HC Deb 24 November 1909 vol 13 cc268-81

Where a company carries on life assurance business this Act shall apply with respect to that business, subject to the following modifications:—

  1. (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:
  2. (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:
  3. (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keep deposited the sum of twenty thousand pounds shall apply notwithstanding that the company has previously made and withdrawn its deposit, or been exempted from making any deposit under any enactment hereby repealed:
  4. (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:
  5. (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:
  6. (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.


moved, 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.


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 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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.]


moved, 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 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.


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 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.


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 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.


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 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.


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.


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.


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- 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.


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 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.


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.


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- 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.


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.


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
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.
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 moved at end of Clause to add, (h) In the case of a mutual company whose profits are allocated to members 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 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.