Lords Sitting of 28 April 1891

REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND.
Lord Auckland (Claim to vote for Representative Peers for Ireland)— Ordered and Directed, That a Certificate be sent by the Clerk of the Parliaments to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, stating that the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom has reported to the House of Lords that the right of the Lord Auckland to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of him the said Lord Chancellor; and that the House of Lords has ordered such Report to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland: And it is hereby also Ordered, That the said Report of the said Lord Chancellor be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.
COLONISATION.
Message to the House of Commons for copy of the Report, &c, from the Select Committee.
ARMY SCHOOLS BILL.—(No. 83.)
Reported from the Standing Committee without amendment; and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
CHARITIES (RECOVERY) BILL.—(No, 84.)
Reported from the Standing Committee, with an amendment: The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next.
MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL.—(No. 86.)
Reported from the Standing Committee without amendment; and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
SAVINGS BANKS BILL.—(No. 88.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, I need not detain your Lordships more than a very few minutes in moving the Second Reading of
  1578
  this Bill. Its object is to amend some of the provisions of the Act of 1863, which is the principal statute relating to trustee savings banks' at the present time. The operation of that Act was the subject of a somewhat lengthened inquiry extending over two years by a Committee of the House of Commons. That inquiry was undertaken in consequence of the public mind being agitated by some serious failures of trustee savings banks that had taken place. Although this is an amending Bill, yet it does not amend the provisions of the Act of 1863 in any material point. Its main purpose is to provide means whereby the rules and regulations of the Act of 1863 can be efficiently carried out. I do not know that anyone finds serious fault with the provisions of the Act of 1863, and the conditions that are therein laid down for the management of savings banks. But it is obviously useless to lay down the most valuable provisions that can be devised if no authority is provided to see that those rules are carried out. Now, that is the case with regard to the Act of 1863. In it there are most valuable provisions and regulations laid down which everybody who cares for the prosperity of savings banks will, I think, admit to be in themselves salutary, but there is no power enacted to ensure that those provisions and regulations shall be properly carried out. The failures to which I have alluded of some of the savings banks arose, I may say, not from the insufficiency of the regulations, but because those regulations were disregarded. The leading provisions of the Bill provide for the appointment of a Committee—the Members of which are named in the Schedule—and that Committee is to draw up rules for the future guidance of trustee savings banks, and for the future guidance of a permanent Committee which is to be appointed to see that those rules and regulations are carried out. The drawing up of those rules and regulations may probably take some time, and require a certain amount of skilled knowledge. The names of the gentlemen mentioned in the Schedule will, I think, afford a sufficient guarantee that they will perform the work well. When the rules and regulations have been framed they are to be laid down before both Houses of Parlia-

  1579
  ment, so that Parliament may have the opportunity of sanctioning or refusing to sanction them. If the rules and regulalations laid down by the Committee are not properly carried out by the savings Banks, the National Debt Commissioners, with whom the money to be lodged in the savings banks is to be invested, and who are to pay interest upon it, may, if they think fit, close the accounts of the Trustees of any savings bank. The indirect, or rather the tolerably direct, effect of that would be that in those cases the savings banks could not be carried on. Another point in which the Act of 1863 is to be amended, and in this respect to be made a little more stringent, is this: At the present time it is the practice of some savings banks to publish lists of names of well-known individuals who act either as Trustees, or Chairmen, or Presidents, or in some way or other are connected, or supposed to be connected, with those savings banks, but whose office is purely honorary, who know little or nothing about the business of their banks, and pay little or no attention to it. That practice operates in this way: the depositors are lulled into a false security by the existence of those lists of names, but, as the owners of those names pay no attention to the business of the bank, they afford no real ground for the feeling of security and confidence which the publication of their names gives rise to. One of the provisions of this Bill is to the effect that if during a specified period no act is performed by the gentlemen whose names are so published they are to cease to hold office, and their names are to be no longer published in connection with the bank. One other point of sufficient importance for me to mention it to your Lordships is dealt with and altered in this Bill. At the present time neither in a trustee savings bank nor in the Post Office Savings Bank can the total amount depositedbyanyoneexceed£150, but interest may accumulate upon money so deposited up to £200, and no further. This provision has given rise to considerable confusion and difficulty. Supposing a depositor puts in £145, and his money then accumulates beyond £150, may he or may he not deposit the £5 necessary to make up his capital deposit to £150? That is one difficulty. Then a great deal of confusion and difficulty
  1580
  have arisen in keeping accounts of savings banks in distinguishing whether the money lying in depositor's names above £150 has really been deposited as capital or accumulated as interest. Accordingly, the Bill proposes to sweep away the distinction between money which has been deposited as capital and money which has accumulated as interest, and to allow any depositor to have in his name as much as £200, whether it is deposited as capital or whether it has accumulated as interest, but no interest will be allowed on any deposit beyond the sum of £200. There is one provision which is not in the Bill, which, in pursuance of a pledge given in the other House of Parliament, the Government will propose to insert in the Bill during its passage through this House. At the present time no one may deposit in the Post Office Savings Bank more than £30 in any one year, and hardship has arisen under this provision. Supposing, when some emergency arises, the owner of a deposit withdraws a sum for use in that emergency; when the emergency is past he cannot re-deposit in the savings bank, if he has the money, more than the £30. Supposing he has withdrawn for some purpose £50 from his account, he cannot, until the expiration of the year which is then current and the commencement of the ensuing year, re-deposit the whole of his £50; he can only deposit £30 in one year, and must wait until the next year to re-deposit the balance. That operates in some cases as a distinct discouragement to thrift, and the problem to be solved is how to give permission to a depositor who has really only withdrawn his money for a temporary emergency to re-deposit such an amount as he may wish without at the same time giving rise to the belief that these savings bank accounts may be treated as ordinary current accounts from which money may be withdrawn, and into which money may again be deposited, as if it was an ordinary current account with a bank. The object of the Amendment which I shall propose at the proper time will be to endeavour to draw a distinction between those two cases. As this, and indeed almost all the provisions of the Bill, are so much more matters for consideration in Committee, being merely upon details, I propose to say no

  1581
  more in moving the Second Reading now, except that I propose to take the Committee stage in the House on an early day, and then to allow a reasonable time before putting down the Bill for consideration by the Standing Committee, so that the details of it maybe fully considered by your Lordships. In these circumstances, I beg now to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —{The Lord Balfour of Burleigh?)
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, it is clear from the statement of the noble Lord who has just spoken that this is a Money Bill, and that there are Amendments to be proposed which, of course, would not be accepted in another place. As a Trustee of a savings bank, I very much object to the whole of the powers of the Commissioners of the National Debt being transferred to a few individuals who are named in the Schedule to the Bill. The danger of the savings banks is that the interest allowed to them being rather below the Post Office rate of interest, gives the Post Office Savings Bank such an advantage that everybody is likely to go there and to desert the other savings bank. But your Lordships must recollect that in imposing all this additional trouble upon the Post Office it will be necessary to increase the staff of clerks, and the gratuitous services of managers, trustees, and others will be entirely disregarded. I think that this is a very dangerous Bill, and though I am generally in a minority, without a Teller, I hope I shall not be so on this occasion, and I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time this day 10 months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now,") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day ten months.")—{The Lord Denman.)
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, before asking the question which I desire to put, I should like to say that I am very glad to hear of the two important reforms in regard to savings banks which the noble Lord proposes in this Bill—that is to say, as to increasing the limit of deposits from £150 to £200, and as to giving powers for the purpose of allowing persons who may have withdrawn money for emer-
  1582
  gencies, or for merely temporary purposes, to replace it, notwithstanding the £30 annual limit. What I want to ask the noble Lord is whether the Government will either move or accept amendments for increasing the maximum amount of deposits which may be made in any one year? At present it is only £30 in this country, while in France and Belgium the amount is as much as £80 which may be placed in one year upon deposit. That is undoubtedly an encouragement to thrift. No doubt the limit of £30 has been fixed in the interest of the small banks; but as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has lately disregarded the licensed victuallers, I hope he will be able to disregard in this matter the clamour of the small banks.
  On Question, whether ("now") shall stand part of the Motion, resolved in the affirmative: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

LONDON (CITY) TRIAL OF CIVIL CAUSES BILL.—(No; 103.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, before the House resolves itself into Committee, I should like to ask my noble and learned Friend who has charge of this Bill for an explanation of its object—that is to say, at, whose instance the change proposed is to be made. I unfortunately omitted to observe the Bill yesterday in the Orders of the Day for Second Reading. I would remind your Lordships that some years ago, owing to the Report of the Royal Commission upon these matters, the trial of all causes, whether arising in the City or in the County of Middlesex, was transferred to the new Law Courts, and the sittings for the trial of causes which used to take place at Guildhall were abandoned. It was thought at that time to be to the public advantage that the trials of causes which used to take place in the City Courts, as well as those in the High Court, should all be conducted under one roof. I want, therefore, to ask my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor at whose instance this proposed change is to be made? When I first saw that such a proposal was on foot, a proposal which

  1583
  I may say, as far as I can learn, was never explained in the House of Commons—I believe that the measure passed through the other House without any explanation at all, and that it was passed through all its stages very rapidly—I addressed myself upon the matter to those who were likely to know, thinking that perhaps the solicitors practising in the City, and who are engaged largely in commercial cases, had applied to my noble and learned Friend to make such a change. Now, as far as I can learn, there is no keen desire at all on their part for this change, or any pressure for a return to the old system of trying these cases at the Guildhall. I do not know whether the proposal proceeds in any way from the Incorporated Law Society. So far as I am aware, it does not, nor from the mercantile community generally. Therefore, I desire to ask my noble and learned Friend, before the Bill goes further, who is it that desires this Bill should be passed; what representations have been made to him on the subject; and whether he has consulted such bodies and persons interested in the matter, as those to whom I have alluded; and, if so, what information he has received from them?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In answer to the questions put by the noble and learned Lord, I will explain that the necessity for the Bill arises from the fact that by an Order in Council it was arranged that no sittings of Judges of the High Court should be held in the City of London. My attention has been called by a great variety of persons to the diminution of City causes—that is to say, what are generally called commercial cases, and I have been told that one great objection to the present arrangement is the inconvenience it causes to business men in the City. It is stated that business men will not, if they can avoid it, go out of the City in business hours. I am not aware of any particular magic accompanying the trial of causes in the City of London, and it is rather the inconvenience which has been called to my attention that I have endeavoured to obviate and remedy. The noble and learned Lord acting with me and myself have agreed that, with that object, sittings in London should be tried as an experiment. Then our attention was called to the result of the
  1584
  Order in Council, that all trials should take place in the Royal Courts. One inconvenience is that when all the Judges are able to give full attention to their judicial work in the Royal Courts, there are not Courts enough for them, which naturally has extremely inconvenient results to suitors and parties concerned. Another great disadvantage at present is that it is difficult to ascertain precisely when causes will be heard; but if these trials were to take place in the City Courts proper, those who are engaged in commercial cases would know when they were coming on. I may say that I had a great variety of information given to me upon the matter, the details of which I am unable to give at this moment; but I came to the conclusion that at all events it was desirable to try, as an experiment, whether this would not remove the block of commercial causes, which is alleged now to be so great that people will not go to trial with their actions, and they do not like to go to arbitration. In the circumstances, I think it will be seen that the experiment is, at all events, a very desirable one to try, and it is in order to give the opportunity of trying the experiment that the introduction of the present Bill has become necessary.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clause 1.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I must say I cannot regard the answer of my noble and learned Friend as in the slightest degree satisfactory. It seems that a certain number of unnamed persons, in whose views my noble and learned Friend pro fesses absolute confidence—
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Not absolute.
  LORD HERSCHELL: Well, I omit "absolute," and I will say that it seems a number of persons, in whom my noble and learned Friend, for the purposes of this Bill, places confidence, have told him that they consider that City causes will become more numerous, and the disposal or administration of them more popular, if this change is made. Now, surely the persons who are best able to judge in such a question as that are the solicitors who are chiefly engaged in these commercial causes. They know best whether

  1585
  the reason which the noble and learned Lord has given for the diminution in the number of these causes is really that which he suggests, namely, the inconvenience of the present place of trial. I am informed by those who are as competent to advise on the matter as any of the persons who, I suppose, have been giving information upon it to my noble and learned Friend can be, that that is not really the cause of the diminution of City cases, that the reason for it has nothing whatever to do with the place of trial, and that to transfer them to the City for trial is not likely to add to their number, while it has still more obvious disadvantages. I should have thought that upon such a question as this the noble and learned Lord would have considered it right to consult the Incorporated Law Society, or those members of that body who are more especially conversant with such a subject as this. One would like to know, too, whether he had made any inquiries, or had received the views of the Bar upon the subject. I do not, of course, for a moment suggest that the views of either of those bodies, as representing the legal profession, should be taken as conclusive in such matters affecting the public interest generally — I hope they never will be—where any question with regard to the conduct of litigation is concerned; but I would submit to your Lordships that if a change of this kind is to be made without an opportunity being afforded of ascertaining what their views are, the House will be legislating in the dark, especially when we are not even told who those persons are whose authority has been quoted, but whose names, whose means of knowledge, whose situation and calling in life are absolutely undisclosed to us, although they seem to have convinced the mind of my noble and learned Friend.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, the observations of the noble and learned Lord open up rather a wide vista of new constitutional practice. This Bill comes from the House of Commons. In the House of Commons there sit two Members for the City of London. I presume they know something of what their constituents desire. In the House of Commons there sit a considerable
  1586
  number of solicitors, who are probably at least as able as other members of their profession, and I presume it may be taken that they would have found out any objections to the measure if they had existed, but the solicitors were silent. The Attorney General sits there as head of the Bar; and if the Bar were strongly averse to this measure, probably he would have had something to say to it. But the Bill has passed through the House of Commons with absolute unanimity. I must say the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken is calling for a large amount of that faith which we are, I am sure, always desirous of putting in him when he asks us upon his own authority simply to dispel this cloud of witnesses by whom the Lord Chancellor has considered himself justified in being persuaded, having also, I believe, consulted the heads of the law, and having, as I have said, satisfied himself with the authority of persons whose evidence he believed. The noble and learned Lord seems to have consulted nobody; and not having fortified himself with the authority of anybody, asks the House now, upon the ground that he has not had the opportunity of doing anything to refute the testimony of all those persons whom I have enumerated, not to accept this measure. Last night we were a good deal blamed because we had not, before introducing a Bill into this House, laid it before another Assembly; but the doctrine is going further, and apparently we must not introduce Bills into this House until we have laid them before the Incorporated Law Society in order to obtain its assent.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I protest against the noble Marquess putting into my mouth. words which I have never used. The noble Marquess says I have proposed a new principle of constitutional practice; but it is a new principle to me that, because a Bill has passed the House of Commons without discussion, your Lordships should pass it without a sufficient explanation from the noble and learned Lord who has introduced it into your Lordships' House. My noble and learned Friend has, I submit, introduced it without giving the reasons upon which it is founded, and without showing that it is a measure which is called

  1587
  for, and is likely to work well. That was what I asked for, and what I think one has a right to ask for in this House; because one knows this perfectly well, that frequently at the present time measures which are of a character not gravely controversial pass through the other House without any discussion whatever. Owing to new Regulations which have been made, measures of this description are not discussed—there is no opportunity of discussing them, and they pass through without discussion. I think it not unreasonable, therefore, that when those measures come before your Lordships' House it should not be taken for granted that there is nothing to be said on the subject. Very often it happens that the only information which the public obtains that such a measure is in progress is when it comes before your Lordships' House, and then it is sometimes seen to be open to grave objection, even by Members of the other House, who may have allowed it to pass, when it comes to be considered here. Therefore, I cannot assent to the proposition of the noble Marquess, that when a Bill passes through the other House without discussion, we ought not to discuss it here. The fact that it has so passed is a reason why one should hesitate much before asking your Lordships to reject it; but it does not prevent one asking for a statement of the reasons for the measure, which I must confess in this case do not appear to me to be overwhelming.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not think we need discuss this Bill at greater length. The noble and learned Lord has, I think, exaggerated the nature and effect of the Bill. It is a very little one, consisting only of two clauses in a few lines, and is, as I have explained, simply for the purpose of enabling these causes to be tried in the City of London; which, I may say, had, until the recent change, always been done in my experience. It enacts that sittings may be held in the City of London by Judges of the High Court tinder commission issued for the trial of issues or inquiries in cases at Nisi Prius. It is desired that this experiment should be made, and, after all, the responsibility of asking for power to try the experiment must be upon the Minister who introduces the Bill. I do not deny that my
  1588
  noble and learned Friend is entitled to ask for explanations, and I have given him such information as I thought right, without giving the names of people who would not be at all desirous to have a discussion raised about them as to whether they were fit or competent persons upon whose information to act. If the experiment is not found to be successful, I do not think there would be any desire on the part of Her Majesty's Government, or anybody else, that it should be continued. But I think, my Lords, it is desirable that it should be tried.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.

  INTERMEDIATE SCHOOLS, &C, SITES BILL [H.L.]—(NO. 94.)
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read, and discharged.
  House adjourned at five minutes past six o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.