§ (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. CHURCHILLI 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. SHACKLETONI 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 HARDIEPerhaps 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 HARDIEI 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 EVANSThat 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 HARDIEI 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.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDAm 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. CHURCHILLIf he had a reasonable expectation, he would be liable to be called upon.
§ Sir SAMUEL EVANSThe funeral expenses as a matter of fact have reference to particular relationships.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI 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 EVANSThat 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. CHURCHILLI 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 HARDIEThe point I put was that the illegitimate child cannot take out a policy on the mother or grandmother.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI 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. BARNESI 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 EVANSI 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 RUTHERFORDI 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 EVANSI 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. MADDISONI 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 WALSHI 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. MADDISONForty insurances, or forty times the funeral expenses?
§ Mr. WALSHIf 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. SHACKLETONI 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. CHURCHILLOne 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 HARDIEI 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.
297| 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. CHURCHILLWe 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. BEALEI 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. CHURCHILLBy my proposal both cases are provided for. The Court must be satisfied and a poll must be taken.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEI 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 EVANSThose 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.