground of necessity?
    That was not in our Bill, but we conceded that point to them, that the Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board should not be trusted to do the work of their own Departments; that they should not be justified in saying, "We want this particular estate," but that the owner could say for any particular reason, "You could get land elsewhere, and you cannot have this unless you can show the necessity for it. "We have conceded the appeal as to necessity, and now we are content to leave to Mr. Justice Wylie that matter of necessity and all the other points of law which are closely involved in the question of necessity. With regard to the restrictions which we have accepted which are prohibitions as to kind of lands to be acquired, there is an appeal from Mr. Justice Wylie to three learned judges, constituting the Court of Appeal in Ireland. I cannot understand for the life of me how any human being can say that we have not given the fullest possible protection to the landlords. Except, they say, on the question of price there is no Court of Appeal. I do not see how any court,

    231
    the House of Lords, or anybody else, on the question of price can act as a Court of Appeal. All they can do is to delegate their powers. Eventually you come down to the opinion of one man when it is a question of price, just as you do under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts. Each side appoints an arbitrator. If they differ—as frequently they do—an umpire is appointed, and on that umpire alone millions of money have been fixed as the price of land, and you ultimately get to one man. You do not get these three learned lawyers sitting in Dublin. How can they determine precisely the value of land away down in a distant county which they do not visit and do not inspect, and which they have always declined to visit or to inspect? Judges time out of mind have said it is no business of theirs to do anything of the
    sort. "If you like, we will appoint our inspector to go and inspect the property." So on the question of price you have to rely on one particular man. We are all agreed that Mr. Justice Wylie, who is an important and responsible person, is fitted, and therefore I only rose for the purpose of repudiating the suggestion that I am the obstinate person or that I am inspired with any other wish save to do what is needful in the matter. I have proved my earnest, passionate, desire to save this Bill, but I have conceded point after point against my own intelligent conviction, and it is therefore not right to say that I am the obstinate person who will make no concessions.
    Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 246; Noes, 45.

    Division No. 910.]

    AYES.

    [5.0 p.m.

    Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

    Cullinan, J.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Curran, Peter Francis

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Hodge, John

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Delany, William

    Hogan, Michael

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Ambrose, Robert

    Dillon, John

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Hooper, A. G.

    Astbury, John Meir

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Duffy, William J.

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Baker, Joseph A.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Barker, Sir John

    Erskine, David C.

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Jenkins, J.

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Essex, R. W.

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Barnard, E. B.

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Jones, Sir D, Brynmor (Swansea)

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Jones, Leil (Appleby)

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Beauchamp, E.

    Falconer, J.

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Joyce, Michael

    Bertram, Julius

    Fenwick, Charles

    Kearley, Rt. Hon. Sir Hudson

    Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

    Ferens, T. R.

    Keating, M.

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Ffrench, Peter

    Kelley, George D.

    Boland, John

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Flynn, James Christopher

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Brigg, Sir John

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Laidlaw, Sir Robert

    Bright, J. A.

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Lambert, George

    Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

    Furness, Sir Christopher

    Lamont, Norman

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Ginnell, L.

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Byles, William Pollard

    Glover, Thomas

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Cameron, Robert

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Gulland, John W.

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Lundon, T.

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Hancock, J. G.

    Lynch, A. (Clare. W.)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Lynch, H. B.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Clough, William

    Harrington, Timothy

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

    Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

    M'Callum, John M.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A,

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    M'Kean, John

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Helme, Norval Watson

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Cowan, W. H.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Crean, Eugene

    Henry, Charles S.

    Manfield, Harry (Northants)

    Cross, Alexander

    Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

    Marnham, F. J.

    Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

    Pointer, J.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Massie, J.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W H.

    Stanley, Hut. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Stewart, Halley (Greerock)

    Meagher, Michael

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Meehan, Francis E (Leitrim, N.)

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Sunderland)

    Middlebrook, William

    Radford, G. H.

    Summerbell, T.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Mooney, J. J.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Morse, L. L.

    Reddy, M.

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    Muldoon, John

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Murnaghan, George

    Rees, J. D.

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Myer, Horatio

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Toulmin, George

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Verney, F. W.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Walsh. Stephen

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

    O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    O'Dowd, John

    Roche John (Galway, East)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    O'Grady, J.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Pose, Sir Charles Day

    Williamson, Sir A.

    O'Malley, William

    Rowlands J.

    Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

    O'Neill, Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Winfrey, R.

    Paul, Herbert

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Sheehy, David

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    NOES.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Clark, George Smith

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Younger, George

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Moore, William

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Morpeth, Viscount

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount Valentia and Lord Balcarres.

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.

    Lords Amendment: Leave out from end of Sub-section (2) to end of Clause.
    Mr. CHERRY: I move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment." This portion is proposed to be left out in order to substitute other Clauses for it.
    Lords Amendment: After Clause 64, insert Clauses E, F, and G.

    CLAUSE E.—(Powers of Court to Restrain the Compulsory Acquisition of Land).
    (1) If any person interested in the estate or untenanted land objects to the acquisition of the same under this Part of this Act on the ground—

    (a) that other land sufficient and equally I suitable for the purposes for which
    234
    the estate or untenanted land is proposed to be acquired is available for purchase by the Commissioners or Board, as the case may be, by voluntary agreement at a reasonable price; or

    (b) that the estate or untenanted land consists of or includes land in the occupation of the owner which is, or forms part of, a park, garden, pleasure ground, recreation ground, demesne, or home farm, or was purchased under the provisions of the Irish Church Act, 1869, for a sum not exceeding two thousand pounds; or

    (c) that the estate or untenanted land consists of or includes land which has been purchased under the Land Purchase Acts, or is the property of a local authority, or is held by any corporation or company for the purposes of a

    235
    railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking; or

    (d) that if the estate or untenanted land is acquired as proposed other land of the owner adjoining the estate or untenanted land will be injuriously affected or the amenity of the owner's residence will be impaired:

    he may, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, apply to the court for an order restraining the Estates Commissioners from acquiring the estate or untenanted land, or any specified part or parts of the same under this Part of this Act.
    (2) The court, for the purposes of this Part of this Act, shall be a court constituted of the Judicial Commissioners and two Judges of the King's Bench Division of the High Court to be selected from a rota formed for the purpose.
    (3) The court shall hear and determine all applications coming before it under this Section, and may, if the justice of the case so requires, amend the final offer by excluding therefrom any part or parts of the lands therein described, or (with the consent of the owner and the body by whom the final offer was sent) by including therein any other lands of the owner.
    (4) Where a final offer is amended by the court under this Section, the body by whom the offer was sent may make such consequential Amendments in the offer as appear to them to be necessary, and the offer as amended in pursuance of this Section shall be deemed to be the final offer for the purpose of any subsequent proceedings under this Part of this Act.
    (5) The court with respect to any applications coming before it under this Part of this Act and to all questions arising thereon shall have and may exercise all the powers, rights, and privileges of the Chancery Division of the High Court, and the decision of the court on any question other than one of law shall be final.
    (6) There shall be an appeal to the Court of Appeal from any decision of the Court under this Section on any question of law, and the decision of the Court of Appeal on such question shall be final.
    (7) An order of the court or the Court of Appeal restraining the Estate Commissioners from acquiring land under this Part of this Act shall remain in force for five years after it is made.
    (8) Rules of the Supreme Court shall provide for the forming of a rota for the purposes of this Part of this Act, and for the procedure to be adopted on the hear-
    236
    ing by the court, and the Court of Appeal of applications and appeals under this Section.
    (9) The expression "owner" in this Section means any person having power under the Land Purchase Acts to sell the estate or untenanted land.
    Mr. CHERRY: I move to amend the new Clause by omitting from paragraph (d) the words, "or the amenity of the owner's residence will be impaired." These last words are very vague, and so far as there is any substance in them they are not necessary.
    Mr. MOORE: I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not insist on this Amendment. These words are in the Labourers Act, and, I believe, in the Evicted Tenants Act, so that land may not be acquired for the purposes of those enactments in positions which would affect the amenities of owners' private residences—for instance, a piece of land opposite a man's lodge gate. I do not suppose the right hon. and learned Gentleman would wish anything like that to be done, yet the present action of the Government almost offers an inducement to follow a course contrary to the spirit of the Acts which I have named.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Drafting and consequential Amendments made.
    Mr. CHERRYmoved, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words "The Court shall hear and determine all applications coming before it under this Section," and to insert instead thereof the words "The Judicial Commissioner shall hear in the prescribed manner and determine all applications coming before him under this Part of this Act, and for that purpose shall have, and may exercise, the powers conferred on the Land Commissioners by Sub-sections (1), (3) and (4) of Section 48 of the Act of 1881."
    Mr. MOORE: This is an Amendment which is not on the Paper, and we have not had time to consider it. I do not propose to put the House to the trouble of a Division, but it will be understood that we are in no sense agreeing, though these Amendments are consequential.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Words proposed there inserted.
    Mr. CHERRYmoved, in Sub-section (6), to leave out the words "on any question of law."
    The effect of this Amendment will be to allow of a very much wider appeal to the Judicial Commissioner than the House of Lords gave, and it will be not merely on questions of law, but on questions of fact, and of mixed questions of law and fact. [An Hon. Member: "And not of value?"] No; not of value.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put and negatived.
    Further Amendment made: In same Subsection to leave out the words "on such question."

    CLAUSE F.—(Applications as to Price.)
    (1) Subject to any application to the court under the last preceding Section, and to the final determination of all questions arising thereon, any person interested in the estate or untenanted land who is dissatisfied with the price named in the final offer may apply, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, by way of objection to the court to fix the price to be paid for the estate or untenanted land, and, subject to the previsions of this Section, the price shall be fixed by the court accordingly.
    (2) The court, upon any application tinder this Section, if satisfied that the price can more conveniently and properly be fixed by arbitration, may—

    (a) On the request of any of the parties interested other than the Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board, if the question of price is the solo question or sole remaining question in dispute; or

    (b) In any case where the parties so consent:

    refer the application to an arbitrator to be appointed by the Court, and in the case of any such reference the provisions of the Common Law Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1856, as amended by any subsequent enactment, shall, with the necessary modifications, apply in like manner as in the case of a reference to arbitration under that Act.
    (3) In fixing the price to be paid for an estate or untenanted land, regard shall
    238
    be had to the fair value of the same to the owner, but no additional allowance shall be made in respect of the purchase being compulsory.
    (4) The costs and expenses of and incidental to any application under this Section shall be at the discretion of the Court, and the Court may, if it thinks fit, order the same to be paid by the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board.
    Drafting Amendment made.
    Mr. CHERRYmoved, in Sub-section (4), to leave out the word "Section," and to insert instead thereof the words "Part of this Act."
    Mr. MOORE: Would that govern costs in the Court of Appeal? This would seem to restrict it to costs before the Judicial Commissioner.
    Mr. CHERRY: I do not think that is so.
    Mr. MOORE: I understand that the Government undertaking is costs in each court. Probably the matter will be arranged.
    Mr. CHERRY: Yes, if it can be done. That is the intention.
    Mr. MOORE: Perhaps that Amendment can be inserted at a later stage?
    Mr. CHERRY: If necessary, but I do not think it is necessary.
    Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.
    Further drafting Amendments made.
    Clause G (Completion of Purchase) agreed to, with drafting Amendment made.
    Lords Amendments agreed to: Leave out Clause 65 (Restriction on Compulsory Purchase of Land). Leave out Clause 66 (Orders for Framing Lists of Assessors).

    CLAUSE 68.—(Definitions.)
    Lords Amendment agreed to: In second paragraph—"The expression 'the Land Purchase Acts' includes the Land Purchase Acts as defined by the Act of 1903, the Irish Land Act, 1907, and Parts I., II., and IV. of this Act"; after the word "by" ["by the Act"] insert the words "the Act of 1896 and."

    CLAUSE 69.—(Untenanted Land.)
    Land in the occupation of a person holding under a fee farm grant or a lease for lives renewable for ever, or a lease for a term of years of which not less than sixty are unexpired, shall, for the purposes of the Act of 1903, the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907, and this Act, be deemed to be untenanted land.
    Lords Amendments agreed to: Leave out the words "the Act of 1903"; leave out the words "and this Act."

    FIRST SCHEDULE.
    Sub-section (3).—In the case of the purchase of a parcel of untenanted land, the number of years' purchase represented by the advance shall be calculated in manner prescribed by the Treasury.
    Lords Amendments agreed to: After the word "land" insert the words "and in any case where the amount advanced is less than the purchase money"; after the word "Treasury" insert the words "regard being had in the case of untenanted land to the fair annual value of the land to the owner."

    SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Acts Repealed.)
    Lords Amendment agreed to: At end insert the words "save as regards sales of parcels of land purchased by the Congested Districts Board before the passing of this Act."
    Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with the Amendments made by the Lords to the Bill.
    Committee nominated of,—Mr. Birrell, the Attorney-General for Ireland, Mr. Long, Mr. Moore, and the Solicitor-General for Ireland.
    Three to be the quorum.
    To withdraw immediately.—[Mr. Birrell.]
    Reasons for disagreeing with Lords Amendments afterwards reported, and agreed to.
    To be communicated to the Lords.— [Mr. Birrell.]

DEVELOPMENT AND ROAD IMPROVEMENT FUNDS BILL.
Motion made and Question proposed: "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
Lord BALCARRES: I beg to move: "That the Debate be now adjourned."
240
We expect a very important Ministerial statement, and therefore I move.

ASSURANCE COMPANIES BILL [Lords].
Considered in Committee.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
Sir FREDERICK BANBURY moved: "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
Mr. F. MADDISON: The Irish Land Bill was concluded very early, so that it would be a mistake to adjourn this Debate. I think it is in the interests of the Committee that the business down on the Paper should be discussed. What has happened is one of those incidents that may occur at any time. This is not a party matter, and I take it hon. Members opposite are just as much concerned as we are in getting useful legislation. Therefore, to move to report Progress at a time like this when Ministers have not had the opportunity of getting into the House strikes me as not being at all conducive to the best interests of business, and on that account I shall vote against the Motion.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: I think this is the most scandalous contempt of the House of Commons that has ever been displayed, and this is the House which says it ought to be the sole arbiter. Let the hon. Member go across to the other building and see the way the other House is crammed. He will not find no Ministers there. He will not find a deserted Ministerial side of the House, but he will find people really intent on doing their work. I venture to ask the Parliamentary Secretary where the President of the Board of Trade is?
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Joseph Pease): I express an apology to the House that the Ministers in charge of the Bill were not present at the exact moment they were called upon. Usually, by the courtesy of the House, a Bill is allowed to proceed until the Minister is brought from his room. I can assure the House that in a moment the President of the Board of Trade will be here to take charge of the Bill.
Mr. CLAUDE HAY: This is a Bill of profound interest to the working classes of this country. It is a Bill which all sections of the House desire to see passed in the interests of the friendly societies. It is a Bill in respect of which Members of all parties have been urged by their constituents to support. It is a Bill which has been the subject of very prolonged negotiations with the Board of Trade, but so little do the Government think of opinion in the country that they cannot even be in the House of Commons, knowing full well that this Bill might come on at any moment during the last two hours, and that despite the fact that Members supporting the Bill have been here de die in diem to attend to the Bill. It is nothing more nor less than an outrage upon the House of Commons and an insult to the working classes. I only hope that due note will be taken of the scandalous proceedings of the Government this afternoon. I can promise them that when I have a chance I shall draw the attention of my Constituents to the matter.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Samuel Evans): I think the hon. Gentle-
man has pitched his observations a little high. With reference to the Development Bill, we understood that there would be another Division on the Irish Land Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and I were talking together, and if I had been sent for I could have been here in half a minute. I was in charge of the Bill on Report, and could have gone on with it now. As to the Assurance Companies Bill, there is no reason why we should not proceed with it. The President of the Board of Trade is the Cabinet Minister in charge of the Bill——
Mr. HAY: Where is he?
Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I do not keep all the Cabinet Ministers in my pocket. It will be remembered that I was present on the Bench with my right hon. Friend when we last discussed the Bill.
Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 36; Noes, 196.

ASSURANCE COMPANIES BILL [Lords].

  CLAUSE 1.—(Companies to which Act applies.)
  This Act shall apply to all persons or bodies of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate, not being registered under the Acts relating to friendly societies or to trade unions (hereinafter referred to as assurance companies), whether established before or after the commencement of this Act and whether established within or without the United Kingdom, who carry on within the United Kingdom assurance business of all or any of the following classes:—

  (a) Life assurance business; that is to say, the issue of, or the undertaking of liability under, policies of assurance upon human life, or the granting of annuities upon human life;

  (b) Fire insurance business; that is to say, the issue of, or the undertaking of liability under, policies of insurance against loss by or incidental to fire;

  (c) Accident insurance business; that is to say, the issue of or the undertaking of liability under, policies of insurance upon the happening of personal accidents, whether fatal or not, disease, or sickness, or any class of personal accidents, disease, or sickness;

  244

  (d) Employers' liability insurance business; that is to say, the issue of, or the undertaking of liability under, policies insuring employers against liability to pay compensation or damages to workmen in their employment;

  (c) Bond investment business; that is to say, the business of issuing bonds or endowment certificates by which the company, in return for subscriptions payable at periodical intervals of two months or less, contract to pay the bond holder a sum at a future date, and not being life assurance business as hereinbefore defined;

  subject as respects any class of assurance business to the special provisions of this Act relating to business of that class:
  A company registered under the Companies Acts which transact assurance business of any such class as aforesaid in any part of the world shall for the purpses of this provision be deemed to be a company transacting such business within the United Kingdom.
  The PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. Churchill)moved in Subsection (1), after the words, "trade

  245
  unions" to insert the words "which persons and bodies of persons are."
  In moving this Amendment, which is purely verbal, may I express my regret that I was not in my place when the Bill was called on?
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.

GENERAL.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Deposit.)
  (1) Every assurance company shall deposit and keep deposited with the Paymaster-General for and on behalf of the Supreme Court the sum of twenty thousand pounds.
  (2) The sum so deposited shall be invested by the Paymaster-General in such of the securities usually accepted by the Court for the investment of funds placed under its administration, as the company may select, and the interest accruing due on any such securities shall be paid to the company.
  (3) The deposit may be made by the subscribers of the memorandum of association of the company, or any of them, in the name of the proposed company, and, upon the incorporation of the company, shall be deemed to have been made by and to be part of the assets of the company, and the registrar shall not issue a certificate of incorporation of the company until the deposit has been made.
  (4) Where a company carries or intends to carry on assurance business of more than one class a separate sum of twenty thousand pounds shall be deposited and kept deposited under this Section as respects each class of business, and the deposit made in respect of any class of business in respect of which a separate assurance fund is required to be kept shall be deemed to form part of that fund, and all interest accruing due on any such deposit or the securities in which it is for the time being invested shall be carried by the company to that fund.
  (5) The Paymaster-General shall not accept a deposit except on a warrant of the Board of Trade.
  (6) The Board of Trade may make rules with respect to applications for warrants, the payment of deposits, and the investment thereof or dealing therewith, the deposit of stocks or other securities in lieu of money, the payment of the interest or dividends from time to time accruing due
  246
  on any securities in which deposits are for the time being invested, and the withdrawal and transfer of deposits, and the rules so made shall have effect as if they were enacted in this Act, and shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after they are made.
  Mr. J. J. CLANCY (for Mr. Mooney)moved, in Sub-section (1), after the word "company" ["every assurance company"] to insert the words "save one registered or having its head office in Ireland."
  This is the first of a series of Amendmends, the object of which is to retain in Ireland the money deposited by Irish companies.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am very anxious to meet hon. Members as far as I can, and I think I can meet the hon. Gentleman here, not by accepting his Amendment, but by another Amendment effecting practically all his purposes. If he withdraws this Amendment I will move as a new Sub-section:—
  "(7) This Section shall apply to any assurance company registered or having its head office in Ireland, subject to the following modifications: References to the 'Supreme Court' shall be construed as references to the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland; and references to the 'Paymaster-General' shall be construed as references to the Accountant-General in the last-mentioned Court."
  That will have the effect of carrying out the purposes of all his Amendments, excepting only the last one—to insert "for England and Scotland and the rule making authority under the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Acts for Ireland." That Amendment is not embodied in the Amendment I propose to substitute for these various Amendments. The effect of it would be to take the power out of the hands of the Board of Trade so far as Ireland is concerned, and to vest the ruling in the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland. In the others I think I meet the case, and I will propose them if those of the hon. Member are withdrawn.
  Mr. CLANCY: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's satisfactory explanation, I will follow the course he suggests. The last Amendment I do not consider very important.
  Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. CHURCHILLmoved, at the end of the Clause, to insert:—
  "(7) This Subjection shall apply to an assurance company registered or having its head office in Ireland, subject to the following modifications:—

  (a) References to the Supreme Court shall be construed as references to the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland; and

  (b) References to the Paymaster-General shall be construed as references to the Accountant-General in the last-mentioned Court."

  CLAUSE 3.—(Separation of Funds.)
  (1) In the case of an assurance company transacting other business besides that of assurance or transacting more than one class of assurance business, a separate account shall be kept of all receipts in respect of the assurance business or of each class of assurance business, and the receipts in respect of the assurance business or, or, in the case of a company carrying on more than one class of assurance business, of each class of business, shall be carried to and form a separate assurance fund with an appropriate name."
  (2) A fund of any particular class shall be as absolutely the security of the policy holders of that class as though it belonged to a company carrying on no other business than assurance business of that class, and shall not be liable for any contracts of the company for which it would not have been liable had the business of the company been only that of assurance of that class, and shall not be applied, directly or indirectly, for any purposes other than those of the class of business to which the fund is applicable.
  Mr. THOMAS LOUGHmoved, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words: "Provided that nothing in this Section shall require the investments of any such fund to be kept separate from the investments of any other fund."
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I accept the Amendment.
  Mr. HAY: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would give us a little more explanation of this Amendment?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: There is the question of a certain fund being hypothecated for the security of life policies. Apart from that, there is the question of making returns so as to show the investment specially earmarked for a particular fund. But it is not the intention, and never has been, that investments should be specially earmarked.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The right hon. Gentleman is capable of expressing his ideas in clear and unmistakeable language when he likes, and I think we ought to have some more information as to what is really intended with regard to these monies; whether or not they are going to be put as specific securities for the specific purposes indicated?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Under the Life Insurance Companies Act it is enacted that life insurance funds shall be kept separate in the books of the company, but the Act does not, and never has required that the investment of that fund should be specifically ear-marked. Though not ear-marked the funds have been kept separate. It was thought by some of the Scottish companies that this Bill would alter that. My right hon. Friend was anxious to remove that doubt, and the Amendment which he has moved is to have that effect.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I have listened to the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, and I cannot say that I understand it. The Clause runs like this: "In the case of an assurance company transacting other business besides that of assurance or transacting more than one class of assurance business a separate account shall be kept of all receipts," etc. "And the receipts.….shall be carried to and form a separate assurance fund with an appropriate name." The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) proposes to add to the end: "provided that nothing in this Section shall require the investment of any such fund to be kept separate from the investment of any other fund."
  I venture to say that these words, if accepted, will alter the whole of the preceding words of the Section. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment proposes that the investments shall be mixed up with any other investments. I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the object of having receipts kept separate, and having to

  249
  have a separate fund under these circumstances? It is evident, as far as I can see—and I studied this Clause very carefully before I rose to speak—that if the Amendment is accepted, the first part of the Clause goes for nothing at all. Before we divide upon this matter, we ought to have some better explanation.
  Mr. T. LOUGH: There has been a misunderstanding, I think, because the words have not been carefully studied. There need be no mixing up, because both investments can be made clear. If an investment is good for one object, it is also good for two objects. If there was an excellent mortgage, and it was a perfect security for one part of the funds of the company, there is no reason why it should not be for another portion of the funds. All the requirements of the Act would be fulfilled and the Amendment merely allows one investment for the several needs.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I cannot follow the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. He says that if there are two funds and one mortgage there is no reason why that one mortgage should not be divided between the two funds. That, I gather, is his explanation. But why should you not get another mortgage for the second fund? If you once begin to do this sort of thing how will you know to which fund the half belongs? Unless it is earmarked it may arise that one fund may claim that the whole of £10,000 belongs to that one special fund, and not to another. I must say that the explanation of the Amendment has made the matter worse. There is no difficulty in two funds of £10,000 each in getting two mortgages.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I expected that in answer to the appeal I made to the President of the Board of Trade that he certainly would have given us a little more enlightenment upon this point. This is a very important Clause of the Bill. In fact, as we read on in Sub-section (2) of the Clause, the intention clearly is that there shall be specific investments of specific funds separate and entirely distinct from other funds. In fact, the second portion of this Clause, which is now under consideration, makes it quite clear that the particular amount of the security which is to be kept for one particular kind of business is a security for that particular kind of risk; is to be kept so separate, according to the second part of this Clause, that it is to be treated almost as if there
  250
  were two separate companies, and one part of the funds is not to be liable for any contracts relating to another part of the funds. Now, Mr. Emmott, it does seem to me that the President of the Board of Trade, in this feverish hurry to legislate, which appears to be actuating the Government at the present moment with regard to this Bill, accepts or proposes to accept an Amendment which really makes nonsense, not only of the first part of this Clause, but clearly is quite inconsistent with the whole of the second part of it. And the explanation which the President of the Board of Trade, that these funds can be mixed for the purpose of investment, seems to me to allow a most irregular thing. Supposing there happens to be £10,000 in one fund and £7,000 in another. According to the Government's proposal you can take a mortgage out for £17,000. Supposing you realise that mortgage and there is a loss. How is that loss to be apportioned between the two funds? There may be all kinds of difficulties arise in the attempt to do so. I welcome this Clause, and think it is an excellent thing that there should be security for this kind of business, and that it should be kept separate, and that the security for one part of the business should not be allowed to get mixed up with the other parts. If we are going to give authority to the companies, notwithstanding this, to mix up these funds, I think it is going to detract very much from the benefit of the general protection which is sought by the Clause. In the absence of a very complete and satisfactory explanation I feel justified in raising my voice by way of protest.
  6.0 P.M.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I think there is some misapprehension as to the actual practical effect of the Amendment. This Clause alters Section (4) of the Act of 1870, as amended by the Act of 1872, and there is nothing in that Act that applies to the investment of the funds themselves. The practical working out is this: It has been settled by Parliament, and we desire to enact also, with reference to the companies to which this Clause applies, that if they have separate business they must separate the funds which belong to those separate businesses. You have two different kinds of insurance, life and fire. You must keep the funds quite separate, so that the funds, belonging to one part are available for this interest of that part. But there is no reason whatso-

  251
  ever, and there is no reason under the Act of 1870, to keep investments separate. Just let us see what the practical operation is. Take a perfectly simple case. Suppose you have £1,000 to invest for each of two parties, you have £2,000 to invest altogether. Supposing you have an excellent mortgage security, and it must be assumed that you have, so all you have to do is, if the law were as it is desired to be by the hon. Member opposite, is to take two mortgages for £1,000 instead of one mortgage for £2,000. The fund is not altered in the slightest degree. The part of the £2,000 that belongs to one person and the part that belongs to the other still belongs to each of them. I agree that in case there should be loss there might be some little difficulty in the apportionment, and that priority might be sought in the case of mortgages. This makes no change in the law, but it reproduces the law of 1870 as amended by the Act of 1872, and it makes it clear, if it is convenient and proper in the carrying on of the business, that the same investment may cover the two. There is no objection to that being done.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I am very much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the clear way he has put the case, but I should like to ask him, in the case he has given of two sums of £1,000, making the sum of £2,000, whether it is a fact that if you put a mortgage out for these two sums pari passu there would be any extra cost for doing so? [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] The argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General was that there would be no extra cost.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: Oh, yes. The two mortgages for £1,000 would cost more than one mortgage.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: There is no cost upon the mortgagee; the cost has to be paid by the mortgagor.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: Here we have two members of the legal profession differing, and I am rather inclined to agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. Watson Rutherford).
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I never denied that proposition.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: Then what becomes of the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman? It does not matter to the insuring company whether
  252
  the person pays £5 or £10, but it does matter to the person investing. Let me point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that all the moneys of insurance companies are not invested in mortgages, a great many of them are invested in bonds. If you want to invest £2,000 in different accounts you can easily buy £l,000 worth of bonds in one account and £1,000 worth of bonds in another. There is no extra cost, and you can keep the two in separate compartments or boxes. This is not such a very simple matter as the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks. I presume there is some object in this Clause in providing for two separate accounts. If there are to be two separate accounts, unless there are to be two separate investments, you might as well leave out the Clause providing for the two separate accounts. I presume these Clauses are put in to avoid fraud. The moment these investments are mixed up the opportunities for fraud are very much greater than if the investments are kept separate.
  Mr. CLAUDE HAY: I should like to ask the Solicitor-General one question. I should like to know whether, in the event of a big calamity, such, for instance, as that which occurred in San Francisco, any funds to meet claims on life policies invested under the Amendment which has been moved could be held as security to meet the claims arising in the fire insurance department, or whether the life policy would be protected and the assets available upon the claim on the death of the insured; in short, whether life funds could be taken to pay for a conflagration such as that which occurred at San Francisco?
  Mr. JULIUS BERTRAM: As far as the differentiation between the two cases goes there is nothing in the nature of difficulty even in the case of mortgage. Supposing there is a mortgage of £15,000 contributed equally in two parts by separate mortgagees. You put down in the list of assets one as representing so much Consols, so much railway stock, and £7,500, half of the £15,000 investment. There is no difficulty about that. With regard to any other investments they only represent the profits of the year, and they only stand in the name of the same party. The actual name upon the books may be the same person, but in each year you have a statement on the part of the company that their funds allocated to life insurance business are represented by So-and-so, and are earmarked there. With regard to the

  253
  question as to the first of two pari passu mortgagees, that is a strange arrangement. You have two, one must appear as the first and the other second; there must be some priority. If there are two separate mortgages, one must have priority over the other. There is no such thing as a pair of mortgagees ranking together, at any rate in this country. If you have one mortgage deed of £1,000 upon property A, if there is another mortgage deed in identical terms of £l,000 upon the same property, one must have priority over the other. The only way to do it is to have mortgages in which each of the parties is described as contributing so much, and in the event of failure or foreclosure the party in priority would share.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is with great diffidence that I differ from my hon. Friends on this side of the House, and I want to say why I do differ from them. I think they are confusing the question of funds with the question of investments. There must be separate funds for separate purposes. To reduce the whole thing to an absurdity, let us assume the whole of the funds of a company, say £2,000,000, are invested in Consols. Does my hon. Friend say that £1,000,000 should be invested in Consols, and another invested in Indian Stock in order to differentiate the investments? That is the logical conclusion if the investments are to be separate. My hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir Frederick Banbury) says "No, no." Then I venture to suggest that, instead of investing the whole of it in Consols, that it should be invested in separate blocks of Consols. That is no real advantage to the policy holders. I venture to suggest that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman is in accordance with sound business.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I make no apology before leaving this subject for saying another word upon it. Of course, I quite realise there is a distinction between funds and investments. This Clause does not apply merely to the deposits that have to be made, as some Members who addressed the Committee seemed to think. It applies to the whole receipts of a company. A company may be carrying on three absolutely distinct classes of business, as some of them are. Here now for the first time we are going to pass an Act of Parliament which says that each of these three classes of business is separate, is practically a separate com-
  254
  pany, with separate risks and separate property, kept distinctly apart for the purposes of these separate businesses. Now let us consider for a moment how the accounts would look. Supposing you take the accounts of such a company, assuming it had got cumulative receipts and funds—one million and something—for life, and two millions and something for fire, if we read the Clause as it stands, the balance-sheet would go to show how each of these were represented. Supposing the life departments got £1,500,000, it would show that one million and a half was represented by so much—Consols so much, mortgages so much, mortgages and property in Australia or the Colonies so much, and Inscribed Stock so much. That particular fund would be represented by specific investments which everybody insuring their lives with that company would know. If there was a million and a half of money, it would be actually represented by items A, B, C, D, E, and F in the balance-sheet. I certainly looked upon this Clause as being one of the best things for the purposes of insurance companies I had ever seen. For the first time the knowledge was going to be given to the people who insured their lives or their buildings what the funds in that particular department were, and it was going to be made clear, as it is clear in this Clause, that these funds could not be appropriated for any other business, but that they were distinctly reserved for these particular reasons. It is within the knowledge of every Member of this Committee that there are insurance companies which have been very heavily hit in recent years, with the result that the whole of their fire funds have been swept away. Unfortunately, each of us knows of companies of that description where very heavy claims have to be met. Supposing there was a number of investments made together in the funds of a firm like that, these funds would have to be realised, possibly at a loss, particularly having regard to the recent fall in trust securities, and having regard to the action of the Government in relation to the finances of the country. Now is the life department of the company, in such circumstances, to be forced to realise its securities for the purpose of providing funds which are only liable to the life department? I look upon this Clause as a charter of privileges and a safeguard to the ordinary investor in insurance companies in the future, and I look upon the Amendment now before the Committee under which these investments can be mixed up

  255
  and under which really, for the purposes of the accounts to be represented year by year, it would not be possible to say what are the specific investments put into these particular funds, as giving the whole safeguard away. On this point I differ from my hon. and learned Friend beside me. I do not think he has quite realised the extreme importance of the Clause and the very objectionable nature of the Amendment before the Committee.
  Mr. HAY: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will give an answer to the question I put to him it may remove my objection to this Amendment.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: Where they invest in such securities as have been mentioned by the hon. Member they can allot a certain amount to one fund and a certain amount to the other.
  Mr. HAY: My question was whether under the wording of this Amendment assets ear-marked for life policies might be used for fire insurance claims—say, in San Francisco?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: No.
  Amendment put, and negatived.

  CLAUSE 5.—(Actuarial Report and Abstract.)
  (1) Every assurance company shall, once in every five years or at such shorter intervals as may be prescribed by the instrument constituting the company, or by its regulations or byelaws, cause an investigation to be made into its financial condition by an actuary, and shall cause an abstract of the report of such actuary to be made in the form or forms set forth in the Fourth Schedule to this Act and applicable to the class or classes of assurance business carried on by the company.
  (2) The foregoing provisions of this Section shall also apply whenever at any other time an investigation into the financial condition of an assurance company is made with a view to the distribution of profits, or the results of which are made public.
  Mr. HAYmoved to leave out of Subsection (1) the words "or at such shorter intervals as may be prescribed by the instrument constituting the company, or by its regulations or bye-laws." I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept this Amendment, the object of which is to provide that these returns shall only be required once every five years.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I can go some way to meet the hon. Member. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) has down on the Paper a long Amendment to Clause 31 which I am willing to accept, and I think that will achieve the purpose the hon. Gentleman has in view without going beyond that and affecting other branches of the business. The Clause provides that an investigation shall be made every five years, and oftener in certain circumstances. The method of conducting the business of certain companies may make the investigation almost an annual one, and in some cases that is necessary. In the case of some companies like the Prudential, where there are large money payments made every year, and where the assets of the company are affected as well as the interests of the policy holders, it is right that there should be an annual statement. There are a number of companies which do their business by an annual reduction of premium, and in that case, the security of the policy holders not being affected, there would be no need to insist upon the annual investigation. The difference between the hon. Member's Amendment and the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Hallam Division of Sheffield is that it distinguishes between these two classes, giving relief in one case without relaxing control in the other.
  Mr. HAY: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. LOUGHmoved, in Sub-section (1), after the word "condition" ["financial condition by an actuary"], to insert the words "including a valuation of its liabilities." I hope my right hon. Friend will accept my proposal.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am advised that the addition of these words expresses the intention of the Bill in an improved form, and I am willing to accept them.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 13.—(Amalgamation or Transfer.)
  (1) Where it is intended to amalgamate two or more assurance companies, or to transfer the assurance business of any class from one assurance company to another company, the directors of any one or more of such companies may apply to the court,

  257
  by petition, to sanction the proposed arrangement.
  (2) The court, after hearing the directors and other persons whom it considers entitled to be heard upon the petition, may sanction the arrangement if it is satisfied that no sufficient objection to the arrangement has been established.
  (3) Before any such application is made to the court—

  (a) notice of the intention to make the application shall be published in the "Gazette"; and

  (b) a statement of the nature of the amalgamation or transfer, as the case may be, together with an abstract containing the, material facts embodied in the agreement or deed under which the amalgamation or transfer is proposed to be effected, and copies of the actuarial or other reports upon which the agreement or deed is founded, including a report by an independent actuary, shall, unless the court otherwise directs, be transmitted to each policy holder of each company in manner provided by Section one hundred and thirty-six of the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, for the transmission to shareholders of notices not requiring to be served personally: Provided that wherever either company carries on another class or other classes of assurance business in addition to the business of life assurance it shall not be necessary to transmit such statement to the policy holders of such companies or company other than life, endowment, sinking fund, or bond investment policy holders; and

  (c) the agreement or deed under which the amalgamation or transfer is effected shall be open for the inspection of the policy holders and shareholders at the offices of the companies for a period of fifteen days after the publication of the notice in the "Gazette."

  (4) No assurance company shall amalgamate with another or transfer its business to another unless the amalgamation or transfer is sanctioned by the court in accordance with this Section.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The Amendments which I have to propose to this Clause are of a purely drafting character. The whole of Sub-section (4) is an Amendment introduced in the House of Lords upon the Motion of Lord Milner. The object is to make the Clause more clear.
  Drafting Amendments made.
  Amendment made:
  In Sub-section (3), paragraph (b), at end, to add the words "nor in the case of a transfer to such policy holders if the business transferred is not life assurance business or bond investment business."
  Mr. HAYmoved to leave out:

  CLAUSE 15.—(Provision as to Novation by Policy Holders.)
  The Clause would involve in the case of amalgamation the passing of a private Bill. That seems to me to be absolutely unnecessary, and I beg to move.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The Government accept this Amendment. I think we have surrounded transfer and amalgamation with sufficient safeguards that we can dispense with this Clause.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I think this Clause is a great protection to the policy holders. Where the amalgamation of two companies take place and the policy holder does not give his consent in writing, he should still retain the same right as he possessed before amalgamation. Why should this Clause be omitted? This proposal was intended to provide security for the policy holders, and it is only fair that in case of amalgamation the security should remain as it was before the amalgamation takes place. I should like some further explanation why the Government has assented to the omission of this Clause, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give me an answer, because I think it is a serious matter from the point of view of the policy-holders.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: We think that already ample security is given in the Bill to the policy-holders.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 16.—(Special Provisions as to Winding Up of Assurance Companies).
  The court may order the winding up of an assurance company, in accordance with the Companies Consolidation Act, 1908, and the provisions of that Act shall apply accordingly, subject, however, to the following modification:—
  The company may be ordered to be wound up on the petition of ten or more policy holders owning policies of

  259
  an aggregate value of not less than ten thousand pounds;
  Provided that such a petition shall not be presented except by the leave of the court, and leave shall not be granted until a primâ facie case has been established to the satisfaction of the court and until security for costs for such amount as the court may think reasonable has been given.
  Mr. HAYmoved to add, at the end of the Clause, the words: "Provided further that no part of the capital or other assets of the company shall be released from liability in respect of assurance contracts until it has been proved to the satisfaction of the court that the assurance funds of the company are sufficient to meet the liability under assurance contracts in full."
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am advised that the whole process of the winding up of assurance companies is provided for in the Companies Consolidation Act by rules made by the Lord Chancellor. Therefore it is not necessary to make provision of the character which the hon. Member desires. The hon. Member's Amendment is entirely foreign to the general matter of the Clause, because it purports to provide for the administration of the assets of an assurance company in the winding up, and that is quite thoroughly, and I think drastically, dealt with under the Companies Consolidation Act.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  Clauses 17 to 23 inclusive agreed to.

  CLAUSE 24.—(Penalty for Non-compliance with Act.)
  Any assurance company which makes default in complying with any of the requirements of this Act shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding one hundred pounds, or, in the case of a continuing default, to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds for every day during which the default continues, and every director, manager, or secretary, or other officer of the company who is knowingly a party to the default shall be liable to a like penalty; and if default continue for a period of three months after notice of default by the Board of Trade, which notice shall be published in one or more newspapers as the Board of Trade may, upon the application
  260
  of one or more policy holders or shareholders, direct, the default shall be a ground on which the Court may order the winding up of the company, in accordance with the Companies Consolidation Act, 1908.
  Mr. CHURCHILLmoved after the word "officer" ["every director, manager, or secretary, or other officer"] to insert the words "or agent."
  This Amendment will clear up the doubt which exists as to whether an agent is an officer or not. It makes it clear that he is an officer.
  Clause 25 agreed to.

  CLAUSE 26.—(Recovery and Application of Penalties.)
  Every penalty imposed by this Act shall, save as otherwise expressly provided, be recovered and applied in the same manner as penalties imposed by the Companies Consolidation Act, 1908, are recoverable and applicable.
  Mr. CHURCHILLmoved to leave out the words "save as otherwise expressly provided."
  These words were inserted in view of provisions which were originally intended to be put in Clause 37, but in the course of the discussions on this Bill those provisions have been dropped out.
  Question, "That those words stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

  CLAUSE 27.—(Service of Notices.)
  Any notice which is by this Act required to be sent to any policy holder may be addressed and sent to the person to whom notices respecting such policy are usually sent, and any notice so addressed and sent shall be deemed and taken to be notice to the holder of such policy.
  Mr. CHURCHILLmoved, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words:—
  "Provided that where any person claiming to be interested in a policy has given to the company notice in writing of his interest and of his desire that notices should be sent to him at an address specified

  261
  in the notice, and notice which is by this Act required to be sent to policyholders shall also be sent to such person at the address so specified."
  A policy holder is defined in Clause 30 as a person who, for the time being, is the legal holder of the policy. It is possible that the legal holder may have only a small pecuniary interest in the policy, and that a valuable policy may have been deposited as security for a debt. This provides that where any person besides the legal holder has given notice to the Company that person shall be entitled to the same notice as the actual legal holder.
  Mr. BERTRAMmoved, in the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "and of his desire that notices should be sent to him at an address specified in the notice."
  I have had some communication with the Department in reference to Clause 30 to which the right hon. Gentleman has made reference, and the definition there given of "policy bolder." It is said to mean the person who is the legal holder of the policy. That is a matter with regard to which no assurance office can have knowledge. Nobody at the assurance office can possibly tell who is the legal holder of a policy. Take, for instance, the case of a life policy deposited by a client with his solicitor. The solicitor goes bankrupt, and the whole of his papers are handed over to the trustee in bankruptcy, and the trustee in bankruptcy is the legal holder of that policy. I want notice to be given to every person who has any interest in the policy. Nobody in the Assurance office can tell what that interest may be, and the legal holder, as the right hon. Gentleman himself has said, may have the smallest interest. Every person who has given notice to the assurance company that he has an interest in a policy ought, to my mind, to be entitled to receive notice, and not merely if he has particularly asked the company to send him one if it becomes necessary. The effect of the Amendment of the President of the Board of Trade as it stands would be that every person who at this moment has an interest in a policy and has given notice would not be notified, because none of the notices given up to this moment contain that request for the information, but every person who, after the date of this Bill, gives notice will receive notice of intended amalgamations and so on, and it seems to me to be most unreasonable that persons who are at present interested and have given notice should be ignored.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I quite recognise the force of what the hon. Gentleman has said, and of course we are endeavouring to secure the fullest serving of notices to all parties, but we want to be careful about this. When we originally discussed this Amendment, it was not quite realised how far the other parts of the Bill would be affected by amending the definition of a policy holder. The words occur frequently in the Bill, and any alteration in the meaning of a poilcy holder may produce a reaction. One result will be to constitute each person who has an interest in a policy a policy bolder. Clause 16 requires that a petition to wind up a company must be supported by 10 or more policy holders. The effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member on Clause 30 would be to enable 10 persons interested in a single policy to formulate a petition for winding up, whereas the Jaw intends 10 separate policy holders. I say that, not because I cannot meet the hon. Gentleman, but because I am anxious to show that we must move carefully. I do not mind, however, accepting his Amendment for the present.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: It could be done by leaving out the words proposed to be left out and by adding at the end the words, "at the address to be specified by him in the notice."
  Mr. BERTRAM: My trouble is that these notices are invariably given toy the solicitor as agent on behalf of the person interested. It is invariably given in this form, "I, A.B., of such an address, agent for John Smith, give you notice that by an indenture, dated so and so, John Smith became interested in the policy, so and so." I have given hundreds of these notices myself, and they are precisely in that form. The address of the person on whose behalf the notice is given is very seldom stated. The agent's address is given. The only people who will receive notice under the suggested Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman will be those who do not happen to have employed agents. Anybody who has employed an agent will toe ignored, though he has given perfectly good notice.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: It stands to reason that, if a notice is required to be sent to any person interested in a policy, the assurance company must send it to the address given, whether it is given by the person interested or by a person on his behalf. The notice of the interest ought also I to state for the benefit of the company the

  263
  address to which notices should be sent. I cannot see why the hon. Gentleman should object to adding at the end the words, "and at the address to be specified by him in the notice."
  Mr. BERTRAM: The words "to be specified" would exclude all existing notices You are excluding everybody who at this moment stands in the company's books as interested.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I confess, as one who has had some little experience in transferring interests in policies and giving notices to companies, that I think the Amendment proposed by the Government is a very reasonable and an exceedingly useful one. It does not make it compulsory. As the Amendment stood, every time you give a notice, you give a fresh address or some address to which communications may be sent. What it does say is that where an insurance company is requested by a person who claims to have an interest to send a notice to a given address, such notice as is required to be sent to policy holders shall also be sent to that specified address. That is quite reasonable. Not only do insurance companies which conduct this class of business do it, but every other company in the United Kingdom will, if it gets authority from the individual, who may, for instance, be entitled to a dividend, send communications in relation thereto to a specified address. I cannot see why either the original Amendment proposed by the Government or the exceedingly reasonable suggestion made by the Solicitor-General should not meet the case. I hope the hon. Member will not persist in his further Amendment. I understand he thinks there may be some difficulty in the way of recognised agents sending in communications to insurance companies.
  Mr. BERTRAM: No.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Then I cannot see why the hon. Gentleman objects.
  Mr. BERTRAM: Let me put an imaginary case. The hon. Member opposite insures his life for £20,000 and he borrows £500 from me on the security of the policy. I give notice to the office in which he is insured. My interest is ridiculously small, while his is so great. The office, although having received notice from me will, as the Bill now stands, should it propose to amalgamate with another office, notify the hon. Member but not me.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I think the hon. Member is quite wrong on that point, which is covered by the concluding words proposed by the President of the Board of Trade. The insurance company would have my address and they would also have his address as the lender of the money, and any communication sent out would be despatched to both addresses. Suppose I chose to leave home and go to New Zealand for twelve months, why should I not be able to notify the company to send any communication to my agents, bankers, or solicitors? That is all the Amendment proposes. I say it is an exceedingly useful Amendment, and I repeat I hope the hon Member will not persist in his further Amendment.
  Amendment to proposed Amendment, put, and negatived.
  Further Amendment proposed: To strike out the word "so" ["so specified"] in the last line of the proposed Amendment.— [Sir Samuel Evans.]
  Question, "That the word 'so' stand part of the Amendment," put, and negatived.
  Further Amendment proposed: At end of proposed Amendment, to add the words "by him in this notice."
  Amendment proposed: At end of Clause to insert the words, "Provided there where any person claiming to be interested in a policy has given to the company notice in writing of his interest, any notice which is by this Act required to be sent to policy holders shall also be sent to such person at the address specified by him in his notice."

  CLAUSE 28.—(Accounts, etc., to be laid before Parliament.)
  The Board of Trade shall lay annually before Parliament the accounts, balance-sheets, abstracts, statements, and other documents under this Act, or purporting to be under this Act, deposited with them during the preceding year, except reports on the affairs of assurance, companies submitted to the shareholders or policy holders thereof, and may append thereto any correspondence in relation to any such

  265
  statements or abstracts and any note of the Board thereon.
  Amendment proposed: To leave out all the words from "append" ["and may append"] to end of Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words "to such accounts, balance-sheets, abstracts, statements, or other documents any note of the Board of Trade thereon, and any correspondence in relation thereto."—[Mr. Churchill.]
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Words proposed there inserted.
  CLAUSE 29.—(Savings) added to the Bill.

  CLAUSE 30.—(Interpretation).
  In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
  The expression "chairman" means the person for the time being presiding over the board of directors or other governing body of the assurance company:
  The expression "policy" includes any instrument, evidencing a contract of insurance:
  The expression "policy holder" means the person who for the time being is the legal holder of the policy for securing the contract with the assurance company:
  The expression "underwriter" includes any person named in a policy or other contract of insurance as liable to pay or contribute towards the payment of the sum secured by such policy or contract:
  The expression "financial year" means each period of twelve months at the end of which the balance of the accounts of the assurance company is struck, or if no such balance is struck, then the calendar year:
  The expression "Court" means the High Court of Justice in England, except that in the case of an assurance company registered or having its head office in Ireland it means, in the provisions of this Act other than those relating to deposits, the High Court of Justice in Ireland, and in the case of an assurance company registered or having its head office in Scotland it
  266
  means, in the provisions of this Act other than those relating to deposits, the Court of Session, in either division thereof:
  The expression "Companies Acts" includes the Companies Consolidation Act, 1908, and any enactment repealed by that Act:
  The expression "registrar" means the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies:
  The expression "actuary" means an actuary possessing such qualifications as may be prescribed by rules made by the Board of Trade:
  The expression "Gazette" means the London, Edinburgh, or Dublin "Gazette," as the case may be.
  Mr. CHURCHILLproposed to leave out the second paragraph, "The expression 'policy' includes any instrument evidencing a contract of insurance."
  The object is to exclude reinsurance companies from the scope of the Bill. It is not necessary that they should be included, as they do not have any contact with the public. They deal solely with other insurance companies, and have not the same incentive for escaping the provisions of the Bill. We have been anxious not to unduly widen the scope of the Bill, and I have come to the conclusion that the inclusion of these reinsurance companies is not necessary in the public interest.
  Sir HENRY KING: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the Committee the name of one or two of these reinsurance companies? I am not aware of any company which confines itself to re-insurance. I know that companies reinsure between each other, and that that is a fruitful way of increasing their business; but I am not acquainted with any company which exists solely for the purpose for reinsuring risks.
  Mr. HAY: I have to thank the President of the Board of Trade for moving this Amendment, which is similar to one of which I had given notice. I do not think it necessary to add any words to what he has advanced in support of it. In reply to the hon. Member for Central Hull, I can assure him that many such companies do exist, and that they are highly prosperous companies.
  Sir HENRY KING: Will the hon. Member name one or two?
  Mr. HAY: No, Sir; but I would be prepared to give the hon. Gentleman

  267
  particulars of some of them. This Amendment protects British re-insurance companies from being in a worse position than foreign re-insurance companies undertaking this business in this country.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Will not the effect of the Amendment be that an insurance company not doing any direct business in this country will be enabled to come in and take part in this reinsurance business without making provision for security of any sort or kind?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The Board of Trade do not know of any company which does only reinsurance business. But we are told that there are such companies. The hon. Member has asked whether a foreign company doing general business outside this country can come here merely for the purpose of doing reinsurance business. If we were to assume such a case I think it would be no exaggeration to say that such a company doing that class of business would not be called a reinsurance company.
  Mr. HAY: These re-insurance companies have to be and are registered at the Board of Trade in the same way as any direct insurance company. To my knowledge there are a number registered.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Mr. CHURCHILLproposed, in lieu of the paragraph left out, to insert the words "the expression 'annuities on human life' does not include, superannuation allowances and annuities payable out of any fund applicable solely to the relief and maintenance of persons engaged or who have been engaged in any particular profession, trade, or employment, or of the dependents of such persons." This Amendment has been brought forward in view of some disquiet felt by Scottish companies. The Bill, as a matter of fact, makes no change in the law in regard to these questions, but the Amendment may remove any doubts that have arisen.
  7.0 P.M.
  Further Amendment proposed: At end of paragraph commencing "the Expression 'Court,'" to leave out the words "other than those relating to deposits."—[Mr. Mooney.]
  Question, "That those words stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 31.—(Application to Life Assurance Companies.)
  Where a company carries on life assurance business this Act shall apply with respect to that business, subject to the following modifications:—

  (a) "Policy on human life" shall mean any instrument by which the payment of money is assured on the happening of any contingency dependent on human life, except the contingency of fatal accident, or any instrument evidencing a contract which is subject to payment of premiums for a term dependent on human life:

  (b) Where the company grants annuities upon human life "policy" shall include the instrument evidencing the contract to pay such an annuity, and "policy holder" includes annuitant:

  (c) The obligation to deposit and keep deposited the sum of twenty thousand pounds shall apply notwithstanding that the company has previously made and withdrawn its deposit, or been exempted from making any deposit under any enactment hereby repealed:

  (d) Where the company intends to amalgamate with or too transfer its life assurance business to another assurance company, the Court shall not sanction the amalgamation or transfer in any case in which it appears to the Court that the life policy holders representing one-tenth or more of the total amount assured in the company dissent from the amalgamation or transfer:

  (e) Nothing in this Act providing that the life assurance fund shall not be liable for any contracts for which it would not have been liable had the business of the company been only that of life assurance shall affect the liability of that fund in the case of a company established before the ninth day of August eighteen hundred and seventy for contracts entered into by the company before that date:

  (f) In the case of a company carrying on life assurance business and established before the ninth day of August eighteen hundred and seventy, by the terms of whose deed of settlement the whole of the profits of all the business

  269
  carried on by the company are paid I exclusively to the life policy holders, and on the face of whose life policies the liability of the life assurance fund in respect of the other business distinctly appears, such of the provisions of this Act as require the separation of funds, and exempt the life assurance fund from liability for contracts to which it would not have been liable had the business of the company been only that of life assurance, shall not apply.

  Mr. LOUGHmoved, in paragraph (a), after the word "on" ["money is assured on the happening"], to insert the words, "death (except a policy insuring only against fatal accident) or."
  I propose also, as a consequential Amendment, to omit the words, "except the contingency of fatal accident," and the object is to improve the wording of the definition of the expression, "Policy on human life." As I understand, my right hon. Friend rather approves of this Amendment, and the only criticism I have heard from any quarter is as to the position of the word "only," which, in the Amendment on the Paper, was placed after the words, "fatal accident." To meet that criticism, I have inserted the word after the word "insuring." In that form I think the Amendment will be generally accepted.
  Sir ARCHIBALD WILLIAMSON: It is rather difficult to follow the exact meaning of the change in the position of the word "only," but the Amendment, as put down on the Paper, will create an anomaly, because in fatal accidents where there is a separate policy it is not necessary to draw the policy as a life policy, but if a fatal accident risk is associated together with a non-fatal accident or sick risk then it becomes necessary under this Amendment to treat the policy as a life policy, and it would then be subject to all the disadvantages of a life policy with regard to the provisions which the Bill introduces in case of amalgamation of companies. For instance, if a reinsurance company were to buy up a small accident company which had an accident and fatal accident business it would be necessary, if the policy were treated as a life policy as; the Amendment proposes, to notify in the case of one company not less than 60,000 life policy holders. Now that the position of the word "only" is altered, I am not quite sure of the meaning of it, but
  270
  would be the effect. It would be absurd to put this troublesome proceeding in motion when a person has not got a life policy but only a yearly policy. An accident policy is an annual contract, and might never become payable, because the man may not die in the year, and it may never be required again. This is rather an important point, and we do not want to put the insurance company to the trouble of notifying the whole of their life certainly as it was down on the Paper that policy holders.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not quite clear in my own mind as to the position of the word "only," and I would just like to consider it, but on the general question I am anxious to meet my right hon. Friend. I had made up my mind to accept the Amendment, and I should be glad to do so if the word "only" is put after the word "except," so that it would read "except only a policy insuring against fatal accident." I think, however, the question in regard to the position of the word "only" ought to be considered on Report, and if the right hon. Gentleman will put the word for the present in front of the word "insuring," I will take steps to obtain proper consideration.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: In regard to a largo number of the policies referred to they insure £1,000 in case of death, and in case of disablement £6 a week, and if the effect of the word "only" in one or other of these positions would be that where the risk is simply to be so much on death, it is to be within the purview of this Clause; but if the policy and the risk should happen to be associated with the payment of so much money per week for disablement, that the mere fact that that extra benefit being associated with the other should deprive the policy holder of his right to be put in this position, then I think it would be entirely wrong, and I sympathise with the view which has been expressed by the hon. Member who site behind the President of the Board of Trade, which I think is perfectly right.
  Mr. LOUGH: I should like to reassure the hon. Member who sits on this side, and I think if he looks at the Amendment as I now move it, he will find that all the difficulties he is anxious to protect us against will be met. I shall be very glad to accept the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman has made, and if he will accept the Amendment now and consider the position of the word "only" on Report, I shall be very glad.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I would rather have it in the form I recommended, namely, that it should come in after the word "except," but I will consider the matter again and put it right upon Report.
  Mr. LOUGH: I must accept what my right hon. Friend offers, but I really do think that if he looks at it, he will see that the word "only," in the position he suggests, would except all policies, and it is not the intention to except all policies but only fatal accident policies.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: After the word "on" ["money is assured on"], to insert the words "death (except only a policy insuring against fatal accident) or," and to omit the words "except the contingency of fatal accident."—[Mr. Lough.]
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEYmoved, to leave out Sub-section (c), and to insert:—
  "Such of the provisions of this Act as relate to deposits to be made under this Act shall not apply with respect to the life assurance business carried on by the company if the company has been established within the United Kingdom, and has commenced to carry on that business within the United Kingdom, before the twenty-fifth day of May, nineteen hundred and nine. Provided, however, that a company established within the United Kingdom which has made a deposit under The Life Assurance Companies Act, 1870, and has not yet become entitled to the return of the sum so deposited shall be required to keep such sum deposited until its life assurance fund shall amount to the sum of forty thousand pounds."
  I move this Amendment because I conceive that this provision as to the £20,000 deposit is, perhaps, the least impressive of the recommendations of the House of Lords Committee. Its history and genesis are well known, and as the reason advanced for the proposal that this £20,000 should be deposited is not and cannot be anything but an intention to intimate to persons proposing to insure their lives in this country with companies from abroad doing business in this country the only real object is that they should have some real means of suing these companies in the courts of this country and obtain execution against such assets as they have in this country. It appears to me that that may be proper to be applied to new companies starting to do business with a British domicile and registered in this country, but it surely
  272
  does not apply in the case of these companies which have matured their deposit and having the necessary funds have got their deposit out at a period anterior to the period mentioned in my Amendment. Everyone knows that these companies being domiciled in this country give the fullest opportunity to all those to whom they are under liability of suing in the courts of this country and obtaining execution against the abundant assets probably secured for the fulfilment of liabilities due from them, but I do not think it requires much elaboration to show that this is not by any means an improper suggestion to make that these old-fashioned companies well deserve to be relieved from this vexatious obligation which is of little enough value in bad cases, and certainly ought not to be laid upon companies who have proved their fitness to do business.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment. The Bill proposes that life assurance companies shall deposit and keep deposited the sum of £20,000. Hitherto they have had to deposit £20,000, but when their premiums have reached £40,000 they can take out the original £20,000. The Committee of the House of Lords, which sat two years ago, and on whose report we substantially proceed, made the following recommendation: "The deposit of £20,000 with the Accountant-General of the Court of Chancery, which the Act of 1870 makes obligatory on any new company, whether foreign or British, has undoubtedly had the effect of preventing the formation of mushroom companies. But under the Act a company is permitted to withdraw this sum as soon as the premiums amount to £40,000. The Committee are aware that this sum of £20,000 would be of little use to meet the liabilities of the larger companies which do business in this country. But they feel that if this amount were deposited and could not be withdrawn by any company, it would afford an absolute guarantee to policy-holders in foreign companies of being able always to proceed, if necessary, against such companies in the Courts of this country. The Committee therefore recommend that every company which carries on business in Great Britain should be required to maintain this deposit of £20,000, permanently, so long as any policies continue outstanding in this country."
  The Amendment is that it should be enforced against foreign companies, but

  273
  that British companies should be exempted. I am quite willing to admit that it is not so necessary in the case of British companies as it is in the case of foreign companies, where you want to find a basis of jurisdiction, but what we have to consider is, will it not be a very bad thing if we were at this stage to mar the whole symmetry of our insurance law by introducing different treatment as between foreign and British companies. Of the foreign companies the most important section is the Colonial companies, which for this purpose are described as foreign companies, and I think it would be very injurious from a sentimental point of view to draw an adverse discrimination between Colonial and British companies. It is Imperial preference of a reverse character. It would also be a great pity from the point of view of the general policy of our insurance laws if we were to abandon similarity of treatment merely for the sake of relieving British companies from the necessity of putting back this £20,000. I am assured that the deposit will make no practical difference whatever to any British insurance company except one. I suggest that even though it may be said there is some pedantry in getting substantial British companies, possessed of millions of money, to put back the original £20,000 which they have taken out, that is a small argument against throwing over our whole system of equal treatment for the sake of discriminating adversely against Colonial companies. I am quite aware that there is a school of thought which thinks that there should be discrimination and preferential treatment as between foreign and British business, and there are a great many arguments, no doubt, which can be advanced in favour of that, but if you adopt that policy you should do it in a wholehearted manner and carry it out fully. The loss of the advantage of equality of treatment which is the basis on which we go, for the very small purpose of relieving companies from keeping deposits of £20,000 would not be worth while. I have not refused the Amendment without having given my best consideration to it.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: It is impossible not to sympathise with the general idea of the Amendment, but there certainly is one very important consideration which ought to be taken into account before it is adopted. Whenever an English company desires to carry on business abroad it is obliged to obtain from the Government of the country permission to
  274
  carry it on, and most Continental countries insist upon the Board of Trade here giving a certficate to the effect that a foreign company formed in that particular country would be under no preferential disability as against an English company if it were to begin to do business in England. Within the last two or three weeks I have been endeavouring to get permission for a company to carry on business in Roumania, and it has been necessary to apply to the Board of Trade to give a certificate to the British Minister in Bucharest to the effect that a Roumanian company wanting to carry on business in England would be under no disability whatever. If that certificate cannot be obtained, our companies would all be shut out from doing business in those foreign countries, and it would be far more detrimental to the interest of British trade and British companies to be subjected to any such disability than merely to give preferential treatment of any description to British companies at home here. I think under the circumstances it would certainly not be judicious to entertain any Amendment being put into this Bill which would differentiate against foreign companies, and have the far more serious ultimate effect of placing all our English companies under very serious difficulties when they try to do business abroad.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not think anyone desires to differentiate against foreign companies. The point is whether in point of fact there is the same reason for requiring English companies to keep the deposit of £20,000 as there is for requiring foreign companies to keep the deposit. The object of the President of the Board of Trade is to give something which will enable the English claimant to sue the foreign company, and he says there ought to be £20,000 capital, at any rate to go as far as it will go. Assuming that be so, it evidently does not apply to an English company at all. It has no application to an English company. You can sue an. English company because it is here, and you can obtain your judgment, for what it is worth, against the whole of its funds. There is no object in the provision as regards English companies, even on the right hon. Gentleman's own showing. Then he said, after all, it is not a matter of any importance to an English company. Twenty thousand pounds may not be of great importance to most companies, but I believe every life insurance company but one has memorialised the Government in favour of this

  275
  particular Amendment, among others; therefore it is really rather absurd to say it is not a matter of importance if they are all agreed that it is. The life insurance companies must know their own business best, and they say it is a matter of some importance, and it seems to me that since the reason of the Amendment only applies to foreign companies the proposal ought to be confined to foreign companies.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The Noble Lord is in error in saying the only reason advanced by the Government is that of the advisibility of getting jurisdiction in this country to sue a foreign company. I do not think the insurance companies, from the information we get, are very anxious to avoid the obligations of the £20,000. After all, they get gilt-edge securities for it, and they may get 3½ per cent. on the money, and so in that way it is in the interest of the policy holders and of the good management of the company that the money, once deposited, should be kept at £20,000.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: My short answer is that my Amendment does not propose any offence against the doctrine of equal treatment. It does not propose differential treatment. The provision was aimed at two things. It was aimed at the fraudulent foreign company which tries to walk away from its obligations—and in one or two cases this was done—and it was aimed, secondly, at mushroom companies. My Amendment proposes to exempt only those which are in such a position that they cannot do cither of these things. I propose to give this exemption only to the old companies, which are not mushroom companies and cannot become such, and not being foreign companies, and being tied fast, with all their assets invested here, cannot have applied to them the same considerations which are applied to a foreign company in the case in which it is only too easy for them to evade their obligations.
  Sir T. WHITTAKER: The proposal of the Government really introduces a sham equality. It is not real equality of treatment. This is the difference. British companies have substantial funds in this country and foreign companies have not. The only funds belonging to the foreign companies in this country may be this £20,000. That is all you have to go on here, and this giving jurisdic-
  276
  tion will not help you to their funds abroad. The British companies have substantial funds here. This is giving an impression of false security. You can have a foreign company saying they are complying with every condition of the law that you require from a British company, and yet they have no other funds than that £20,000. As a matter of fact, against any ordinary action based on a single policy, no company doing business in this country, foreign or British, will attempt to evade the decision of the court. It is only when you come to winding-up or leaving the country that you want a substantial fund, and then £20,000 is no use. We had a case recently where a company incurred very substantial liabilities in this country, amounting to millions, and they left this country, with the result that the policy holders in this country are going to get practically nothing on their policies, whereas the policy holders in other countries, in some of our Colonies, where they have a substantial guarantee, will get a substantial sum. This requirement of a £20,000 deposit is of no use whatever in a case like that. I suggest this is not the way to deal with this phase of the question. The proper way to deal with it would be to require a substantial deposit here until there were invested in this country very substantial funds. Fix a substantial sum. The British company does comply with it, and foreign companies will do the same. This provision is a futile one, and it is somewhat a reflection upon British companies, with millions of funds, that they have to deposit £20,000. It is a sham equality.
  Mr. HAY: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his position. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Thomas Whittaker) has made it perfectly clear that as a protection against evil-doing by a foreign company this deposit is perfectly ridiculous. In recent years a very grave scandal and a huge loss has come upon perfectly innocent persons through the action of a foreign life company, and therefore to pretend that this deposit of £20,000 is any guarantee is to try and delude the public, which in insurance matter is extremely ignorant. The Debate will, I hope, also induce the President of the Board of Trade to consider favourably certain Amendments which will come later on in the Schedule which, if he cannot accept this Amendment, will do something to mitigate the situation, because foreign companies will have to declare what their liabilities and their assets

  277
  are in this country in making the Returns to the Board of Trade. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman cannot have given mature consideration to the Amendment or read with care the very strong representations made by the best life offices of the United Kingdom. It is a pity that he should brush aside the suggestions of companies representing not only the wealth but the frugality of the community, and what is after all an element of business in this country of which we have a right to be most proud.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am quite unable to accept the Amendment. I have had repeated conferences with the parties to whom the hon. Gentleman refers, and indeed I have given as much time to the consideration of this particular matter as to any other in the whole scope of the Bill. I would remind the Committee in the first place that I am not introducing a new matter at all. This was the recommendation of the Lords and Commons Committee. In the second place the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has moved was moved in the House of Lords, where it received long consideration from many people who are closely conversant with the subject, and it was rejected there. I am, therefore, not going out of my way when I ask the Committee to reject this Amendment. I quite recognise the point which my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker) has brought forward, but that really comes up on another Amendment. I hope the Committee will not think me vexatious if I refuse to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move that the following paragraph be inserted after paragraph (f):—
  "(g) Any business carried on by an assurance company which under the provisions of any special Act relating to that company is to be treated as life assurance business shall continue to be so treated, and shall not be deemed to be other business or a separate class of assurance business within the meaning of this Act."
  I would remind the Committee that the Norwich Union obtained a special private Act in 1905, giving that Company certain powers which they think may be interfered with by this Bill unless this Amend-
  278
  ment is made. We think the probability is that this Bill will make no difference to the rights conferred under that private Act, but we are not quite sure about that. It is rather doubtful. There are certain words in the private Act which give the idea that the rights may be interfered with, and we do not think that this would be the proper way to deal with them. Therefore I propose to introduce this saving Clause which will have the effect of making sure that that Act will not be interfered with.
  Mr. HAY: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not pursue this Amendment. Here is a case where an association has got certain special rights. It is most improper that one company should be given preferential treatment. If this company by private Act has obtained certain rights which other companies do not enjoy, surely the right hon. Gentleman, when reviewing the whole of our insurance laws, should bring special advantages into line, so that there should be true Free Trade in insurance business throughout the United Kingdom. The giving of special rights by private Acts to particular companies, thus overriding the public law, is a matter which cannot but be injurious to the whole insurance business and lead to a very great blot on this otherwise useful measure.
  Sir T. WHITTAKER: It is really quite intolerable that special exemption should be made for one particular office. One of the objects of the Bill is to secure that special funds belonging to insurance companies should be set out separately. It appears to me that if one particular office has got a clause in a private Act to keep its accounts in another form, it should not be exempted from the general provisions of this Bill, which apply to the other insurance companies of the country. It is extremely undesirable that there should be this distinction in the form of keeping accounts. I really think that the proposal contained in this Amendment is one which we ought not to have from the Government. I do invoke the principle of equality for all. This is a provision which would be very much resented by the insurance companies of the country.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 175; Noes, 32.

  Division No. 911.]

  AYES.

  [5.35 P.m.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Clark, George Smith

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Moore, William

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir F. Banbury and Mr. Hay.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Alden, Percy

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Elibank, Master of

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Erskine, David C.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Eeslemont, George Birnie

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cameron, Robert

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Falconer, I.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Baker, Joseph A.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Ffrench, Peter

  Barker, Sir John

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstend)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Barnard, E. B.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Ginnell, L.

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Cowan, W. H.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Cross, Alexander

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Beale, W. P.

  Cullinan, J.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Hancock, J. G.

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Delany, William

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Bertram, Julius

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Dillon, John

  Harrington, Timothy

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Brigg, Sir John

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Rowlands, J.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Meagher, Michael

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under-Lyne)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Sears, J. E.

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

  Middlebrook, William

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Shackleton, David James

  Hodge, John

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Hogan, Michael

  Muldoon, John

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Myer, Horatio

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Nannetti, Joseph

  Steadman, W. C.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Sunderland)

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Summerbell, T.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  O'Dowd, John

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Grady, J.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Malley, William

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Neill, Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Kearley, Rt. Hon. Sir Hudson

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Tomkinson, Rt. Hon. James

  Keating, M.

  Paul, Herbert

  Toulmin, George

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Verney, F. W.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Pirle, Duncan V.

  Walker, H. D. R. (Leicester)

  Laidlaw, Sir Robert

  Ponsorrby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Lambert, George

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Lament, Norman

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Radford, G. H.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rees, J. D.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Maclean, Donald

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Massie, J.

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

  Division No. 912.]

  AYES.

  [7.45 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pointer, J.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Hodge, John

  Radford, G. H.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Baker, Joseph A.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Randall, Athelstan

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Robertson, Sir J. M. (Tyneside)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Hudson, Walter

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Barnes, G. N.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Beale, W. P.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Roc, Sir Thomas

  Beauchamp, E.

  Jenkins, J.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rowlands, J.

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Jones, Leil (Appleby)

  Sears, J. E.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Shackleton, David James

  Bowerman, C. W.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Brigg, Sir John

  Laidlaw, Sir Robert

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Bright, J. A.

  Lambert, George

  Steadman, W. C.

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Lamont, Norman

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Sunderland)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Summerbell, T.

  Cameron, Robert

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Lynch, H. B.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Maclean, Donald

  Thomas, Sir A, (Glamorgan, E.)

  Clough, William

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Macveigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Tomkinson, Rt. Hon. James

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Toulmin, George

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Dillon, John

  Marnham, F. J.

  Verney, F. W.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Massie, J.

  Vivian, Henry

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Menzies, Sir Waiter

  Walsh, Stephen

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Middlebrook, William

  Walton, Joseph

  Elibank, Master of

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Essex, R. W.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Morrell, Philip

  Wardle, George J.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Morse, L. L.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Falconer, J.

  Muldoon, John

  Watt, Henry A.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Murray, Capt Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Myer, Horatio

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Gibson, J. P.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Glover, Thomas

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

  Hancock, J. G.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Grady, J.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Gulland.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Paul, Herbert

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  NOES.

  Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Kerry, Earl of

  Valentia, Viscount

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lonsdale, John Brownles

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Dumphreys, John

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Younger, George

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Fell, Arthur

  Kenwick, George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir Seymour King and Mr. Claude Hay.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY Mr. STUART-WORTLEY moved at end of Clause to add,
  "(h) In the case of a mutual company whose profits are allocated to members
  280
  wholly or mainly by annual abatements of premium, the abstract of the report of the actuary on the financial condition of the company, prepared in accordance with the

  281
  Fourth Schedule of this Act, may, notwithstanding anything in Section five of this Act, be made and returned at intervals not exceeding five years, provided that where such return is not made annually it shall include particulars as to the rates of abatement of premiums applicable to different classes or series of assurances allowed in each year during the period which has elapsed since the previous return under the Fourth Schedule."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 32.—(Application to Fire Insurance Companies.)
  Where a company carries on fire insurance business this Act shall apply with respect to that business subject to the following modifications:—

  (a) It shall not be necessary for the company to cause periodical investigations to be made into its financial condition by any actuary or to prepare any statement of its fire insurance business in accordance with the Fourth and Fifth Schedules to this Act:

  (b) Such of the provisions of this Act as relate to deposits to be made under this Act shall not apply with respect to the fire insurance business carried on by the company if the company has commenced to carry on that business within the United Kingdom before the 25th day of May, 1909:

  (c) Such of the provisions of this Act as relate to deposits to be made under this Act shall not apply where the company is an association of owners or occupiers of buildings or other property which satisfies the Board of Trade that it is carrying on, or is about to carry on, business wholly or mainly for the purpose of the mutual insurance of its members against damage by or incidental to fire caused to the houses or other property owned or occupied by them:

  (d) It shall not be necessary to make a deposit in respect of fire insurance business where the company has made a deposit in respect of any other class of assurance business, and where a company, having made a deposit in respect of fire insurance business, commences to carry on life assurance business or employers' liability in-
  282
  surance business the company may transfer the deposit so made to the account of that other business, and after such transfer, the deposit shall be treated as if it had been made in respect of such other business:

  (e) So much of this Act as requires an assurance company transacting other business besides assurance business or more than one class of assurance business to keep separate funds into which all receipts in respect of the assurance business or of each class of assurance business are to be paid shall not apply as respects fire insurance business:

  (f) The provisions of this Act with respect to the amalgamation of companies shall not apply where the only classes of assurance business carried on by both of the companies are fire insurance business, or fire insurance business and accident insurance business, and the provisions of this Act with respect to the transfer of assurance business from one company to another shall not apply to fire insurance business.

  Mr. CHURCHILLmoved, in paragraph (a), after the word "company" to leave cut the words "to cause periodical investigations to be made into its financial condition by an actuary or."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. HART-DAVIESmoved, in paragraph (b), to omit the words "before the 25th of May, 1909," and to insert instead thereof the words "passing of this Act."
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The object of inserting the date in the Bill was to prevent the growth of mushroom companies; but now that the Bill is drawing towards completion, and is likely to receive the Royal assent in a day or two, there is no danger of mushroom companies, and consequently I shall accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Hackney.
  Mr. HART-DAVIES: Does that apply to the similar Amendment of which I have given notice in other Clauses.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 33 (Application to Accident insurance Companies), agreed to, with drafting Amendments.

  CLAUSE 34.—(Application to Employers' Liability Insurance Companies.)
  (1) Where a company carries on employers' liability insurance business this Act shall apply with respect to that business, subject to the following modifications:—

  (a) This Act shall not apply where the company is an association of employers which satisfies the Board of Trade that it is carrying on or is about to carry on business for the purpose of the mutual insurance of its members against liability to pay compensation or damages to workmen employed by them, either alone or in conjunction with insurance against any other risk incident to their trade or industry.

  Mr. CHURCHILLmoved, in paragraph (a), after the word "business" ["business for the purpose of the mutual insurance"] and insert the words "wholly or mainly."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 35 (Application to Bond Investment Companies) agreed to, with a drafting Amendment.

  CLAUSE 36.—(Power of Board of Trade to Exempt Unregistered Trade Unions.)
  The Board of Trade may, on the application of any unregistered trade union originally established more than twenty years before the commencement of this Act, extend to the trade union the exemption conferred by this Act on registered trade unions.
  Mr. CHURCHILLmoved to add, at the end of the Clause, the words, "and may on the application of an unregistered friendly society extend to the society the exemption conferred by this Act on registered friendly societies if it appears to the Board, after consulting the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, that the society is one to which it is inexpedient that the provisions of this Act should apply."
  There is some danger that the comprehensive wording of Clause 1 might go further than it was intended to go. It is not intended, for instance, that the provisions of this Bill should apply to the village slate club, but as it stands it might be held to apply. It appears to be difficult to define what a slate club is. I am
  284
  advised that the best way out of the difficulty is to leave a discretion with the Board of Trade.
  Mr. HAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to lay down any rule which would bring any company within the terms of the exemption, or is each case to be taken on its merits? Because I conceive that various difficulties may arise unless it is known that the Board of Trade will follow a certain course of action.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No. The object of the Amendment is to enable us to exempt a village slate club from being considered an insurance club. The course suggested is only to be taken after consultation with the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies.
  Amendment agreeed to.
  Clause, as Amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 37.—(Provisions as to Collecting Societies and Industrial Assurance Companies.)
  (1) Amongst the purposes for which collecting societies and industrial assurance companies may issue policies of assurance there shall be included insuring money to be paid for the funeral expenses of a parent, grandparent or grandchild.
  (2) No policy effected before the passing of this Act with a collecting society or industrial assurance company shall be deemed to be void by reason only that the person effecting the policy had not, at the time the policy was effected, an insurable interest in the life of the person assured, or that the name of the person interested, or for whose benefit or on whose account the policy was effected, was not inserted in the policy, or that the insurance was not one authorised by the Acts relating to friendly societies, if the policy was effected by or on account of a person who had at the time a bonâ fide expectation that he would incur expenses in connection with the death or funeral of the assured, and it the sum assured is not unreasonable for the purpose of covering those expenses.
  (3) Any collecting society or industrial insurance company which, after the passing of this Act, issues policies of insurance which are not within the legal powers of such society or company shall be held to have made default in complying with the requirements of this Act; and the provisions of this Act with respect to such de-

  285
  fault shall apply to collecting societies, industrial insurance companies, and their officers, in like manner as they apply to assurance companies and their officers.
  (4) Without prejudice to the powers conferred by Section seventy-one of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, the committee of management or other governing body of a collecting society having more than one hundred thousand members may petition the court to make an order for the conversion of the society into a company under the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, and the court may make such an order unless, after hearing the committee of management, or other governing body, and other persons whom the court considers entitled to be heard on the petition, the court is satisfied that one-fourth at least of the members of the society object to the conversion, and the court may award reasonable costs of opposition; and the court may give such directions as it thinks fit for settling a proper memorandum and articles of association of the company; but, before any such petition is presented to the court, notice of intention to present the petition shall be published in the "Gazette," and in such newspapers as the court may direct.
  When a collecting society converts itself into a company in accordance with the provisions of this Sub-section, Sub-section (3) of Section seventy-one of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, shall apply in like manner as if the conversion were effected under that Section.
  (5) In this Section the expressions "collecting society" and "industrial assurance company" have the same meanings as in the Collecting Societies and Industrial Assurance Companies Act, 1896.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEmoved, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "funeral expenses."
  8.0 P.M.
  I want some definition of the limitation of funeral expenses. It is a very common experience in these matters that a son or a daughter incurs considerable cost in connection with sickness and doctor's fees for attendance on an aged parent, and to limit the insurable sum to what pays funeral expenses only would be an injustice in a case of that kind unless the term "funeral expenses" be so elastic as to include medical attendance and other costs incurred in cases of illness prior to death. If I have some assurance on that point I will not press this Amendment. Meanwhile I move it in the form I have suggested, to
  286
  leave out the words, "there shall be included insuring money to be paid for the funeral expenses, and to insert instead thereof the words, "on the life."
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that I cannot agree to the Amendment, the effect of which would be in the case of collecting societies and industrial assurance companies that they would have power to insure without the limit contained in the Bill. There would be unlimited insurance possible for any sum of money within the increased and extended degree of relationships legalised by this Bill. I think that would be a very sharp and striking change in the Clause and in the view which Parliament has taken as to the limitation which should be placed upon this kind of insurance. Within the limits of reasonable funeral expenses, it is possible to extend the ordinary definition of natural relationships, and that has been done to meet a felt want in the country at large, which is proved by the very large number of policies which have been taken out. To extend the insurable interest so widely as this Amendment would allow would be, to a very large extent, to repeal the Gambling Act of 1874 so far as industrial assurance societies are concerned, and so far as Section 8 of the Friendly Societies Act of 1876 is concerned. I certainly do not feel at present that I could accept the Amendment.
  Mr. SHACKLETON: I think my hon. Friend's Amendment is already met by this Bill. It is not practicable to limit the exact funeral expenses as suggested, and there are occasions where medical and incidental expenses have to be met. Even if a limit were fixed as proposed, it could easily be evaded by duplicating the insurance with another company. That is the answer to limiting funeral expenses. As a matter of fact we had an application in Blackburn, where 40 assurance policies had been taken out against one life. There is no possible stop that could be put either in this Bill or under the present law to multiplying assurances with different companies. I think that is a sufficient ground, and all the requirements of the hon. Member are met perfectly satisfactorily by the Bill, with which I know persons interested, agents and so forth, are satisfied.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Perhaps the President of the Board of Trade will consider the matter between now and the Report

  287
  stage with a view to inserting qualifying words in regard to funeral expenses. At the present time the Section is evaded by taking out half a dozen policies, sometimes for more than one life. We have a form of words which will allow of reasonable medical expenses and funeral expenses. Such a form of words would afford more elasticity in the matter, and in the hope that this will be done, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I understand that the next Amendment I have on the Paper, to insert in Sub-section (1), after the word "parent," the word "child," is already provided for in the original Act.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: That is perfectly right; it is in the original Act.
  Mr. CHURCHILLmoved, in Sub-section (1), before the word "grandchild," to leave out the word "or," and to insert the words "brother or sister."
  I move this Amendment with a view to legalising the great bulk of assurance policies. There is a great volume of these policies now under uncertainty, and I propose to extend the definition of insurable interest within a greater degree of natural relationships. I have considered the matter very carefully indeed, and I have every reason to believe that this Amendment is thoroughly justifiable within the limits we have proposed.
  Question, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause." put, and negatived.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I want to ask whether if the words "brother or sister" are inserted, it would be any bar to my moving the further Amendment which I have on the Paper in regard to illegitimacy of children.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No. it will not have that effect.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Am I to understand that this is strictly limited to funeral expenses, or whether it would not be possible to recover against the society, for instance, if an individual had taken out an insurance and had no funeral expenses to pay?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: If he had a reasonable expectation, he would be liable to be called upon.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The funeral expenses as a matter of fact have reference to particular relationships.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I am aware of that fact, but I am also aware that the words "funeral expenses" in actual practice do not cover funeral expenses at all.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: That is a matter that must be fought out on the facts in each case. I took part in a case myself in which the decision was that funeral expenses was not insurable interest, and this is to make the point perfectly clear.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEmoved, in Sub-section (1), after the word "grandchild," to insert the words "nor shall illegitimacy be a bar to the taking out of such policy."
  I do not know the proper form of words, but my meaning is perfectly obvious. It will be remembered that under the Workmen's Compensation Bill, when it was before the House, an Amendment similar to mine was moved and accepted. Under this Bill as it stands I am advised that the "mother" or "grandmother" of an illegitimate child could not insure it against funeral expenses, nor could the child itself take out a policy for funeral expenses on the mother or grandmother because it happened to be illegitimate. I think in regard to the principle that has been established in the Workmen's Compensation Act, that it would be worth while to extend it to friendly societies, with which we are dealing under the present measure. There is a very large number of cases of real hardship in connection with these children, and I am sure that all sections of the House would desire that their case should be met without any fear of encouraging immorality, so that the child which has the misfortune to be born out of wedlock shall not be unduly penalised because of a misfortune which is not due to any fault of its own. With a view to getting some form of words, I therefore beg to move.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I share the feelings of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Merthyr Tydvil as to the view which Parliament should take of the interests and rights of a bastard child. Certainly I agree that those interests ought to be most carefully safeguarded and cherished by the laws of the country. I do not differ from the hon. Member in the least in that respect. I have less sympathy, however, for the parents, and the application of

  289
  the principle of the Workmen's Compensation Act to this measure would really be very lop-sided. For instance, the Workmen's Compensation Act provides that it the father's death entitles the children to a share in certain funds available for compensation, the bastard child equally with the other children, or if there be no other children, can obtain that share of compensation to make up for the loss of the breadwinner. But if this Amendment were accepted the Bill would not apply to the bastard child at all, who would be receiving no benefit. It would be the parent who would be receiving the premium on the death of the bastard child. That, I think, is quite a different thing.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The point I put was that the illegitimate child cannot take out a policy on the mother or grandmother.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I was turning my attention more to the other point of view—namely, that the effect of the Amendment would be to enable the parent to secure advantages from the death of the illegitimate child. I am bound to say I do not think it is at all on all fours with the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act which secures for the child the real benefit. I am willing to admit that the aspect of the illegitimate child assuring the parent has not anything like the same force, but I do not think we should enable the parent to obtain the money.
  Mr. G. N. BARNES: I am sorry to hear from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that he is not disposed to accept this Amendment. It seems to me that the Workmen's Compensation Act determines not only that the child shall be benefited in the event of the killing or maiming of the father or mother, but also provides, so far as I understand it, that that father or mother should be benefited by the killing or maiming of the child. The determining word in the Workmen's Compensation Act is "dependent," and if the father or mother is dependent on the child, or the grandfather even then in the event of injury or death or accident the parents or grandfather are entitled to the benefit just as much as the child under the Workmen's Compensation Act. That is precisely the proposal to extend the provisions in that Act to this Bill With ail due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I have heard no reason why we should not apply the same principle as was accepted by the
  290
  House four years ago, and accepted readily, I may say, by the House. I hope, therefore, there will be reconsideration of this matter, and that the right hon. Gentleman may show the same generous spirit as was shown four years ago by the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I do not want to deal with or discuss the merits of the particular question by raising any particular technicality in regard to the Amendment, but the Amendment has really a very substantial objection in this sense, that it could only do away with the bar of illegitimacy in the case of collecting societies and industrial assurance societies, and would leave out the vast majority of the regular friendly societies. I dare say the answer of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) would be, "Very well, recast it and make it applicable to all the friendly societies." That obviously ought to be done if the Amendment is adopted, and I think the House ought to know that this bar of illegitimacy does exist in the whole of the friendly societies of this country. If the law was amended with regard to one it should be with regard to all. Therefore, I think, the Amendment had better be withdrawn here. I do not think the speech of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Churchill) was made in an unfriendly spirit. I have no doubt he will consider the whole matter between this and the Report stage.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I think the answer of the learned Solicitor-General is really no answer to the fact that there is a disability in connection with assurance. This is a proposal to cure that. Let us do that and then deal with the other cases and the general question as they arise. It seems to me we ought not, if there are facilities being given for the purpose of these assurances, which are very valuable to the working classes, to penalise either the father or the mother because at some remote period there was a mistake with regard to the date of the birth of the child. There is no doubt that there are a great many cases of that kind, and to perpetuate a disability of that kind is decidedly bad. I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Merthyr, which I am bound to say carried conviction to my mind. I do not know whether these are quite the right words, and perhaps the words at the end of the Clause, "whether legitimate or illegitimate," applicable to all those relationships, would be better. The President of the Board of Trade said

  291
  that he rather sympathised with the idea of the child insuring the parent or the grandparent, but in such cases the illegitimate child would not be liable for the funeral expenses. The right hon. Gentleman added that he could not see his way to allow the parent to insure the illegitimate child. He gave the astonishing reason that if the illegitimate child died the parent would benefit. On the death of a child the parent is able to go to the society and get a few pounds, and why should the parents not be able to get that in the case of the illegitimate child? It is possible that there is just as much affection for that particular child, whether the child had been born a few days earlier or later. I really do think that the distinction that was drawn by the President of the Board of Trade is not a valid one, and that the reason given by the Solicitor-General is equally invalid. I hope the Government will see their way to accept these words or some reasonable words. The Amendment is eminently reasonable.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I do not think the hon. Member (Mr. Watson Rutherford) is quite fair either to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Churchill) or myself. I said purposely I did not think the answer I was going to make as to the difficulty of the words was an answer as to the merits. In my position, sitting here, I am bound to point out, and I am quite sure the hon. Member is quite willing to accept this, that if this is to be done at all that it ought to be done generally. I never let drop a single word which would indicate any rooted objections on my part to extending this. I ended by saying that if the hon. Member withdrew his Amendment he would lose nothing, that he would have an opportunity of moving it on Report, and before I sat down I said, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, that the matter would receive consideration between this and Report.
  Mr. MADDISON: I hope before the right hon. Gentleman does consider these words, if it is his intention to do so, that he will really consider them from the point of view of public policy. I share with my hon. Friend the desire not to penalise the child because it happens to be illegitimate. That would be the very last thing I would desire. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Workmen's Compensation Act did not make it plain, and at the same time I think the right hon.
  292
  Gentleman's instinct was right when he approached this question from the point of view of the child itself. We may just as well face facts here. It is all very well for the hon. Member for West Derby (Mr. Watson Rutherford) to say that the mother of the illegitimate child has as much affection for it as the mother of the child born in wedlock. I am not going to discuss that, but what I do know is that amongst some of the poorer members of the working classes in some towns that I know very well there can be no doubt that there is a frightful disregard of illegitimate children. When one remembers the keenness of assurance companies to get business, one seriously doubts whether the encouragement given by altering the Clause would not really tell against the illegitimate children of the country. The hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Shackleton) referred to a case where there were 40 insurances. I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to give the matter the most careful consideration before he makes any alteration. I doubt very much whether the friendly societies would desire such a change as that proposed. We must not be led away by the sentimental desire to do what is right and proper to the infant. The infant can obviously get no advantage; but there is a real danger of putting a premium on this sort of thing, and of adding to the callous disregard of the offspring of illegitimate connections which is a very sad feature of our social life.
  Mr. STEPHEN WALSH: I think we are losing sight of the real question under discussion. The point is not whether or not the child is illegitimate, but whether there is a legitimate claim to insure the child. If a child is illegitimate, and death overtakes it, surely it needs burial. We are not here specially to inquire into the conditions under which the child came into the world. In any case the child needs burial, and the father and mother would be disregarding the most sacred obligations if they did not provide for it. All that we desire is that the parents should have the same insurable interest in the child. There is no financial advantage to be gained, as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest, as the insurance is limited to the extent of the funeral expenses. Is it seriously suggested that that disregard of moral obligations to which the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Maddison) referred would be frightfully inceased if this particular Amendment were inserted?
  Mr. MADDISON: Forty insurances, or forty times the funeral expenses?
  Mr. WALSH: If this Bill becomes law that class of case will be rendered impossible. These children have to be buried, and it is surely a legitimate object that the parents should be provided with means whereby decent burial may be secured. The case is perfectly parallel with what has been done under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and I think we are entitled to a more definite statement from the right hon. Gentleman on the matter.
  Mr. SHACKLETON: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Burnley should have referred in this case at all to my illustration of the 40 insurances. The fear he has in mind is already guarded against, as you cannot draw more than a certain amount for a child under a certain age, and you would be unable to get the necessary death certificates from the registrar. The point is really this. In scores of cases the eldest child is illegitimate. There may be six or seven brothers and sisters. The hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Keir Hardie) has raised a point which is certainly new to a great many people. If inquiries were made at the assurance offices I believe it would be found that hitherto there has been no distinction made. Hundreds of thousands of these children are insured without any question being raised. But now that the point has been raised assurance companies will be expected to keep strictly within the law. For the first time you will be making a distinction between the eldest child and the other children in a family. We do not want that in family life, because there is just as much affection for the eldest as for the other children. I know that that is not the case the hon. Member for Burnley has in mind; but when he opposes an Amendment he must think what it means in other cases. You cannot restrict your action to the case of the young girl who gets landed and does not marry at all. Even in that case the mother is entitled to this provision, as she is in a worse position than the mother who gets married afterwards, because she has only herself to rely upon; the (scoundrel clears out, and she is landed. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not turn a deaf ear to this Amendment. I do not see why he should permit a child to insure its mother or grandmother, and not allow the mother to insure the child. There ought to be an equal right, as there is a joint responsi-
  294
  bility. One never knows who will be the first to be called upon to meet this liability, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment in spirit, if he cannot accept the exact words.
  Mr. WILLIAM ABRAHAM (Rhondda): I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept the Amendment now that the question has been raised. We have been dealing with the matter for a long time as if these children belonged to nobody; but when it is realised that an enormous number are the eldest sons or daughters in families it changes the question entirely. We ask that the illegitimate child should be placed in exactly the same position under the law in this respect as the other children.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: One cannot help being impressed by the views which have been expressed so forcibly upon this melancholy aspect of our social life. In forming my opinion on the subject I have had only one idea before me, and that is the interest of the illegitimate child. If I thought there was any privilege or advantage which the child could otherwise secure, but of which it would be deprived by the non-acceptance of this Amendment, I would go the whole way to meet that point. I think the spirit in which the hon. Member moved his Amendment and other Gentlemen supported it showed them to be entirely in accord with the great drift of modern thought. It has always been thought desirable to limit child insurance in every way. That has been the past policy of Parliament, and it has been very strictly construed, and previous Parliaments have not been at all inclined to advance recklessly in this matter. I should like to point out that it is not merely a question of ethics, of morals, that we have to consider. We have also to consider the general structure of the law upon the subject as it stands at the present time. If public opinion and the House of Commons were to decide that in this case the safeguards which the law has hitherto enforced should be relaxed they can have the will to enforce that decision. It would be a very important provision. Even so, I think that we should be dealing with the subject in a lop-sided manner if we made this provision to apply only to collecting societies and left other friendly societies under the conditions that the State has hitherto thought it neces-

  295
  sary to enforce. There is one argument— a small one perhaps—and that is that all these bodies are to some extent growing restive if they think that greater consideration is being shown towards one or another than has been extended to themselves. On that ground, which has been put forward by my right hon. Friend the Solicitor-General, as well as on the grounds that I am not yet convinced that the time has come that the Commons should take this step, I do not feel able to accept the Amendment. I have been impressed and surprised by what has been so forcibly put I forward by hon. Members, and I will give my best consideration to what they have said. But I must honestly say that for the present I think it would not be advisable to take this step.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I have no option but to press this matter to a Division. I should have thought that the experience of the Government in another Bill in which the same question was raised would have been some guide to them, and I did not anticipate for one moment that there would be the slightest hesitation in accepting the substance of this Amendment. Strange how we look at the same question from different points of view! When I put down this Amendment, and a former Amendment to the Compensation Bill, I was not thinking of the eldest child of the family. For this reason: In Scotland if the parents marry after the birth of the child the child is legitimate. See what the circumstances are in England and Wales. A certain number of children are born illegitimate, who, had they been born in Scotland, would have been legitimate. That in itself is an anomaly which ought to be got rid of. But I repeat I was not thinking of the eldest child of a married couple. I was thinking of the case of a child of a deserted mother. Let the President of the Board of Trade just try and consider the circumstances of a woman who gives birth to a child of this kind. My hon. Friend below me expressed it, "That the scoundrel responsible for the act deserts her." She brings up the child until it is 10 or 12 years of age. She has surely suffered enough for any sin of which she has been guilty in bringing the child into the world without in addition being penalised to the extent of being required out of her earnings, usually very scanty, to pay the funeral expenses. Surely, in
  296
  spite of what the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Maddison) says, it would not let loose the flood-gates of immorality amongst the working classes to give this poor mother the right to insure herself against the funeral expenses of her child. Take a still more common case, the case of an illegitimate child brought up by its grandparents after the mother marries. The grandparents are fond of the child, and care for it. There is no reason in that case at least of the child's life being unduly shortened in order to get the funeral money, as the hon. Member for Burnley thought would be the case in some instances. In that case the grandparent is not to be allowed to insure the child for funeral money. Reverse the procedure. Take the case of such a child grown to manhood, and caring for his mother—as often happens. That child is not allowed to take out an insurance to cover the funeral expenses of his own mother—of his grandparents, if they brought him up. The whole thing is illogical, absurd, and indefensible. I am really surprised at this time of day that any Member of the Government should attempt to justify that state of the law. As to the argument that this Bill only deals with a portion of the friendly societies, that can easily be met in one of two ways: either by a general clause in the Bill, making this Amendment applicable to all kindred societies, or, if that be not possible, by a very short amending Bill of one small clause applying this Amendment, if put into this Bill, to other societies coming within the scope of this measure. There need be no difficulty on that point. We have received not only no assurance from the Government, but the impression that the speech of the President of the Board of Trade has left in my mind is one of no hope whatever of sympathetic consideration being given to the terms of this Amendment. I should have been quite prepared to have left it to come up on the Report stage of the Bill but for the statement we have just listened to. Under these circumstances, if there is no hope given to us of the acceptance of this Amendment at a later stage, I shall certainly press the matter to a Division.
  Question put, "That those words he there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 66; Noes, 105.

  Division No. 913.]

  AYES.

  [8.45 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Jenkins, J.

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Shackleton, David James

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Joyce, Michael

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Byles, William Pollard

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Steadman, W. C

  Cameron, Robert

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Summerbell, T.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Cullinan, J.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Walsh, Stephen

  Dumphreys, John

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  O'Grady, J.

  Wardle, George J.

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Fell, Arthur

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Glover, Thomas

  Pointer, J.

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

  Hancock, J. G.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hay, Hon. Claude

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Hodge, John

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Keir Hardie and Mr. Barnes.

  Hudson, Walter

  Rowlands, J.

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Paul, Herbert

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Gibson, J. P.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Radford, G. H.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Baker, Joseph A.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Barker, Sir John

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Robertson, Sir J. M. (Tyneside)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Hoopor, A. G.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Brigg, Sir John

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Schwann, Sir C E. (Manchester)

  Brunner, Rt Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Sears, J. E.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Laidlaw, Sir Robert

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Clough, William

  Lamont, Norman

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Tomkinson, Rt. Hon. James

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  M'Callum, John M.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Vivian, Henry

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Marnham, F. J.

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Elibank, Master of

  Massie, J.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Essex, R. W.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Everett, R. Lacoy

  Morse, L. L.

  Falconer, J.

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Gulland-

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Ferens, T. R.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  Mr. CHURCHILLmoved, in Subsection (4), after the word "a" ["An order for the conversion of the society into a company"] to insert the word "mutual."
  This and subsequent Amendments in my name have for their object the enabling of a collecting club to develop itself into an insurance company by a vote of the members. I have, after very careful consideration and consultation with a great many persons affected in the matter, come to the conclusion that we should lay down the general principle of majority vote.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEmoved, in Sub-section (4), after the word "may" ["and the Court may make such an order unless"], to insert the words, "on it being shown that in a ballot vote of the members of the society not less than fifty-five per cent, of the total membership is in favour of I he conversion."
  I do not propose to press this, in view of the Amendment the President of the Board of Trade has on the Paper lower

  299
  down, provided I clearly understand its meaning. If his Amendment be accepted, the Clause would then read that the court requires to be satisfied that 55 per cent, of the members voted in favour of the transfer. We entirely agree with that, but would the President give us some idea of how the evidence is to be obtained? That would rather meet the point.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: We intend that there shall be a poll, and I am going to move later on in Sub-section (4), after the word "satisfied" ["the Court is satisfied"], to insert the words "on a poll being taken." That will make the matter quite clear.
  Mr. W. P. BEALE: I think the words "the Court is satisfied" are rather a safer protection than relegating it to the company to take their own poll. I think it would be safer to leave it for the Court to be satisfied that 55 per cent. agree rather than leave it to the company to take a poll.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: By my proposal both cases are provided for. The Court must be satisfied and a poll must be taken.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (4) to leave out the word "unless" ["and the Court may make such an order unless"], and to insert instead thereof the word "if."
  In same Sub-section, after the word "satisfied" ["the Court is satisfied that one-fourth"], to insert the words "on a poll being taken."
  In same Sub-section, to leave out the word "one-fourth" ["the Court is satisfied that one-fourth "], and to insert instead thereof the words "fifty-five per cent."
  In the same Sub-section, to leave out the word "object" ["object to the conversion"], and to insert instead thereof the words: "over sixteen years of age agree."
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEmoved, in Sub-section (4), to leave out the words: "and the Court may award reasonable costs of opposition."
  300
  If the opposition is to have costs, why not the promoters? Why allow costs in one case and not in the other? Now that the whole method of procedure has been changed, it appears to me that these words are no longer necessary.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: Those words were put in by a careful draftsman, and they were inserted to make it clear to the ordinary layman that, in the event of there being an opposition, it would be taken, and it was intended to make it clear that they might get reasonable costs. The Court, however, has power over the costs and can give them either to the opposition or to the promoters. Under these circumstances we accept the hon. Member's Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 38 agreed to.

  CLAUSE 39.—(Short Title and Commencement.)
  (1) This Act may be cited as the Assurance Companies Act, 1909.
  (2) This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January nineteen hundred and ten.
  Mr. CHURCHILL Mr. CHURCHILL moved, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "January," and to insert instead thereof the word "July."
  Amendment agreed to.

  FIRST SCHEDULE.
  NOTE 6.—The columns headed "Business out of the United Kingdom," in the case of companies having their head office in the United Kingdom, apply only to business secured through agencies out of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. HAY Mr. HAY moved, in Note 6, to leave out the word "agencies," and to insert instead thereof the words "branch offices."
  I move this Amendment at the request of various assurance offices. It is most inconvenient and unnecessary that these returns should be made in respect of business secured through agencies, and it would meet with all the requirements of the law if they were made in respect of business secured through branch offices out of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It is very difficult on a moment's notice to say what will be the effect of this Amendment, but I will consider it before the Report stage.
  Mr. HAY: I am quite agreeable to the right lion. Gentleman's suggestion.
  Mr. MUNRO FERGUSON: We think the word "agencies" rather too wide.
  Sir T. P. WHITTAKER: The object is to ascertain what business is done out of the United Kingdom, and whether it is done through agencies or branches, the return ought not to be limited in any way.
  Mr. HAY: There is no intention in moving this Amendment to do anything which would in any way disguise the amount of business done abroad.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY Mr. STUART-WORTLEY moved, after the word "Kingdom" ["through agencies out of the United Kingdom"], to insert the words, "in countries where the company is required to make a special deposit of funds for the security of policy holders in those countries."
  The object of the Amendment is to limit the requirements, in this particular Note to those cases where business is secured abroad in countries which require a special deposit, and I think that is the only rational or scientific classification. There are many companies which have a small amount of business secured through agencies abroad where it would hardly repay the trouble of making a return, and that is why I move this Amendment.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The object of providing for a revenue account of the business within and out of the United Kingdom is to obtain statistical information which I think can be given with very little trouble by the companies, and which will be of considerable value. The Amendment would entirely destroy the1 value of this provision. I know the point the right hon. Gentleman has in view, but I really do not think the Amendment would conduce to the smooth working of the Bill.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  First Schedule agreed to.
  Second Schedule agreed to.

  THIRD SCHEDULE.
  NOTE 1.—When part of the assets of the company are specifically deposited, under
  302
  local laws, in various places out of the United Kingdom, as security to holders of policies there issued, each such place and the amount compulsorily lodged therein much be specified in respect of each class of business, except that in the case of fire, accident, or employers' liability insurance business it shall be sufficient to state the fact that a part of the assets has been so deposited.
  Mr. HAY Mr. HAY moved, in Note 1, to leave out the words "except that in the case of fire, accident, or employers' liability insurance business it shall be sufficient to state the fact that a part of the assets has been so deposited."
  You have, by this Bill, imposed a very definite and binding obligation upon a life office as to the assets they have available for British policy-holders, and I submit it is not reasonable to say that companies transacting either fire, accident, or employers' liability insurance business abroad should be exempt from this obligation. This becomes all the more necessary having regard to the fact that in many foreign countries the Government insist upon large deposits being made to satisfy the claims that may arise in those countries before British policy-holders can share in the assets of the company. This thing has now obtained such dimensions, particularly in countries where fire insurance is of a speculative character and where the risks are of the most hazardous nature, that policy-holders in the United Kingdom are being more or less deluded by the offices. The announcements in their publications, by which they attract business in the United Kingdom, run to the effect that millions upon millions of sovereigns are available to satisfy the claims of British policy holders, whereas, as a matter of fact, most of those funds are locked up abroad, and are, in a large measure, under the control of foreign Governments. The position is all the more serious from the fact that it is alleged that these disclosures, which I believe are of great importance, are not necessary, because contracts with respect to fire insurance are of short duration. But let me remind the Committee that there is a tendency more and more to take out long period policies of fire insurance. Hon. Gentlemen conversant with these matters will know that in many cases such policies are taken out for a period of seven years, and, therefore, it is a matter of immediate concern to every policy holder in this kingdom that he should be in a posi-

  303
  tion to know what are the commitments of his company abroad I do not wish to weary the Committee with figures. There are one or two cases, however, which might be mentioned. I will not give names, but I can cite the case of companies which have deposits abroad to the amount of two millions and a half sterling, and yet they advertise that these funds are available for home policy holders, whereas, as a matter of fact, foreign policy holders have a preferential claim upon them. I know, too, of an advertisement in which a company tells its American policy holders that it has a huge sum available for them, and at the same time it is representing to its British policy holders that the same funds are available for them. It is nevertheless an undeniable fact that a vast proportion of these funds are held abroad under the control of foreign Governments, and are so held in order to satisfy the claims in respect of policies issued on property in those countries, and must be so utilised before the British policy holders can obtain a single shilling. I feel that now the business of insurance is being brought under the control of the British Government policy holders should have full knowledge of what business their companies are doing, and that it is only reasonable to insist that fire, accident, and employer's liability business should be put into a category which will enable the insured to know exactly what security he has when he pays a premium to cover a risk. It must not be forgotten that on the American Continent there are possibilities of calamities involving enormous loss to the companies such as are not likely to occur in Europe, and therefore, from the point of view of the British policy holder, it is all the more necessary in view of the fact that these calamities may sweep away nearly the whole of the assets of insurance companies in this country, that the information to which I have referred should be made available for the policy holders. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept my Amendment I hope he will be willing on the Report stage to bring up words which will enable its object to be attained.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It is the fact that in the case of life insurance companies the funds which are hypothecated abroad have to be disclosed, and the hon. Gentleman wishes, not unreasonable, to make fire insurance companies subject to a similar
  304
  proviso. I cannot accept his Amendment because it would greatly widen the scope of my Bill. I should not have got so far with it had I cast my net too widely. Be it remembered that life risks are of long duration and are actual, whereas fire risks are annual, or nearly always so, and are but occasional. We are invited to ask fire companies to disclose their hypothecated deposits abroad. But even if the deposit were hypothecated they could close the business at the end of the year and bring home the funds, whereas those that are not hypothecated are no security at all. Non-hypothecation of foreign deposits would present no barrier to the money being brought home and transferred over here for the benefit of the British policy holder. There are, therefore, perfectly good reasons for not meting out absolutely the same treatment to fire and life companies. I am perfectly prepared to justify on its merits the course I have adopted. I am quite willing to admit also that this information, which we believe would do no injury or harm in the case of life companies, might cause a great deal of harm in the case of fire companies, and certainly such a demand would be very deeply resented by them.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: The reply of the right hon. Gentleman is rather cynical. It shows that the public have been neglected for the sake of powerful interests which are able to exercise pressure in this House. [Mr. CHURCHILL: "No, no."] It may be true that the risks accepted by life companies are certain and inevitable, and extend over a long time. It is also true that the risks accepted by fire companies are annual and occasional, but in the case of foreign risks there are natural phenomena which I think deserve special consideration, and it seems to me one of the most extraordinary parts of the history and genesis of tins Bill that there should be this preferential treatment.
  Sir HENRY KING: I really am quite surprised to find this attack coming from this side of the House on the British fire offices, and I venture to think there is no class of company in the world which stands so high as they do. They have been through catastrophe after catastrophe in all parts of the earth, and have emerged from them without any detriment to themselves or their clients. My hon. Friend spoke of the catastrophes of Chicago and San Francisco, and there is no doubt that nothing gave greater credit to the British fire offices

  305
  than the way those claims were met, when other companies were unable to pay them. What is there, after all, in the deposit of the American companies? They have to pay up fifty thousand dollars, and they have to keep their premiums in the country during the period for which the risk is run. That is for accident and fire policies, and I cannot see what is to be gained by this attempt to cast a slur upon the British fire companies and to suggest that there is any of them which could not pay its obligations at this moment if called upon to do so. If my hon. Friends could mention one case of a single fire company which had defaulted in any part of the world there might be something to be said, but British fire companies are pre-eminent in every part of the world for the admirable and honourable way in which they have met their obligations, and that alone should, I think, protect them from the attacks of my hon. Friends.
  Mr. HAY: I am very much surprised at the attitude taken up by the President of the Board of Trade, because in effect he told us that he had been overpowered by the insurance combine or trust. That is the long and the short of it. I am afraid my hon. Friend behind me has not given an absolutely unbiassed, I will not say inaccurate, version of the situation. I have been associated with fire, and other forms of insurance almost since my 'teens, and I would remind him that if these companies to which he has referred have been so punctual in their payments abroad, it has been because they have in the past made a handsome profit out of the home business, and, if they had not, they would have found it very difficult in the case of Chicago to have met their liabilities. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman that the engagements, being only for one year, differentiates them is not a real one which covers the whole case, because there is an increasing tendency, especially in the case of large companies, to accept these fire risks, not for one year, but over a term of years. I can only regret that so excellent an opportunity of helping the presentation of the best and clearest information to the British public has not been seized by the right hon. Gentleman, particularly as the reason why he has not taken it is that he has given way to the menaces of the insurance trust.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. LOUGH Mr. LOUGH moved to leave out, "Note 2.—If desired, a separate balance-sheet in
  306
  the above form may be rendered in respect of any particular fund," and to insert instead thereof, "Note 2.—A balance-sheet in the above form must be rendered in respect of each separate fund for which separate investments are made."
  Amendment agreed to.
  NOTE 3.—The balance-sheet must state how the values of the Stock Exchange securities are arrived at, and, on any occasion when a statement respecting valuation under the Fourth Schedule is made, a certificate must be appended, signed by the same persons as sign the balance-sheet, to the effect that in their belief the assets set forth in the balance-sheet are in the aggregate fully of the value stated therein, less any investment reserve fund taken into account.
  Mr. CHURCHILL Mr. CHURCHILL moved to leave out the words, "on any occasion when a statement respecting valuation under the Fourth Schedule is made," and at the end of the Note to add, "In the case of a company transacting life assurance business or bond investment business, this certificate is to be given on the occasion only when a statement respecting valuation under the Fourth Schedule is made."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEYmoved, at the end, to insert the words "Companies established outside the United Kingdom must state the amount of assets in the hands of any trustee in the United Kingdom for the, benefit of British policy holders."
  This Amendment would require that a life assurance company doing business in the United Kingdom, but established elsewhere, shall state the amount of assets hypothecated in the United Kingdom for the benefit of British policy holders. It is necessary to do this, not for the purpose of comparing the amount of hypothecated assets with the liabilities accepted pari passu by the same company towards policy holders abroad, but for the purpose of enabling the British policy holder to form some kind of idea how far it is likely that in pursuing his claim, when it arises, it will be open to him to sue the company in British courts, and he will not be driven by the want of assets in this country to sue the company in foreign courts. I think that information is really the least which ought to be required by British policy holders. His position if he has to sue in a foreign court is a very inferior position

  307
  to what it would be if he could sue in a British court. It is not really the amount of assets that we want to know, but the extent of his liability to be dragged abroad and go through all the expense and difficulty which would be involved in pursuing his claim in the foreign country.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am very sorry I cannot accept the Amendment. The proposal briefly is that a company established outside the United Kingdom should state the amount of assets in the hands of any trustee in the United Kingdom. If that means that the assets axe hypothecated here to the British shareholders, that would be contrary to the principles with regard to insurance companies on which we have always gone, that the whole of the assets are available for the whole of the shareholders. This principle of hypothecation would be an entirely novel departure in that respect. I believe it is overwhelmingly the opinion of those concerned in these businesses that the principle of hypothecation would not be a good one to introduce. Certainly the Lords Committee, which this Bill is the result of, recommended very strongly against it after careful investigation. If it is not to be hypothecated it is clearly removable at will, and therefore it might be possible for a very specious and effective return to be presented by these companies which the hon. Gentleman wishes to expose, and a return which will be very effective fox the purpose of deluding the public, and shortly afterwards the assets might be removed. The last reason I have against it is that the return would be a misleading one. There is no real relation between the solvency of a company and the geographical distribution of its assets. It is true there is the inconvenience as to suing, but that the Bill makes no worse, and to some extent it is minimised, by the new deposits which are required. But there is no real relation at all between the country where the deposits are and the security of the policy holders.
  Mr. HAY: The speech of the right hon. Gentleman is most disappointing. He has scarcely dealt with the thing in the manner we expected. My right hon. Friend made out a very strong case. Here you have foreign or colonial life companies who come here and do a business which must involve sooner or later a claim, and the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do nothing to protect the British
  308
  policy-holder. We had in recent years a foreign life company transacting business in this country and robbing a large number of our fellow countrymen of the results of their thrift. It is worth while that I should give a few figures to show the magnitude of the evil which we propose to deal with by the Amendment. The company to which I allude commenced business in the United Kingdom in 1886, and it ceased taking new business in 1905. It was allowed by the Board of Trade to withdraw its deposit of £20,000 in 1906, and in 1908 it was put in the Receiver's hands in the country in which it was originally established. The policy holders in the United Kingdom and elsewhere did not receive a shilling unless their interest was protected by a special deposit, and as a result of the deposits in Canada policy holders in Canada will receive 80 per cent, from that special deposit and may get another 10 per cent. If these deposits are so volatile if they come to this country, why is it that they form an adequate and substantial security for policy holders who insure their lives in Canada? Surely the time has come when we should take a leaf out of the book of our Colonies, if not of foreign nations. The right hon. Gentleman shrugs his shoulders at this state of things, and is not making use of the Bill as an instrument whereby we can provide safeguards. Not only that, but these foreign and Colonial companies have a direct preference shown them by the Government as against the home offices. They are not obliged to pay 1s. 2d. Income Tax which those who insure here have to pay in respect of their assets which the tax gatherer can get at. If you made these foreign companies show what business they did in this country and their assets in the United Kingdom, you would by that fact get into the tax-gatherer's net money which now escapes it. You would improve the public revenue, and put foreign and Colonial companies on a fair and equal basis with home offices. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman cannot complain of the attitude which has been taken up in any quarter of the House regarding this Bill. We have only, to use his own words, to have a little gingering-up to make this Bill effective. I am disappointed that he has shown such a weak back. A little determination on his part would enable him to make the Bill an instrument of value to all who are interested in thrift in this country.
  Mr. CARLILE: I hope that intending insurers in the country will note the

  309
  observations of the President of the Board of Trade, and that the result will be to make them ascertain which companies are registered in this country, decline to insure in foreign undertakings, and confine themselves to British companies, where their insurances are likely to be protected
  Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  and the liabilities under policies duly honoured when the time comes.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 18; Noes, 164.

  Division No. 914.]

  AYES.

  [9.50 p.m.

  Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Younger, George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Fell, Arthur

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr Hay and Mr. Carlile.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Valentia, Viscount

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Hancock, J. G.

  O'Grady, J.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Alien, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Harmsworth Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Pointer, J.

  Baker, Joseph A.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Barker, Sir John

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Radford, G. H.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Beale, W. P.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Hodge, John

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Berridge, T. H. D

  Hooper, A. G.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Jenkins, J.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Brigg, Sir John

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Bright, J. A.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Clevelano)

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Joyce, Michael

  Shackleton, David James

  Byles, William Pollard

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Laidlaw, Sir Robert

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Ches e)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Lambert, George

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Lamont, Norman

  Summerbell, T.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Clough, William

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Lynch, H. B.

  Tomkinson, Rt. Hon. James

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Toulmin, George

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Vivian, Henry

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Walters, John Tudor

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Walton, Joseph

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Essex, R. W.

  Massie, J.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Morrell, Philip

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Falconer, J.

  Morse, L. L.

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Ferens, T. R.

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Nolan, Joseph

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Gibson, J. P.

  Nuttall, Harry

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr Joseph Pease and Mr. Gulland.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Glover, Thomas

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Fourth Schedule agreed to.

FIFTH SCHEDULE.

  (A.)—Form Applicable to Life Assurance Business.
  STATEMENT of the LIFE ASSURANCE and ANNUITY Business of the on the 19, to be signed by the Actuary.
  (The answers should be numbered to accord with the numbers of the corresponding questions. Statements of reassurances corresponding to the statements in respect of assurances are to be given throughout.) Separate statements are to be furnished in the replies to all the headings under this Schedule for business at other than European rates. Separate statements are to be also furnished throughout in respect of ordinary and industrial business respectively.
  1. The published table or tables of premiums for assurances for the whole term of life and for endowment assurances which are in use at the date above mentioned.
  Mr. LOUGHmoved to omit paragraph 1 and to insert instead thereof, "The rates of premium charged by the company for the various kinds of assurance transacted by it, with a statement of any exceptions allowed to such rates and of any special terms granted or allowances made to particular classes or groups of persons, and any discounts or rebates allowed to classes or individuals, and an explanation of the, manner in which such special terms, allowances, discounts, and rebates are dealt with in the revenue account and valuation statements.
  "A statement under this head is to be made by every company within six months from the commencement of this Act and on every occasion when a change is made in the rates or terms of assurance."
  The Clause, which I propose to amend, deals with the published tables of premiums of insurance which the insurance companies issue. My objection to these published tables is that in many cases they are not true tables. Very different rates are charged by some companies from those actually published in their lists. I therefore put down this Amendment that the companies should disclose their true charges, and if they give any large system of rebates to individuals or to classes that they should disclose these rebates, so that the published tables may be a true statement. There are many flagrant examples in the tables of many companies at the
  312
  present time. There is, for instance, one with which my right hon. Friend is well acquainted, whereby Civil servants get a discount of 15 per cent, off the tables published by very well-known companies. That practice amounts to this, that while one individual has got to pay £100 for certain benefits, a second individual has only to pay £85. In these mutual companies the man who pays £100 is not only paying for a certain amount on death, but for a certain share of the profits of the company, and the advantage which the other individual gets over him is in the nature of a secret commission, a matter to which this House has turned a very strict eye in recent years. My right hon. Friend says, I believe, that this is a matter of business, and that we ought to allow the companies to make bargains with each individual. But this is a special business regulated by Parliament. We provide in this Schedule for the publication of the table of premiums, and I demand that it should be a true table. This question has made good progress both in this and in other countries in recent years. We have had an Act to prevent secret commissions being paid, and we have had a Companies Amendment Act, passed in 1907 or 1908, under which all payments of commission or allowances from the regular charges of the company which are not disclosed in the prospectus are made illegal.
  This Amendment does not ask that this system of commissions should be prohibited. It only asks that it should be disclosed, so that every person who goes into a company at one price should know that there is a possibility of individuals and, perhaps, whole classes going in at another price. I think that the Amendment is a most moderate one. It is strictly limited to a disclosure and not to a prohibition of these practices. We do not often look for guidance in a matter of this kind to America. Yet in America, within the last year or two, a law has been passed that the tables actually published must be adhered to by all the societies, and it has been made a misdeameanour to publish false tables, as many of the companies do in this country. In Canada they are going to adopt a similar law. I do think it is time that the House of Commons should move in this matter. I do not think it is right to say that the insurance companies must all agree among themselves before you pass a provision of this kind into law. There is a large consensus of feeling among the insurance companies that some

  313
  step of this kind should be taken. We cannot expect unanimity, because some of these companies make large profits by giving these special allowances.
  It is for an independent authority like the House of Commons to take action, and I do think that the matter is one that ought now to be considered. I have put down a most moderate Amendment, but if it should not be accepted, I have a second barrel in the shape of another Amendment couched in such moderate terms that I am almost ashamed of it. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to give my proposal consideration. I do not think it unfair that agents should have commission. Agents do their work, and they have a right to be paid for it; but I do object to secret arrangements whereby one individual, or a class or group of men, may share a benefit by paying a much smaller sum than the published tables show, and which most people pay. I am not asking that this practice should be made illegal, but that it should be disclosed, and if my right hon. Friend will not accept the first Amendment, then I would ask him to consider the second, which would apply only to future business, and would not apply to re-insurances. The second Amendment is couched in the most moderate way, and under all the circumstances I feel that the spirit of rectitude which has guided my right hon. Friend through the shoals and difficulties of the Bill will lead him to see whether what I ask is not right. If there should be anything wrong in the words of my Amendment, I hope he will promise to accept their spirit, and consider the matter with a view to bringing up a form of words on the Report stage.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend has certainly pressed his views on this occasion in a most charming and caressive manner. I think there is a great deal in what my right hon. Friend says; I do not deny that at all; but I would ask the House to remember that I have tried as far as possible to restrict the number of questions to be asked, and to deal with the majority of interests affected. I have asked a certain number of very important questions, and I have kept their number to the minimum in order to cause the least inconvenience possible. There is a great division of opinon among the assurance companies upon this question. Some of the Scottish companies, whose position my right hon. Friend has expounded with great force, take a view strongly support-
  314
  ing that which he has put forward. On the other hand there is a great opposition, and I do not feel that I should have been considering the general interests of this very important legislation if I had attempted to deal with this question without considering that opposition. It is rather a matter for the companies to deal with themselves. It is a legitimate way of carrying on business, and I think it is a subject for them to deal with. I think there is an indication of a movement in public opinion which possibly would render legislation unnecessary. If I could meet my hon. Friend in any way, and if I thought I could do so without prejudice to the view I have expressed, 1 should be glad to do so, but in the meantime I will continue to carefully consider the matter until the Report stage.
  Mr. HAY: In this matter the companies cannot do what the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, because the Board of Trade are the only authority that can effectively deal with this question. The suggestion that the companies should be left to fight the matter out among themselves is not practicable, because no agreement can be come to among them, as was done in the case of secret commissions in other branches of business in this country. It is because of that very fact that the Board of Trade should lay down a rule to which the companies would be bound to conform. Anyone acquainted with assurance business knows that in respect of life assurance this question goes to the very root of the value of the returns presented to the Board of Trade by life offices. If a reader of them sees that an insurer pays 3 per cent, while as a matter of fact the company are only receiving a premium of 1 per cent., then these returns are absolutely illusory and become an absolute snare to the public. The payment of commission to an agent who introduces a number of policies is a payment made in respect of a clear and definite part of an agent's business But to give an agent's commission to a man who insures his own life and introduces no other business is to give a rebate which destroys the value of these Board of Trade Returns. Not only that, but the action of insurance brokers and insurance agents is of great value not merely to the companies, but to the public. They are thoroughly acquainted with all the intricacies of insurance, and they are able to give reliable advice to the assurers as to the companies whose arrangements afford the best security or the best type of insurance.

  315
  Insurance is a business which requires technical knowledge, and to all intents and purposes is a matter which can only be dealt with by experts. That being so, I think those agents ought to be protected against this illicit form of giving rebates, which certainly, it seems to me, makes the returns submitted to the Board of Trade such as do not give that true idea of the position of a company which should be afforded by the fact of the Department having accepted them.
  I hope that the manner in which the President of the Board of Trade referred to his intention to consider this will develop into a serious wish and that he will listen to the voice of reason in this matter, and will endeavour to find words which will give him authority to impose upon the companies the obligation, if they give any rebates, to show such rebate clearly in their papers. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington alluded to the fact that assurances effected at special rates and rebates do not appear on the face of the policy. I venture earnestly to appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to remember what his right hon. Friend said. If you allow this rebate to certain classes, say a group of Civil servants, or of bank clerks, you are really denying and depriving other persons of the assets which they are entitled to receive, and of the skilful management of the company in which they are assured. In this connection I would ask the right hon. Gentleman not to be guided solely by what the assurance companies think, but to think also of the general interests of the policy holders. Therefore, I shall support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington if he goes to a Division.
  Mr. LOUGH: I feel that I must rest satisfied with the very small amount of encouragement that I have received from the right hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I do not observe much enthusiasm in the general body of the House, and, seeing that I do not get very much promise of support, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEYmoved, in (A), at the end of paragraph 10, "The average rate of interest yielded by the assets, whether invested or uninvested, constituting the life assurance fund of the company, calculated upon the mean fund of
  316
  each year during the period since the last investigation, without deduction of income tax," to insert the words, "It must be stated whether or not the mean fund upon which the average rate of interest is calculated includes reversionary investments."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the Fifth Schedule of the Bill" put, and agreed to.
  Schedules 6 and 7 agreed to.

EIGHTH SCHEDULE.
  REQUIREMENTS TO BE COMPLIED WITH BY UNDERWRITERS BEING MEMBERS OF LLOYD'S OR OF ANY OTHER ASSOCIATION OF UNDERWRITERS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF TRADE.

    (B)—As Respects Fire and Accident Insurance Business.
    1 Except as hereinafter provided, every underwriter shall comply with the following requirements:—
    (a) He shall deposit and keep deposited in such manner as the Board of Trade may direct a sum of two thousand pounds.
    Amendment made: After "pounds" to insert the words "in respect of each class of business."
    Drafting Amendments also made.
    2. An underwriter who carries on fire insurance or accident insurance business, may, in lieu of complying with the above requirements, elect to comply with the under-mentioned conditions:—

    (a) All premiums by or on behalf of the underwriter in respect of fire and accident insurance business carried on by him either alone or in conjunction with any other non-marine insurance business for which special requirements are not laid down in this Schedule shall be placed in a trust fund in accordance with the provisions of a trust deed approved by the Board of Trade:

    (b) He shall also furnish security to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade (or, if the Board so direct, to the satisfaction of the committee of the association), which shall be available solely to meet claims under policies issued by him in connection with such business.

    Amendment made: In paragraph (b) to leave out the words "such business," and to insert instead thereof the words "fire

    317
    and accident business and any other non-marine business carried on by him for which special requirements are not laid down in this Schedule."
    Drafting Amendments also made.
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
    Schedule 9 agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow (Thursday).

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  FIRST SCHEDULE.

    PART I.—(33) 4 EDW., c. 24: THE WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY ACT, 1904.
    Question proposed, "That this Schedule stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. HAY: I desire to move an Amendment as a matter of form, and with a view to eliciting some information about wireless telegraphy. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General to give us some information about the agreement under this Act which he announced on 30th September, and the terms on which he is taking over certain stations of the Marconi Company. The impression has been gaining ground that the country has gained a good deal over that transaction. I do not wish in any way to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman has not done what is advantageous to the public service, but I think, nevertheless, upon such information as I have been able to acquire, or such study as I have been able to give to the matter, that the advantages to the country are not half so great or——
    The CHAIRMAN: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman seeks to move the omission of certain words in this Schedule? He is now talking, I understand, about a matter of administration that does not arise.
    Mr. HAY: I was just explaining the point which I was going to submit. What I desire to do is not to move that this Act be not renewed, because I hold that
    318
    the business which the right hon. Gentleman has transacted under the Act has produced a situation which ought to lead him to bring in another measure. If that is not in order, I would submit this: Has the right hon. Gentleman under this Act the power to do what he has done? Under the Wireless Telegraphy Act he spent £15,000 in acquiring certain rights from this company, and I do not believe that what he has bought for the £15,000 is worth 2d. He has merely got control of a number of minor patents, but I understand he has not got control or bought one of the most successful of the Marconi systems. Then these companies appear to have surrendered their coast stations and the licences for these coast stations, but they have retained the long-distance stations at Poldhu and Clifden, which are connected to the shores of this country and of America. Lloyds surrendered their stations and plant, and received the value of the plant. I should like to ask the Postmaster-General whether that plant is of any substantial value, and is the consideration the Government received adequate for what they gave for it? The right hon. Gentleman rather plumed himself upon the notion that he had done a valuable thing for the country when he prevented a monopoly growing up. I am not quite sure that he has done so. If you leave the most valuable portion of the business in the hands of the company, namely, the long-distance stations, you leave them with a valuable monopoly, although you get hold of the coast stations which may be a monopoly, but which are of no real commercial value. Has the right hon. Gentleman got any nearer to getting hold of these long-distance stations? Have the arrangements he has made given him any leverage or option to acquire these highly valuable stations?——
    The CHAIRMAN: That purely is a question of the administration of the Act. The hon. Member is entitled to say that certain things are undesirable because the result is unsatisfactory, but he is not entitled to deal with the administration of the Act.
    Mr. HAY: I do not wish to detain the House, or to transgress your ruling, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will bear me out when I say that he has once or twice informed the House that it would be necessary for him to introduce a measure dealing with wireless telegraphy which would give him larger powers. Not only that, but there is also the Radio-telegraph

    319
    Convention, and I should have thought he would have taken the opportunity this Session of dealing with these matters, and not leaving things in, I will not say a state of muddle, but in the state of uncertainty and indefiniteness in which we find them now. I believe this agreement may be of some value, but he has paid too much for little and left the valuable monopoly untouched. I do not believe it is of the great value the right hon. Gentleman thinks, and I certainly hope in the reply which he will give he will tell us it is his intention to bring in a measure which will give him greater authority and which will bring the legislation of this country thoroughly abreast of the situation created by the International Radiotelegraph Convention. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will also inform us which countries are standing out of the Convention.
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton): The hon. Member has asked me a question in regard to the extension of this Act, and why it has been included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. He has also asked me a question with regard to the purchase of the Marconi and Lloyds licences. The only reason why we have put this measure in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill is that, so far, we have had no reason to alter the Act. It has carried out all the objects we had in view, and there has been no reason for making any change. It is highly probable that in view of the Railway and Telegraphic Convention, and in view of the purchase of the Marconi and Lloyds stations by the Government, we may have to alter the Act, and when that time arrives, whoever, may be my successor, will certainly have to introduce a more comprehensive measure to deal with the situation. Up to the present moment there has been no reason whatever for altering the Act, and it is simpler for the Government, instead of renewing it for a number of years, to put it amongst the measures in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
    The hon. Member is wrong in thinking that the purchase of the Marconi stations is likely to lead to a monopoly. On the contrary the purchase is likely to prevent a monopoly in wireless telegraphy, and it is an advantage from the point of view of the Admiralty. The Admiralty are anxious that these stations should be in the hands of the Government, and I have
    320
    always said, both in this House and elsewhere, that it would be a mistake to allow a monopoly in wireless telegraphy to grow up. The hon. Member has objected to the terms of purchase. Does he recollect what occurred in the case of the telegraph and the telephone companies? In the former case about £11,000,000 were paid, and in the case of the telephones we have not yet come to arbitration, but it will probably amount to some millions. I think by purchasing for £15,000 we have not made a bad bargain at all. We have obtained all the wireless coast and ship stations both from Lloyd's and the Marconi Company, we have obtained the use of all the Marconi patents for 15 years, and, what is more, we have obtained a free hand to deal with these various licences by the best method from a strategic and commercial point of view. In my opinion the bargain we have made is a very satisfactory one. The hon. Member says that we have left out the long distance stations, and that is perfectly true. That question, however, does not come within the purview of the Post Office in the same way as the coastal and ship stations. We do not think the time has arrived for the purchase of the long distance stations, for the reason that while the ship-to-shore stations have a commercial value and are doing considerable commercial work the long distance stations, although successful, are not yet upon a commercial basis, and in no sense can a monopoly grow up in regard to them, because we are at liberty to start such stations ourselves. Therefore the question of monopoly does not really arise. I think it a great advantage that the Post Office should have possession of this new feature in our electrical communications, which, in my opinion, is going to have very great extensions in the next few years. It is a great advantage that we should have it at this early stage, and that, as I think, we should be able at a very cheap rate indeed to purchase these various licences and have full control of it. I do not think the Committee will think that in paying £15,000 for the land and the stations, the machinery, the licences, and the use of the patents we have given an extravagant sum. On the other hand, I consider we have made a very good bargain. I hope, under these circumstances, my hon. Friend will be satisfied that so far as the Post Office is concerned we have made a very good business bargain with these companies.
    Mr. HAY: In asking leave to withdraw my Amendment, may I ask whether it is true that the Marconi Company have refused to interchange messages with other vessels to prevent loss of life and property an. cases of disaster at sea?
    Mr. BUXTON: I think the hon Member is misinformed. It is exactly the opposite. The Marconi Company, I think very foolishly, objected very much to the Radio-Telegraph Convention and refused at that time to inter-communicate with other ships, but I am glad to say they have been brought to a better frame of mind since the Convention was passed, and they have agreed voluntarily—though if they had not agreed I should probably have had some opportunity of enforcing them—to give communication from their stations to Others under the Convention. Therefore, so far as they are now left in possession of stations, they are really carrying on their business under the Radio-Telegraph Convention.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. E. H. CARLILE: I desire to ask why the Agricultural Rates Act of 1896 and the corresponding one of the same year are only renewed for nine months, while every other Bill in the Schedule is renewed for a year.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Joseph Pease): The reason is a somewhat simple one. It is solely with a view to securing uniformity an regard to the period at which all these Bills terminate and are to be renewed under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. All these Bills will now be uniform and end at the end of the year. The contributions to the Local Authorities will not be prejudiced in any way.
    Mr. CARLILE: The explanation is scarcely satisfactory. Of course, the Treasury cannot make grants without an Act of Parliament, and those who have benefited under these Acts hitherto will only have the three-fourths of the security they have had previously.
    Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: Three-quarters for the first year and subsequently the usual amount for twelve months every time the Bill is renewed.
    Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGH: I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury whether, in the event of his occupying the same position in the next Parliament, he will give effect to his pledge in past years that something should be done to evolve order out of chaos in
    322
    regard to these statutes. I have raised this question year after year, and on some occasions I have received a large measure of support. I remember that one night we debated these statutes for 27 hours. I do not think there is much chance of our doing so to-night, seeing that at this moment there is only one Unionist in the House. But those who cordially and most heartily supported my protest against this Bill on previous occasions have since got jobs and are sitting on the Government Benches. Anybody who looks at the Division Lists in previous years will find them adorned with such names as Churchill, Runciman, Pease, and Evans, the names of men who took an active and energetic part with me and made eloquent speeches in regard to the absurd manner in which this Bill is brought forward, but who now are not making the slightest effort to deal with this state of things. Under this Bill we re-enact 40 Bills. I got a register of the laws we are dealing with in connection with this Bill and I find that we are also concerned with 65 temporary laws. I do not think anyone will contradict me when I say that no man sitting here to-night has the remotest idea of what laws we are going to pass in this Bill. There is, for instance, the Textile Manufactures (Ireland) Act, which is absolutely obsolete, for it prohibits manufacturers in Ireland from doing what every one of them is doing at the present time. Then there is the Ordnance Survey Act, 1841, which was passed to authorise a survey of Great Britain and Berwick-on-Tweed. Where is Berwick-on-Tweed if not in Great Britain? Can the Attorney-General tell me why it is called Great Britain and Berwick-on-Tweed? In any case that Bill was passed seventy years ago, and surely now the survey has been concluded. Then we have the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, and with it a reference to 18 other Corrupt Practices Acts. What is the good of them? Corrupt practices still go on. I submit that these Acts ought to be consolidated.
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott): If the hon. Member objects to the inclusion of these Acts, he should have moved Amendments at the proper time. He cannot go through the whole Schedule and deal with them in detail now.
    Mr. J. MacVEAGH: I do not propose to deal with them in detail; I want to prove my contention that this is an archaic and absolutely impossible method of legislation. I am only referring to these

    323
    measures cursorily. There is the Act with regard to Locomotives on Turnpike Roads. I do not know where the turnpike loads are now to be found. In view of the obsolete character of many of these Acts I think that some thing really ought to be done to put this on a workmanlike basis. This House suffers from a surfeit of lawyers, good, bad, and indifferent. Could not the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury ask some half-dozen of them to sit down and separate the wheat from the chaff, to tell us which are good Bills and should be made permanent, and which are obsolete and should be dropped out of this Act altogether? Imagine the Ballot Act being treated as a temporary law, and our being asked solemnly year after year to enact that elections shall be conducted by ballot! I think the case for some sort of inquiry is overwhelming, and I would ask the Patronage Secretary to give some definite promise that if he holds his present position in the next Parliament—and I hope he may—he will take this matter.seriously into consideration with a view to producing a more workmanlike Bill than the present one.
    Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: In regard to next year, I am very sanguine that I shall be sitting on this side of the House. All I can say in reference to this matter as to the promises I have given in the past is that I conveyed to the hon. Member that I would see whether investigation could be made into the various Acts included in the Schedules of this Bill, but it was not worth hon. Members' time to be appointed on a Committee. I would suggest to the hon. Member that if he is here next Session or in the next Parliament he should address a question to the Prime Minister, who will no doubt take into consideration any representations made on this subject.
    First Schedule, Second Schedule, and Preamble agreed to.
    Bill reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

ASYLUMS OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
Lords Amendments considered.
ASYLUMS OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Title of Officers, Servants, etc., to Superannuation Allowances, and Scale Thereof.)
  Subject to the provisions of this Act—
  (1) Any established officer or servant of
  324
  the first class who has been in the service of an asylum for not less than fifteen years, and is not less than fifty years old, or who is permanently incapacitated for asylum duties after ten years' service by injury or illness, mental or bodily, medically certified and not attributable to his own misconduct, shall be entitled, on resigning or otherwise ceasing to hold office or employment, to receive during life a superannuation allowance, the annual amount of which shall be computed at the rate of one-fiftieth of his salary or wages and emoluments for each completed year of service:
  Lords Amendment: After the word "life" ["to receive during life"], to insert the words "or incapacity."
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have to point out to the House that this and a very large number of the Amendments that follow are privileged Amendments, because they propose an additional gratuity for injuries, and some of them contain provisions for reckoning the amount of service, and impose further conditions in reference to pensions. About one-third of them are privileged Amendments.
  Sir WILLIAM COLLINS: These Amendments were made, I take it, in furtherance of the objects of the Bill, but do not materially affect its character. They supply machinery which was, perhaps, to some extent, lacking in the form of the Bill as it left this House, and I move that the House, in accordance with numerous precedents, do not insist on its privilege in this case.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Clerk will make an entry in the JOURNAL.
  Lords Amendments agreed to.

OATHS BILL.
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
POLICE BILL.
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL.
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT.—Motion made and question, "That the House do now adjourn" [Mr. Joseph Pease], put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen minute? after Eleven o'clock