CLAUSE 24.—(Admission of Insured Persons to Membership in Approved Societies.) (Hansard, 30 October 1911)

§ Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "society" ["may apply to an approved society"], to insert the words "or branch."
I do not want to press the Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman can satisfy the Committee that the word "society" really includes "branch" for the purposes of the first Sub-section.

§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)
I have looked into that this morning with legal advisers. It certainly includes "branch."

§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON
I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "society" ["(2) An approved society"] to insert the words "or branch."
The object of the Amendment is to enable a branch, besides the central authority, to admit or reject an applicant or to expel any member. At present it is the practice among friendly societies for a branch to have that power, and they do so on their own initiative and then report the result to the central authority. There seems to be no reason why branches should not have this power in the future.

§ The UNDER-SECRETARY for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman)
There is no doubt, if the Amendment is not pressed, a society which wants to make its rules will be able to make them. We want to give as much self-government to the societies as possible, but we do not want to compel them to make these rules if they think it inexpedient to do so. Therefore I think it will be better to leave it as one of the matters of domestic legislation which it is suitable for the societies to consult about themselves.

§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
I do not think that entirely covers the point. The Sub-section says, "An approved society shall be entitled …" Well, unless it is put more clearly, it may be held that a branch is not entitled. If the Sub-section is left exactly as it stands, a branch might be prevented from having the power to admit or reject. I think at any rate there is doubt.

§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON
I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee 544 with a Division if the Chancellor of the Exchequer can assure me that the point will be considered, and that branches will be empowered to act in this way.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
They have power.

§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON
Under the Bill?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
indicated assent.

§ Mr. AMERY
I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the importance of the opening words of this Clause, and also of the concluding lines, because it seems to me that the whole scheme of reserve values and rejuvenation rests upon the proviso in this Clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced in various town halls and tabernacles that he is going to make men of sixty boys of sixteen. He is going to do nothing of the kind. In the first place, I do not think Post Office contributors are included. In the second place, the money has to be found for this purpose by the approved societies. It seems to me that this proviso has no effective force to compel approved societies to do that which must be done if the rejuvenation scheme is to be a success. I know that societies are credited with the reserve fund, but let me remind the Committee in the first place that the reserve values are reckoned on the average life. If a society screws up the standard and refuses to admit anybody, the health will be above the average—

§ The CHAIRMAN
This Amendment does not deal with that question at all. It is purely a technical and legal question, and we cannot open up the merits.

§ Mr. AMERY
May I continue the discussion on the Clause itself?

§ The CHAIRMAN
Any criticism of the Clause as a whole must be reserved for the discussion on the question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the exact intentions of the Government under this Clause as it will be amended? This Clause is intended to refer to the bringing of the Act into force. I can see that it may be necessary when the Act first comes into force to have these words in the Clause, but I am not sure of that. The words are general. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends the whole Clause to be in operation for all time.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
made a remark which was inaudible.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
I now understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that the Clause is to have permanent application. May I ask whether it is to apply permanently or merely at the time when a great number of old men have to be brought in, whereas at a later stage the admissions of old men would be rather exceptional cases?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
It has reference only to one special case, namely, that of trade unions. Under the Trade Unions Act no one can become a member after sixty. This is to put trade unions on the same footing as any other society. It is to remove, so far as this Act is concerned, the disability under which they would labour under the Trade Unions Act.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
The right hon. Gentleman has given an explanation for which I am much obliged, but he did not answer the wider question as to the application of the whole Clause. I can understand how that particular Amendment was necessary as a continuing Amendment. After the explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that is quite clear. That is for dealing with the young, but I thought the Clause was drawn for dealing with those already aged. The Clause does cover aged people. I quite understand that you are saying to a great number of people already advanced in age that for the purposes of insurance they must come into a scheme of this kind. But when you are compelling them you must say that there is open to them societies which can give them the greatest advantages, and you must compensate the society for their aid on the principle which 546 the Chancellor of the Exchequer has explained. I do not know why, when you have once fairly launched a scheme, you should make it a condition that a society should always be ready to accept old men and not be at liberty to reject reject them on account of their age. Perhaps the Chancellor will tell us that, and at the same time tell us, what is of great importance with regard to the working of this Clause, what is the machinery by which it will be ascertained and decided—whether exclusion is carried on in fact in any particular case or not? How far are you going to ascertain whether the man has been rejected solely on account of age? Of course, if you admit the mere allegation of another reason as being sufficient proof, in that case the Clause is wastepaper. I do not say that a friendly society or a trade union would wish to exclude a man in that way, but unless there is some inquire into the bona fides of the allegation, there being at least a primâ facie case raised, the Clause may be waste-paper in cases where it is necessary to enforce it.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Clause is very difficult to enforce. As he has pointed out, it is open to a friendly society to say we object on other grounds. That is the difficulty. The only way of establishing it is by showing that it is the practice of the society. Suppose you find all the old people rejected. There is a very good primâ facie case against them, at any rate, that that is the real ground of those who profess that their reasons are totally different. Still, no doubt it is a very difficult Clause to enforce. I do not think it is of so much practical importance as otherwise it might be, because we have made it worth the friendly societies while to take the old people, because we put them actuarialy in the same position as if they were sixteen years of age.

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
In the first instance?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
In the first instance. Now I come to the second question put by the right hon. Gentleman. The answer is that we insure the whole population. Everyone does not come in at sixteen. It depends on when a man begins work. A man may go on for a number of years, and he may find at thirty or forty years of age that he has just the kind of work that is insurable work. Then he becomes an insurable person. 547 Then they have to take him, and they take him on a reduced benefit. I think they ought to be compelled to take these cases. They ought not to be allowed to reject any man even then on the ground of age, because we are treating them in this respect as agents of the National bounty, and if they are prepared to accept the advantage of State bounty and of the aid of the employer levied by the State, they should accept the conditions, and it is therefore important that they should not rule any man out on the ground of age alone, though they may rule him out for medical reasons.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I would ask the Chancellor to carry his reply a little bit further. He tells us that the only way of finding out whether a society is breaking this Clause would be if they made a constant practice of it.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Not the only way.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
It is the only way that the right hon. Gentleman says. What will happen suppose that he did satisfy himself that they were rejecting on the ground of age? Suppose it was found that they had not got an ordinary proportion of old men among their members, is that society going to be an approved society, because there does not seem to be any provision in the Bill for enforcing this Clause? I do not think the Chancellor has gone quite far enough in his reply, because while admitting the difficulty he does not suggest any means of overcoming it.

§ Mr. POLLOCK
It would be very unfortunate if we were to add Clause 24 as we have now amended it; we have added a Sub-clause under which the applicant for admission as a member of an approved society may, for the purposes of this part of this Act, be admitted as a member of a society notwithstanding anything in any other Act limiting the age for admission to societies of that class. We have laid down no class of person. If the real meaning of the Chancellor's Amendment is that it has reference to Trade Union Acts, obviously it is necessary to say so, and on the Report stage we must alter those words, for it is almost impossible to leave this Sub-section enabling persons to become members of the society, notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament, whatever which there may be limiting the 548 age for admission to societies of a class which have not yet been defined in the Bill. This is an obvious slip, and something must be done in order to identify either the classes or the Acts which are referred to. I hope that the Attorney-General will undertake to make that alteration.

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs)
I think there is some force in the criticism which the hon. Member has directed to this Clause. I will look into it, and if it is necessary as he has suggested, I will introduce words limiting it.

§ Mr. HAROLD SMITH
An approved society is entitled in accordance with its rules to admit, reject or expel a member. On Friday last this Committee decided that those rules must be submitted to the Insurance Commissioners. What would happen if a society felt themselves aggrieved by any decision which the Insurance Commissioners might arrive at in respect of the rules? If that society perhaps committed a breach of those rules which have been insisted upon by the Insurance Commissioners by expelling, rejecting or refusing to admit an applicant for membership, what is the position of the society?

§ Mr. AMERY
The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted just now with regard to this proviso that it is extremely difficult to enforce, and his only suggestion was that if it was shown to be a constant practice on the part of an approved society to reject men for old age, or at any rate to make the old age standard extremely severe, then it could be dealt with. But surely this is not a question which is going to arise at the inception of the scheme. You will not be able to discover whether it is a constant practice or not for a considerable time. The answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is really that he has made it in the interests of the society not to handicap people from the point of view of age. I submit that he has not made it in the interests of the society to do anything of the kind. This reserve values loan is not a gift to the societies. It is an enforced loan from the members; and it is in their interest first of all to screw up the standard so that each reserve value allotted to them really represents more than the actual liability which is likely to accrue in practice, and secondly to keep the number of their old members as low as possible, because in that case the money that is raised, one and the five-ninths 549 of a penny per week per head, will meet that liability in a much shorter time, and will enable the society in less than fifteen and a-half years to give additional benefits, and get the additional two-ninths of a penny from the State in consequence. This point is one of the first importance in the whole machinery of the Bill, and means that the interests of the society are to be regarded, to the exclusion of the old men. I confess that I do not know how that Clause is to be made more efficacious, and I have not put down an Amendment in consequence, but I do submit that the idea that old men in general are going to be made young men again will not hold in practice, and that the whole interest of the society is going to be to force them into the deposit contribution scheme.

§ Mr. FORSTER
I feel that there is a great deal of force in what has fallen from our hon. Friend, and I hope that the Members of the Government will examine it with the great consideration which it deserves. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can have the Clauses that we have had passed reprinted with the Amendments, because we are proceeding at a great speed. We are passing four, five, or six Clauses a day; every Clause is amended, and it is a matter of extreme difficulty to keep track of all the Amendments we are passing unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer is able to adopt this course. With reference to this Clause and its effects, I agree entirely that if any semblance of independence is to be left to friendly societies, or those other associations which will become approved societies under the Bill, it is quite essential that this Clause should be added to the Bill, but I do not think we ought to overlook or deliberately refrain from looking at the consequences that must follow from this Clause. We are bringing into insurance for the first time something like ten millions of our population. All those that can find an entrance into those societies are to get the opportunity of being admitted, and the societies are to have complete and unfettered freedom, except as regards the age of entry, to choose their own members. The effect of that will be that the strongest societies will get the best life and the weakest societies will get the weakest or least desirable lives. The strong society will get those men who are best in health and best in occupation from the point of view of insurance and best from the point 550 of view of future livelihood, and as the Bill stands that is a consideration which friendly societies and others should not overlook, because if a man, owing to increased prosperity passes perhaps out of the ranks of the insured, he leaves his contributions and his reserve values behind. It is obvious, if that be so, that the society which gets a considerable proportion of members drawn from that class, who are going to rise in the world, gains very materially from the mere fact of their members, owing to their prosperity, passing out of the ranks of the employed persons. For these people, and for the stronger societies, I quite agree that the future is bright. At any rate, the finances of those societies are going to benefit largely by this Bill. I am afraid, however, that the Bill will have upon the societies other effects, which I view with apprehension. What will happen to the men who cannot pass an examination satisfactorily—what of the men who incur a more than average risk of disease and disablement? They will be driven into membership of the weaker societies. The strong societies will be under no obligation to take these men, who, as I said, will be driven into the weaker societies, and I think that the result, both to themselves and to the societies, which they will be practically compelled to join, will be exceedingly unsatisfactory. Are not the poorer and the weaker members of the community the very men whom you want to benefit by the Bill? Do you really want to benefit those who are most able to look after themselves, or those who are least able to look after themselves? I should have thought that the class of person for whom this Bill might have offered the greatest benefits would have been that class which was to a certain extent least able to make provision for itself. But there is one class of person in particular to whom I want the Committee to direct its attention, and that is the class to whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred with real sympathy, with a genuine desire to help them—I mean the hundreds of thousands of people who are now suffering from the scourge of consumption. What society is going to take them?

§ The CHAIRMAN
I am afraid that a question of that kind will open up too general a discussion, more general than should be allowed on a question, "That this Clause stand part."

§ Mr. FORSTER
This has reference to the fact of allowing societies to choose their own members under a compulsory scheme. I do not in the least want to dispute your ruling, Sir, or to quarrel with it. I want to suggest a reason which I think makes my remark in order, and quite germane to the Clause we are now discussing. All these men are to be given an opportunity of joining a society if the society will take them. I wish the Committee to consider the question, and I do not raise it in any obstructive spirit. I am perfectly genuine in bringing this subject forward.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
We all know that the hon. Member does not bring forward this question in any obstructive spirit, and he raises a quite banâ fide point, one which undoubtedly we ought to discuss in this Committee. But I think it could be discussed with advantage on Clause 32, which deals with Post Office contributors. I should have thought it would have been more useful if this question were discussed then than if it were discussed now, for we then could have a very considerable debate upon it at 7.30 to-morrow night.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The decision I gave was as to whether we could have, on this Clause, a general discussion covering the question of exclusion by medical test by various societies. That was debated on Thursday last, and a decision was come to upon it. Therefore the matter clearly does not arise on this Clause.

Sir GILBERT PARKER
May I ask, in that case, if we shall be able to discuss this particular point on the Clause as to deposit contributors?

§ The CHAIRMAN
I really could not give a decision in advance. I do not know on what Amendment I might be asked to rule.

Sir G. PARKER
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has advised the postponement of this discussion, a discussion which my hon. Friend below me thought might be contained within the four walls of this Clause. You, Sir, rule against this point. Will it not be possible, in the circumstances, to have an understanding that on the Deposit Contributors' Clause we should have the general discussion upon which we are now not able to enter?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
It is a very important matter, and one on which the Committee 552 ought at one stage or other to have a very important discussion; and I think it would be for the general convenience of the House, if I may respectfully submit so to the Chair, if we were able, or if it were possible, to discuss this very important and broad issue raised by the hon. Member when we come to Clause 32. With regard to the deposit contributors, the Government have been driven into this form of dealing with a certain class, because we assume that there will be a numerous class who will not be members of any society, and who for one reason or another will be rejected by the societies. I submit to you, Sir, that it raises very specifically the whole question, on which it would be desirable to have a Debate at some point or other of Caulse 32, both in the interests of the whole House and in the interests of the Bill.

§ The CHAIRMAN
When we come to Clause 32, instead of waiting to discuss it as a whole until we come to the end of it, there should be some opportunity, early in the Clause, of discussing the whole case of the Post Office contributors. That seems to me a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and, as far as I am concerned, I will certainly not put anything in the way of that. It seems to me that there is an Amendment on that Clause at a very early stage standing in the name of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans), to leave out "Post Office contributors," and a general discussion might be raised early in the Clause.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
On the question of that particular Amendment to which you referred, Sir, it forms part of a large number of Amendments which, I am sorry to say, were ruled out of order. It still remains on the Paper, but cannot be proceeded with.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
When we come to Clause 32 we might be able to raise the general question on the words, "Until Parliament otherwise determines," and have a full Debate upon it.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I think I may say that I will find an opportunity for discussion on that Clause.

§ Mr. FORSTER
I do not wish to accupy the time of the Committee any longer at the present time, only I desire to say, in my defence, that I thought this was the opportunity for bringing forward the question, but if, according to your ruling, 553 Sir, a general arrangement is come to, I shall be very willing to let the question stand over until to-morrow.

§ Mr. CHARLES BATHURST
I desire to call attention to a point about which I feel very strongly, before we part with this Clause, as to the possible effect of the power of expulsion given to existing societies who will hereafter become approved societies under the Bill. In a large number of societies, and in the smaller societies, there are numbers of members of the age of fifty years who have paid their contributions for a period of thirty years, and are now beginning to break down in health. Under the existing organisation of those societies, there is, as it were, a contract existing between members and the society that they shall receive sick pay for the whole of the rest of their lives. The Bill will have the effect, when passed into law, of tearing up all those contracts. In other words, the societies, in spite of the agreement with the members, will be able under the Act to expel members solely on the ground of health, although those members may not have suffered for the last thirty years and during the whole period have paid their contributions. I think there ought to be saving words to prevent approved societies, those societies which become approved, from expelling men who have paid their contributions during all those years and who are now beginning to suffer from illhealth.

§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS
In regard to the expulsion of a member there is a provision made that, in the case of dispute between the insured person and the society, he can appeal to the Insurance Commissioners if he complains that he had been wrongly expelled.

§ Mr. T. LOUGH
The Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden), I understand, is not in order, and perhaps this is not a place to deal with the matter. But my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer may see his way to deal with the case of those who suffer from blindness. They are excluded from the benefits of the Bill. It seems to me that the friendly societies do not treat the blind in a friendly way; I think that is rather a reproach against them, for the blind are a very deserving class of society. So far as general health is concerned they perhaps suffer less from sickness and danger of accident than many other classes of society, 554 for the simple reason that greater care is taken of them. I must say that every Member of the House has the greatest sympathy with those who suffer from blindness, and if the right hon. Gentleman has anything to say on the point I shall be very glad.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
It is no fault of ours that this was not in order. I appealed to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) not to divide on the medical test Clause, because a Division would have the effect of preventing the Committee from discussing other questions of that character In spite of that, though my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) withdrew and did not press a Division, the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley, much wiser, insisted upon the Committee negativing it, with the result that we cannot discuss a question of that kind. It is not the fault of the Government, it is not the fault of the Chair, and certainly it is not the fault of the right hon. Gentleman, but it is the fault of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley.

§ Mr. HARRY LAWSON
Upon the point raised by the hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. C. Bathurst), I think it would be fatal to the whole principles on which our friendly societies are organised to take away the power of expulsion. I only say the effect would be that, and it would be deeply resented by them, and would interfere with the whole of the system upon which their funds have been expended. I do not think, however, a hardship arises in the way my hon. Friend imagines. At the present time there is nearly always an appeal from the Committee to arbitrators, if not to courts of law. I have sat as an arbitrator in the Hearts of Oak Society in dozens of cases where an appeal has been made from the managing committee to the board of arbitrators in regard to the rights of members who have been expelled for some reason or another, and generally of course it is because of some practice of a fraudulent or quasi-fradulent nature, or because they have violated knowingly and wittingly the rules of the society, which have been framed on fair lines and been revised at annual meetings from time to time. Therefore, the hardship does not arise, and it will be impossible for our great friendly societies, which are to become approved societies under this Bill, to abandon the right of expulsion. All 555 you want to do, I quite agree, is to safeguard the rights of members where they are endangered, but I venture to think that in the case of the larger societies, both affiliated and centralised, those rights are safeguarded at the present moment. Surely what we want to do is to interfere as little as possible, and already there is too much interference with the present system of the friendly societies of managing their funds.

§ Mr. LEWIS HASLAM
There is some danger in the absolute power of expulsion which appears to be embodied in the Bill, more especially as to liability through sickness. Supposing a man has been a member of a society for a very long time, and that the society, in order to strengthen their position, expel the member on the ground of being undesirable, it occurs to me that that is a very dangerous power. When we consider that the societies are to receive State aid it appears that there ought to be some provision which would prevent Members being expelled on the ground of liability for sickness. I should be very grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could give us some assurance that he will consider this particular point.

§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS
With regard to expulsion, I think the matter is quite clear under the Bill, and takes into account what the practice is. First of all, a member can only be expelled in accordance with the rules, and secondly those rules must be approved by the Insurance Commissioners, and the reasons for expulsion which will appear on those rules will have to be approved by them. There is the further point, to which I referred just now, namely, that if a member is expelled he has, over and above what the rules of the society give him, an appeal to the Insurance Commissioners because it would be a dispute which would arise between him and an approved society. There is the further point, which I think is really lost sight of, and which is that even if he is expelled in accordance with the rules, which are subject to the approval of the Insurance Commissioners, and, even if he fails on the appeal which he makes to the Insurance Commissioners, he still is not deprived of his surrender value. He takes this transfer value with him so that by that means I think we do give some safeguard to a member against a danger of that kind.

§ Mr. HAROLD SMITH
I understand there is an appeal under Clause 50 in the case of expulsion, and so I take it there is to be no appeal against refusal to admit.

§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS
I do not think that there is on the present drafting, but I am considering, in view of what the hon. and learned Member said, whether when we come to Clause 50 it will not be necessary to give an appeal of that kind.

§ Mr. W. PEARCE
There does not appear to be any safeguard against expelling members because they may be ten or twelve contributions in arrears. That would drive a large number into the ranks of the Post Office contributors. I should like to see some safeguard under this Clause which would prevent expulsion on those grounds.

§ Mr. BOOTH
I rise to support my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lough) with regard to the treatment of the blind. I am not at all sure whether we can make an appeal for them under this Clause. I think it would be a very ludicrous position if the great army of the blind in this country were placed at a disadvantage owing to the stupid action of any Member, whether he come from Bow and Bromley or anywhere else. I therefore would appeal to the Government whether the case could not be met somewhat upon these lines, because, I am afraid, if the Clause passes as it is now the door might be closed except we reopened it on Report. Might I suggest that the large approved societies throughout the country should be compelled, perhaps under regulation, to take their proportion of the blind population according to the numbers in their societies? I do not think any of them would object to that, and if they did they would be very unpopular. I do not think the blind are bad lives from the point of view of sickness, and I do not think they should be discounted.

§ Mr. CASSEL
I certainly would be very disinclined to do anything which would hamper the independent action of the friendly societies and force them to take members. Is it not possible for the blind to form a society of their own which might be grouped under the grouping section with other wealthy societies, and if it did have any deficiency to make it good out of the half-surplus of some of the other societies? If it is true that the risks are not greater in the case of the blind then they would be in just as good a position to form a society, which would be a remedy. So 557 far as the suggestion of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) is concerned, I should like, on this occasion, as I have on every other, to protect the friendly societies from being made more subject to bureaucratic supervision by being compelled to take members.

Sir G. PARKER
May I ask whether this question of the blind may not be raised again on Clause 32, where it is agreed we are to have a general discussion?

§ The CHAIRMAN
I do not see how it could arise separately on Clause 32. I was about to rise to say that the Amendment is out of order at the present stage. The opportunity was on the medical test last Thursday, and that has been disposed of.

§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
The Attorney-General has not explained what is the ultimate sanction. If the society remains obdurate, and supposing it is a case where obviously the objection is on account of age, what is the procedure? Is it to be withdrawal of approval, which would practically involve the dissolution of the society?

§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS
That is one of the Amendments to be dealt with when we come to Clause 50.

§ Mr. L. HASLAM
If a man is expelled from a society and is unable to join another society, what happens as to the transfer?

§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS
That is a case which we deal with in one of the Clauses later to-day, and it is expressly stated that the transfer is carried.

§ Mr. L. HASLAM
Supposing he cannot get into another society?

§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS
That is dealt with again.