Lords Sitting of 30 June 1909

Preamble
The LORD ASHBURTON—Took the Oath.
KILKENNY, CASTLECOMER, AND ATHY RAILWAY BILL.
Examiner's Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders, referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.
MIDLAND GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY OF IRELAND BILL.
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Order made on Thursday last discharged, and Bill committed.

OLDHAM CORPORATION BILL.
HOLYWOOD TRAMWAYS BILL.
HULL AND BARNSLEY RAILWAY BILL.
GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
Read 2a and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

SLIGO AND BUNDORAN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 2a and committed.
WATFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 2a and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

NORTH EAST LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
DERWENT VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL.
FOLKESTONE, SANDGATE, AND HYTHE TRAMWAYS BILL.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
Read 2a.

GLAMORGAN WATER BOARD BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) FUND.
Petitions for an Address to His Majesty praying him to withhold his assent to the Minute of the Council of Education in Scotland, dated 3rd June, 1909; of the School Boards of the following parishes: Maryhill—Covington and Thankerton—Dalziel—Carmichael—Shettleston—Libberton—Dalsert—Lanark (Landward)—Alloa (Landward);—Committee on Secondary Education for the county of Renfrew;—Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
EDINBURGH MERCHANT COMPANY ENDOWMENTS,&c. ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order): Amendments made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order): The Amendments proposed by the Committee made: Standing Committee negatived; the report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.

MUSSELBURGH GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
CALEDONIAN RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
MUSSELBURGH CORPORATION (EXTENSION OF BOUNDARIES, &c.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
GLASGOW HOSPITAL FOR SKIN DISEASES ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
MERCHANTS HOUSE OF GLASGOW (BUCHANAN AND EWING BEQUESTS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

MERCANTILE MARINE—EYE-SIGHT TESTS.
LORD MUSKERRY LORD MUSKERRY rose "to call attention to the colour-vision test to which candidates for Board of Trade certificates as master or mate are subjected; to ask whether the attention of the President of the Board of Trade has been called to the case of Mr. W. H. Glover, who has been certified by the London Local Marine Board, after hearing expert evidence, as fit to discharge the duties of first mate, notwithstanding the fact that three persons who had tested his sight on behalf of the Board of Trade had failed Mr. Glover on the ground that he was defective in colour-vision, and therefore incompetent; whether the Board of Trade propose to take any further action in this matter, and whether they will state in how many cases within recent times have candidates for the Higher Grade Board of Trade Certificates, who have already passed the colour-vision test, been rejected on the ground of colour blindness when re-examined on application for a certificate of a higher grade; and also to call attention to the case of Mr. Trattles, who after having passed for first mate in colour tests, as well as for other qualifications, and having received the examiner's authority for the delivery of a first mate's certificate in 1906, received a letter stating that his examination had been cancelled as he had failed to pass a special colour examination in 1905; and to move that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the conditions under which eyesight tests for the Mercantile Marine certificates are conducted."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am bringing to your notice a most urgent and important matter. I say this because it is not only closely identified with the safety of life at sea, but under present
110
conditions it seems evident that very grave injustices may be perpetrated upon those who serve in the mercantile marine, either as officers or as candidates aspiring to become officers. I am referring to the examinations in colour-vision which candidates for Board of Trade certificates as master or mate are required to undergo. For your Lordships' information I will state in a few words the procedure which is followed in the case of candidates for these certificates. On filling up the necessary form and paying the sum of 1s., any person serving or intending to serve in the mercantile marine may present himself voluntarily for the examination. But, as I have said, in the case of candidates for certificates the examination is compulsory. It is with these candidates alone that I propose to deal.
In the first place, the candidate is examined by an examiner, the examination being conducted by the official Board of Trade examiners at the different seaports. If the candidate fails in the colour-test he may appeal to the Board of Trade, who, if they think fit, may submit the case to a special examiner or body of examiners for a final decision. If, on appeal, the candidate again fails, he must pay his own expenses, but if he succeeds they are under certain circumstances borne by the Board of Trade. When the candidate fails on appeal, and there is reason to believe that, in consequence, he is, through incompetency in regard to eyesight, unfit to discharge his duties, the Board of Trade, in the public interest, may cause an Inquiry to be held before a Court having jurisdiction to cancel or suspend such certificate. That is, of course, providing the candidate already has one or more certificates. Your Lordships will, therefore, see that the result of such an Inquiry, when set on foot by the Board of Trade, has two issues only; one is that it may mean the cancellation of an officer's certificate—that is, if he has already passed the test when a candidate for a certificate of a lower grade. The unfortunate officer's professional career may be ruined, whilst the most valuable years of his life may prove to have been absolutely wasted.
The case of Mr. Glover, which I refer to in my Notice, has excited widespread attention, and a considerable amount of public controversy has arisen over it. The Imperial Merchant Service Guild,

111
which represent so many captains and officers, have laid certain facts before me in connection with this and other instances, and have expressed their alarm at the many injustices for which the existing mode of testing candidates in colour-vision may be held responsible. The Shipping Gazette, our leading shipping paper, has dwelt in the most emphatic terms on the enormity of Mr. Glover's case and of another case which I will bring to your notice, and has gone to much trouble in eliciting striking and significant facts which bear upon these cases. The Journal of Commerce, another well-known shipping paper, also identifies itself with this question, and without doubt there is a consensus of opinion that it demands the prompt attention of the Board of Trade.
To put Mr. Glover's case shortly, in the first place he was failed in colour-vision by a Board of Trade examiner. On appeal he was examined by an expert examiner specially appointed by the Board of Trade, and again failed. The Board of Trade then caused a Local Marine Board Inquiry to be set on foot in order that Mr. Glover should be adjudged incompetent through defective colour-vision. Those who had examined Mr. Glover on behalf of the Board of Trade gave evidence to the effect that Mr. Glover was undoubtedly colour-blind. But that well-known specialist, Dr. William Ettles, pathologist to the Royal Eye Hospital, was called by Mr. Glover to give evidence on his behalf. Dr. Ettles stated that, from the point of visional power, Mr. Glover was fully qualified to undertake any position in the mercantile marine. He stated that Mr. Glover accurately matched colours every time without hesitation, and in the doctor's opinion a good many of the Board of Trade examinations were wrong. This, as your Lordships will observe, was a case of experts falling out.
The Board of Inquiry which heard the case considered that the best way out of the quandary was to test Mr. Glover for themselves. The result of it was that the Board found that he was not incompetent by reason of colour-blindness to perform his duties, and his certificate was therefore returned to him and the sum of ten guineas awarded as costs. Whether the London Local Marine Board is a competent tribunal to decide on a colour-vision test when experts differ
112
so absolutely is a matter of opinion. In any case, it will be patent to your Lordships that the position as it stands is untenable and at present we can have no confidence in these examinations. It would be a most dangerous thing if, by chance, a colour-blind officer were allowed to go to sea and be in charge of a ship; whilst, on the other hand, it is a grave injustice to a man if he is failed in colour-vision when his eyesight is not defective in this respect.
Besides this case of Mr. Glover, another of a most extraordinary character has been brought to my notice. It concerns an officer of the name of Trattles. In the year 1904 Mr. Trattles was passed in colours on going up for his second mate's certificate at West Hartlepool. I had better read to your Lordships Mr. Trattles' statement. It is as follows—
"On February 3, 1904, passed in colours before Captain Young at West Hartlepool. Remainder of second mate's examination the two following days before Captain Forrest, who gave me an unofficial examination in colours. On July 6, 1905, sat for chief mate and was failed in colours by Captain Forrest. Appealed to the Board of Trade against his decision and was examined at South Kensington by Captain Harvey, who upheld Captain Forrest's decision. Received a letter two days later asking me to surrender my second mate's ticket, which I refused. Got examined at the Central London Ophthalmic Hospital, also at the South London Royal Eye Infirmary, and received certificates from both stating that my colour sense was good."
I would ask your Lordships to note what follows—
"Shortly after received a request from the Board of Trade to deliver up my certificate together with a statement that I surrendered it voluntarily, or, in the event of my not doing so, the Board of Trade would feel compelled to hold an Inquiry into my competency to hold a ticket—
They often use the word "ticket" instead of "certificate"—
"I answered demanding an Inquiry, and asking for it to be held in London at an early date. On September 1, 1905, an Inquiry was held in London, where I was given an examination before the Board and was informed that, so far as colour-vision was concerned, I was competent to hold a certificate. On April 27, 1906, again presented myself to be examined for first mate's certificate and was examined in colours and passed before Captain Saul, London. On May 7, 8, and 9, 1906, sat for the remainder of the examination and received examiner's authority for the delivery of a first mate's ticket, which I still hold. On May 17, 1906, received letter stating that my examina-

113
tion had been cancelled and that I had been improperly allowed to sit, having failed to pass the special colour examination on July 18, 1905."
I understand that the Registrar-General of Shipping and Seamen, who issues the certificates, said that it had been decided to withhold this certificate on the ground that Mr. Trattles was completely "red-blind," and Mr. Lloyd-George, who was then President of the Board of Trade and was appealed to in the hope that he would reverse the arbitrary decision of the Registrar-General, stated, in reply, that it had been found that Mr. Trattles was "green-blind." It is therefore palpable that either great injustices have been done or the present eyesight tests are total failures; and I would point out that the great proportion of candidates who are failed in colour-vision do not avail themselves of the opportunity they have for appealing.
At the Colonial Merchant Shipping Conference a resolution was adopted calling upon the Board of Trade to institute more severe examinations in connection with eyesight—that is, both for form-vision and colour-vision. But it is not the severity of the examinations so much as the mode in which they are conducted which needs adjusting. I understand, and I believe it is a fact, that the question has been under the consideration of the late Advisory Committee of the Board of Trade acting on the initiative of the Board of Trade itself. What their views were on the situation I do not know. There was an amount of secrecy about the proceedings of the Board of Trade Advisory Committee which seemed to be quite unnecessary. The present forms of eyesight tests are based upon the report of a Committee on Colour-Vision appointed by the Council of the Royal Society. The Chairman of this Committee was Lord Rayleigh, and others upon the Committee were the late Lord Kelvin, Professor Foster, Mr. Francis Galton, Sir George Stokes, and Sir William Abney. One is inclined to question, therefore, the inefficiency of the present examinations. The mode of conducting them, however, is quite a different matter, and one for which the Committee I have referred to is not to be held responsible.
Since these experiences that I have mentioned of Mr. Trattles and Mr. Glover they have both been re-examined in colour-
114
vision at the instance of the Board of Trade—on May 28 last—and they have both been failed. Dr. Ettles, who had examined them and stated that, as far as their professional duties required, they were perfectly competent from the point of colour-vision, was invited by the Board of Trade to be present on the occasion of the examination. They said they would welcome his presence at the examination. I wrote to Dr. Ettles asking him what he thought of the examination, and whether he was satisfied with it. At this time neither of us had learned the result of the examination. I hold in my hand his reply, which is most interesting and instructive, but is too long to read to your Lordships. I will, however, give you one or two extracts from it. I may say that Dr. Ettles does not appear to have been very courteously treated at this examination, and he certainly does not think that the examination was fairly conducted in the interests of the candidates. On the contrary, it would appear as if conducted with the object of proving that the former adverse decisions were correct. I also understand that the examiners were those who had already conducted previous examinations of these gentlemen and had failed them, and surely they could not be expected to contradict themselves on this special examination when they were practically sitting on an appeal from their former decision, and I do not think that it was at all fair that they should have been the examiners on this occasion. Dr. Ettles states—
"It is with regret that I am constrained to say that, in my opinion, it [the examination] was conducted on quite wrong principles."
After referring to the invitation that had been sent to him from the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, Dr. Ettles proceeds—
"On my arrival I was ushered into a room containing a considerable number of gentlemen, among whom I recognised one or two ophthalmic surgeons. I then asked Sir William Abney if he desired to consult with me as to the order and character of the tests, but this he declined to do, adding that I was free to look on if I chose. This was an unfortunate attitude, I think, because obviously if one or both of the candidates failed under conditions which I had accepted as adequate, the matter would have been at an end."
Then Dr. Ettles describes how the first candidate, Mr. Trattles, was taken in hand and the various tests adopted. He says—
"He was not asked to match the wool, the only correct test with wools, but to pick out all the

115
greens. The poor man was in a pitiable state of nervousness, but no one would give him the smallest assistance. The proper attitude of the examiner is thus given by Adams Frost in Juler's 'Ophthalmic Science and Practice' [3rd edition, 1904, p. 356]: 'With people of low intelligence, and with children, it is a good plan for the examiner to go through the test himself to show how simple a matter it is; if the number of wools is sufficient, and they are properly mixed afterwards, this gives no unfair assistance to those whose colour-vision is defective.' Captain Harvey, who conducted the examination, evidently held no such view with regard to nervous examinees."
Then Dr. Ettles goes on to state the colours which Mr. Trattles picked out. Further on he says—
"He was next given a deep rose pink, a more saturated colour than that described by Holmgren. He correctly drew out seven correct rose pinks and then 'went to pieces,' for the next two were a violet and a vermilion. He had been examined under great tension for ten minutes. A man with weak colour-vision will match a violet with a pink but not a vermilion. The red-blind chooses blue and violet: the green-blind a grey or a bright green. Trattles' match with pale green showed that he was not red-blind, while his match with pink showed he was not green-blind. The simultaneous production of violet and scarlet at the end of a succession of correct wools simply showed that the nervous tension was too much and his judgment had broken down."
Dr. Ettles continues—
"The third test was a violet. Test III of the wool of Holmgren is a bright red. It was clear that the official order was not to be observed."
He goes on to speak of the tests, and then proceeds—
"Sir William Abney asked the names of colours while a sliding spectrum was being exhibited, so that several times when the answers came a new pair of tints was on the screen. I do not allege that this was in any way intentional, but it was careless of the candidate's interest. Another surprising point was the absence of method. The colours were shown haphazard and it would be impossible to analyse a defect by these means."
And towards the end Dr. Ettles says—
"The memory of these examinations is unpleasant because there is an ineradicable conviction in my mind that the whole focal point was to prove the infallibility of the Board of Trade, and not to sift the case of these men whose whole future was at stake."
As I have said before, my Lords, it is not so much the form of the test that is objected to as the way in which it is sometimes conducted; and surely if, as Dr. Ettles says in the case of Mr. Trattles, he was in a pitiable state of nervousness, the attitude that Dr. Ettles describes was shown to him by the examiners was not likely to reduce that
116
state of nervousness, and, as Dr. Ettles quotes, not the proper attitude as described by authorities of ophthalmic science and practice. I do not for one minute say that Mr. Trattles is unintelligent; he certainly could not have passed the other portion of his examinations satisfactorily if he were; but a pitiable state of nervousness and the attitude shown to him might have reduced him nearly to the condition of a person of no intelligence on the occasion of the examination.
Now, my Lords, there is one other test which Mr. Trattles has undergone, and I think your Lordships will agree with me that it is a most excellent test, and one to be thoroughly relied upon. I myself attach more importance to it than the tests of any scientists. I must tell your Lordships that all these years Mr. Trattles has been doing his duty as second mate. After the first question about his sight arose in 1905, naturally it was heard of by the captain under whom he was serving. No captain in his senses would trust his ship to the care of an officer about whose sight there was any doubt, and therefore this captain, without Mr. Trattles' knowledge, tested him in various ways and told Mr. Trattles afterwards he had done so. Apparently he was perfectly satisfied as to Mr. Trattles' colour-vision, as this letter, dated the 21st of this month, will show—
"We have pleasure in stating that Mr. John Trattles has been second officer of our s.s. "Kingfield," 5,500 tons burden, from September, 1905, to May, 1909, during which time his conduct and ability have been all we could desire, and had he been eligible we should have promoted him to chief officer, as vacancies occurred. We have frequently questioned the captain as to his visual powers, and on every occasion the former has assured us that he has perfect colour-vision and that he always felt every confidence in leaving him in charge during his watch. We shall be very pleased to give him further employment."
This is from the owners of the steamer in which he served, and it is signed by the manager. Then I hold in my hand letters from the captain, in one of which he says—
"I have no doubt as to his eyesight, having tried him on numerous occasions while on duty at night."
My Lords, the scientific or other examiners living on shore who examine in colour-vision have absolutely nothing at stake should the examinee be colour-blind or otherwise; the captain of a ship has everything at stake—he has his own life, the lives

117
of his crew, and the safety of his ship. Therefore I say that these tests, under the actual conditions that prevail at sea and in practice, are of much greater value to my mind than any of the other tests. I am moving for a Select Committee to inquire into this subject. Whether it will be granted or not I cannot say; but some Committee, and not a Departmental Committee, certainly should investigate this matter, and careful instructions should be issued to the various examiners as to the way in which they are to conduct these tests, for, take it how you will, there must be something absolutely wrong in the present system. Mr. Trattles was passed by Captain Young and then by Captain Forrest, who a year afterwards failed him. He has passed at the London Ophthalmic Hospital and at the Royal Eye Infirmary. Then, after being examined by the Court of Inquiry with which the Board of Trade had threatened him should he not surrender his certificate and say he did so voluntarily, and which he had applied for himself, this very Court found that, so far as colour-vision was concerned, he was competent to hold the certificate. Now, my Lords, someone must have been wrong in all these examinations, and therefore I submit that the whole subject demands a searching investigation.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the conditions under which eyesight tests for Mercantile Marine certificates are conducted.—(Lord Muskerry.)
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, I know that in the opinion of the noble Lord the Board of Trade never can do anything right, but I hardly think that on this occasion he will have succeeded in convincing your Lordships that the Board are wrong in being very particular and very careful, as they undoubtedly are, in the matter of these colour-vision tests. Your Lordships know that the whole safety of navigation by night depends upon the man in charge of the ship being able to distinguish between a red light, a green light, and a white light under all conditions of weather and atmosphere, and in those circumstances the very greatest care has to be exercised, and is exercised in these tests. They are based upon the Report of the Committee of the Royal Society to which the noble Lord has alluded, which sat at the request of the Board of Trade in 1892, and of which the most distinguished scientist in your Lord-
118
ships' House—Lord Rayleigh—was chairman. The ests are very much as the noble Lord has described them. The original test is carried out by the Board of Trade examiners or by the Local Board of Trade superintendent at the port. If a candidate fails, he is sent before special examiners, who have invariably been either Sir William Abney or Professor Watson, assisted by Captain Harvey, the chief Board of Trade examiner. These examinations take place at the Royal College of Science, South Kensington.
The noble Lord's Notice, as is usual, occupies a considerable amount of the Order Paper, and I find that on the present occasion the catechism is divided into seven parts. I think the only way in which I can satisfy the noble Lord will be by answering each of them in turn. I have alluded to the first one. In the second part the noble Lord asks whether the attention of the President of the Board of Trade has been called to the case of Mr. W. H. Glover. In answer to that I have to say that the attention of my right hon. friend has been called to this case, and not that only he, but everyone at the Board of Trade before whom the case of these two men has come, myself included, feel the deepest sympathy for them; but, unfortunately, they suffer from a physical defect which is absolutely insurmountable in the case of the profession they have adopted, and the duty of the Board of Trade, I am afraid, is perfectly clear.
Next, the noble Lord asks whether it is the case that Mr. Glover was certified by the London Local Marine Board, after hearing expert evidence, as fit to discharge the duties of first mate, notwithstanding the fact that three persons who had tested his sight on behalf of the Board of Trade had failed Mr. Glover on the ground that he was defective in colour-vision. Yes; that is the case. Here, again, the facts are as the noble Lord has stated, except that he was passed for second mate and not for first mate, though I do not think that makes any material difference. Mr. Glover, as the noble Lord has stated, on May 28 of this year went before the special examiners, who in this case were Sir William Abney, Professor Watson, and Captain Harvey, who certified that he and the other man, Mr. Trattles, were colour-blind. There were also present on this occasion four other

119
scientific gentlemen — Professor Church, Professor Callendar, Dr. J. H. arsons, representing the Ophthalmological Society, and Dr. Rivers, representing the Royal Society; and all those gentlemen agreed absolutely with the decision that was come to by the examiners. There were other gentlemen present as friends of the men who were being examined. The noble Lord has quoted from the letter of one of these—a doctor; and I think I ought to quote from the Report which Dr. Rivers presented to the Royal Society. Dr. Rivers wrote—
"I attended on May 28 the special examination of two men who had been rejected by the Board of Trade for abnormal colour-vision and had subsequently been certified as normal by a medical practitioner. The two men were tested by means of Sir William Abney's spectral apparatus in a dark room and were asked to name single patches of colour and pairs of such patches, both objective and contrast colours being used. The patches shown were of considerable size, but in spite of this both men made gross errors, all their answers being such as were to be expected from colour-blind persons. One of the two men was usually right with the largest patches shown, but made gross errors with smaller patches and was evidently a case of weakness of colour-vision rather than of absolute colour-blindness."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In what capacity was Dr. Rivers attending?
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: He was invited as the representative of the Royal Society. This case having caused considerable comment, the Royal Society agreed to send a representative who would make a Report to them, I think especially in view of the fact that these tests are based on the Report of their Committee. The Report of Dr. Rivers proceeds—
"In addition, one of the two men was put through the Holmgren wool-test, and he gave a good example of the method of responding to this test followed by those who have been especially coached to pass it. There could be no doubt that in each man the condition of vision would be a definite source of danger at sea."
The last paragraph of the report is as follows, and I think it answers what the noble Lord has said—
"The only criticism I have to offer is that, though the tests must have been absolutely convincing to any one acquainted with the subject, their effect on the representatives of shipping bodies and other lay persons present may have been rendered less definite by the rapidity with which they were carried out. What might have been an absolutely convincing demonstration of the abnormality of the two men may have been marred, so far as lay persons were concerned, by this rapidity."
120
I think that accounts for the opinion which the noble Lord has read to the House.
The noble Lord then asks whether the Board of Trade propose to take any further action in this matter. Yes. In view of the opinions which have been expressed, it is impossible for the Board of Trade to take the responsibility of allowing these men to hold their certificates so far as the Board of Trade are empowered in that matter; and, as the noble Lord has said, the Board of Trade have written to these men asking them to surrender their certificates, and if they do not do so the Board will be compelled reluctantly to bring the case before one of the Courts which deal with these matters. They are bound to do this in the public interest. Then the noble Lord asks in how many cases within recent times have candidates who have already passed the colour-vision test been rejected on going up for further examination. I can give him the figures for the last four years. In 1905 there were none; in 1906, two; in 1907, one; and in 1908, two—a total for the four years of five. I think I ought to supplement these figures by stating that the total number examined for colour-vision during that period was 25,151, that the number who failed was 239; of the failures sixty-four appealed to South Kensington, and of these twenty-seven were passed on appeal and thirty-seven were rejected.
The noble Lord also called attention to the case of Mr. Trattles. His case is, again, much as the noble Lord has stated. In 1905, I think, he had already failed. He went up for examination and was rejected, and the Board of Trade then asked him to resign his certificate. As he did not do so, they brought him before a Local Marine Board in London. The Board heard the expert evidence of the Board of Trade, they also heard medical evidence on behalf of Mr. Trattles, and they determined, as the noble Lord has said, that when doctors differed they would decide for themselves. They accordingly subjected Mr. Trattles, as I understand, to a very crude test with wools, and decided on the strength of that, and in opposition to the scientific evidence of the Board of Trade, that he had normal colour-vision. There, for the moment, the responsibility of the Board of Trade ended. But when he presented himself for a further certificate it was necessary that he should

121
be examined again. He again failed, and went before the same Board, in May of this year, as Mr. Glover whose case I have already alluded to.
Then the noble Lord moves for a Select Committee to inquire into the conditions under which eyesight tests for mercantile marine certificates are conducted. I have to say that the Board of Trade are of opinion that these tests, as at present carried out, are efficient, and that they do not consider that any case has been made out for a Select Committee. The tests, as I have said, were based upon the Report of the Royal Society, and ever since they were established the Board have been in constant communication on this subject with Sir William Abney, who is recognised as being the greatest living authority on this matter in the country. The noble Lord shakes his head. When I saw this Notice on the Paper I communicated with Lord Rayleigh because I thought that your Lordships would like, if possible, to have the opinion of that very eminent scientist. Lord Rayleigh has written regretting that it is impossible for him to be present, but authorising me to say that he does not think the Board of Trade can be wrong in following the advice of Sir William Abney. I submit that the whole of the scientific evidence in this matter is on the side of the Board of Trade in the course they have adopted, and I submit that no case has been made out for further inquiry.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am quite sure your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord who has just sat down for the very full manner in which he has gone into this case. At the beginning of his remarks he was rather inclined to resent the criticisms which from time to time my noble friend who sits behind me levels at the Board of Trade. I am quite sure the noble Lord opposite will not think that I underrate the services of the Board of Trade, or that I have ever been inclined to criticise them unfairly. On the contrary, I know too well how exceedingly valuable a public Department this is, and how able and experienced are the servants which the State has in that office. But I do not think your Lordships will be inclined to quarrel with my noble friend if he, even at the risk of tilting against a great public Department, comes forward in order to plead the cause of individuals who see, it may be by an inevitable misfortune, their whole method of gaining a livelihood threatened. We would
122
be, like any other body of Englishmen, very tender towards such men, and we are obliged to my noble friend for pleading cases such as theirs before your Lordships. But I think that, my noble friend having heard the great weight of authority which the noble Lord opposite was able to produce in favour of the system pursued by the Board of Trade and the immense care that had evidently been taken in the examination of these two men, he will not be inclined to press further the criticisms he has made.
I speak with great diffidence on this subject, but I have, perhaps, a special claim to be heard because I am colour-blind myself—not, perhaps, completely colour-blind, but quite sufficiently so to have been rejected under the tests which the noble Lord has described to the House. And perhaps I might contribute just this one mite to the discussion of the subject, as it may be—I am speaking from my own experience—an explanation of the inconsistencies, to which my noble friend has drawn attention, at the hands of the various authorities before whom these two gentlemen were examined. I am convinced that colour-blindness is very capricious. On some days I am much more colour-blind than on others. That capriciousness may easily account for the fact that when these gentlemen were before one authority they fared better than when before another. But, from the point of view of the mercantile marine, of course such caprice might be very dangerous; and therefore I am afraid that, from my own experience, I cannot quarrel with the Board of Trade for having applied these rigid tests; nor can I shrink from the consequence, which means in this case that these gentlemen must be content to abandon the profession which they had adopted. On the whole, I cannot regret that the subject has been brought before your Lordships' House. It has, at any rate, satisfied us that no injustice has been done, and it has given the noble Lord opposite an opportunity of explaining to your Lordships how careful and elaborate are the precautions taken to protect the lives of those in the mercantile marine, and how great is the care at the same time not unduly to injure the professional prospects of those engaged in that great profession.
LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, with reference to the statement of the noble Marquess that colour-blindness is very capricious, I think it is remarkable that Mr. Trattles during all the time he was at

123
sea was not colour-blind. The noble Lord opposite has stated that no case has been made out for an Inquiry. I would remind him that these gentlemen had passed the colour-vision test. If they were colour-blind, then there must have been some mistake on the part of those who tested them; there must have been something wrong if they were passed. If a mistake was made in these cases, how many men have been allowed to go to sea who are colour-blind? It gives one a very uneasy feeling, for evidently those first examinations were not effective. I will not press for a Select Committee, but I would ask my noble friend opposite to bring the matter to the notice of the President of the Board of Trade. It is not the examination but the mode in which it is conducted that is complained of. The Board of Trade adopt the Holmgren wool-test, but when they do so they should carry out the instructions issued with the test, and it should not be left to the individual caprice of any examiner to use the test as he likes.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

THE VISIT OF THE FLEET TO THE THAMES.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH LORD ELLENBOROUGH had the following Notice on the Paper—
"To call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the fact that if ships were sunk or mines were laid in or at the mouth of the River Thames the night before or the night after the intended visit of the Lord Mayor and Sheriffs to the Fleet, nearly the whole of our available naval strength would be bottled up and unable to leave that river, thereby laying our coasts open to invasion; and to ask them whether, considering the enormous interests at stake, and the extraordinary progress of modern inventions, the time has not come when precautions equivalent to those constantly observed at Gibraltar, but varying in accordance with circumstances, should not at all times be taken to prevent the main body of our Fleets becoming the object of a successful surprise, and whether precautions of this nature will be taken while our principal Fleets are assembled in the Thames."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my Question as it appears on the Paper was originally based on the plan which appeared in the newspapers, and which I understood to be a copy of the Admiralty plan. Whether that was the case or not, the plan has since been considerably altered. In the original plan nineteen large ships, including the "Inflexible,"
124
the "Indomitable," and the "Invincible," which are of the Dreadnought type, were marked to be moored in the narrow waters between Erith and Thames Haven. This morning I received another plan from the Admiralty. In it I find that all the large ships referred to and a number of others are to be placed much lower down the river in positions where the Thames is so broad that any attempts to block its channel by sinking ships are not likely to meet with success. A number of destroyers and submarines are also to remain near the Fleet instead of being placed near London Bridge, as in the original plan. It formed no part of my Question to ask for a detailed account of the precautions that ought to have been taken. It is enough for me to say now that I consider that if the Admiral in command is allowed a free hand as regards merchant vessels and others that may approach his lines of anchorage the means at his disposal appear to be sufficient to ensure the safety of the Fleet during its stay at Southend.
There is, however, the second part of my Question, in which I ask whether, considering the enormous interests at stake, and the extraordinary progress of modern inventions, the time has not come when precautions equivalent to those constantly observed at Gibraltar, but varying in accordance with circumstances, should not at all times be taken to prevent the main body of our Fleets becoming the object of a successful surprise. We remain, and I hope we shall long continue to remain, on friendly terms with Spain; yet certain precautions against surprise are taken at Gibraltar every day, and these are redoubled every night. In future when our Fleets are within reach of a powerful rival they ought habitually to take precautions as much as Gibraltar does. If they did that as a rule and as a matter of habit it would not excite attention, whereas if they only did so when relations were strained it would increase the probability of war breaking out.
Many people consider that the danger of a successful surprise is not great. In the next war an effort may be made to make the initial hostilities the war itself instead of a mere incident in the opening of a campaign. Such an attempt would, of course, never be made unless the country

125
attacked was possessed of territory, commerce, or some other advantages that her rival was desirous of obtaining for herself. We have these, and if we wish to keep them we must recollect that we shall have to contend with a post-torpedo diplomacy—a very different thing from the pre-torpedo diplomacy of which we have historical knowledge. Diplomacy is invariably flexible, and is sure to adapt itself to the situation created by the new weapons.
I have lately been reading a German book, Deutschlands Flotte im Kampf, which is written in the form of a naval history of the next war. It commences with what the author calls a Fallen-stellen. Mine-layers disguised as merchant ships, with British names and ports painted on them, steam slowly about in the open sea in disconnected manner until they receive by wireless telegraphy the order to attack. The officer in command of them calls this a most genial idea. After describing the manner in which the surprise was effected, the writer sneers at our Minister of Marine, who, when taunted in Parliament for not having taken measures to prevent this disaster, feebly replies that—
"It was impossible to be prepared against an attack delivered with such infamous cunning."
The reason which induced me to put down the first part of my Notice no longer exists, but I still desire to ask the Question which forms the second part, as it is of vital importance that every precaution should be taken for the safety of our Fleets.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, it will not be necessary for me to detain your Lordships for more than a few moments in replying to my noble friend. I am sorry that he had the trouble of putting down this Question, especially the first part of it. If he had waited until this morning he would have seen the official programme, from which it is clear that only twelve large ships go above Southend.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH: They are only comparatively small ships. I did not count them among the nineteen to which I referred.
THE EARL OF GRANARD: Therefore, so far as the first part of my noble friend's Question is concerned, he is perfectly satis-
126
fied. Then the noble Lord spoke of the precautions necessary and asked whether the time had not come when precautions equivalent to those at present observed at Gibraltar should not at all times be taken. I will bring the suggestion of the noble Lord to the notice of the Admiralty and ask them to consider it very carefully. At the present moment, however, they are of opinion that all adequate precautions are taken for the safety of the Fleet wherever it happens to be at rest. The noble Lord seemed to contemplate the outbreak of hostilities without any declaration of war, and that everything would be done by an initial surprise. I cannot believe that such a thing would ever happen, and I need hardly say that any such act on the part of any foreign country would be regarded as, I might almost say, an act of treachery. At present our arrangements with foreign Powers are excellent. There is no cloud on the horizon, and I sincerely trust that that state of things may go on for many years to come.
EARL CAWDOR: My Lords, I should be glad if the noble Earl could throw a little further light on this subject. In the original statement published in the newspapers it was stated that a considerable number of large vessels were to be in very narrow waters up the Thames. That was felt, and not unreasonably felt, by the uninitiated, and even by others, to be a somewhat risky operation, and people were naturally anxious to know what the object of the operation was. It certainly does appear to me that it is unnecessary to place ships in what may be a risky position, except for some really useful purpose. The noble Earl has told us that there is not a cloud in the sky, and that an act such as setting mines and blocking the Channel would be an act of treachery. I hope we are not going to rely for the safety of our Fleet upon anything of that kind; our business is to make it perfectly certain that such operations will be impossible. I should like to know whether the first scheme set forth in the newspapers was the scheme of the Admiralty, and, if so, why it has been changed.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): My Lords, I am afraid that we are not in a position positively to answer the question which the noble Earl has put. My impression is that the first scheme

127
described and published in the newspapers was not the authorised scheme, but I should not like to say so with certainty. We will make inquiries as to whether the scheme, which I understand is now considered to be unobjectionable, represents a modification, or whether it was the first scheme which the Admiralty devised.
On the general question, I entirely agree with the noble Earl who has just sat down that it is not right, in affairs of this kind, to exclude the possibility of a coup de main of any kind, and in the disposition of our defences undoubtedly we ought not to ignore the possibility of sudden attacks. But, on the other hand, there are limits to the precautions which it is possible to take—limits which must, I think, be dictated partly by the teaching of history and partly by what we may assume to be human nature. If the noble Lord who introduced this subject is right, every one of His Majesty's ships should always have her torpedo nets down and the guns' crews should be perpetually ready every hour of the day and night for a presumed attack. If such were the practice of all nations, national life, I venture to submit, would become altogether impossible. The strain upon the service would be so great that the mere fact of taking such exaggerated precautions—precautions which alone, I think we must all agree, would meet certain kinds of absolutely unprovoked attack—would make war almost inevitable.
The noble Lord and those who agree with him are also represented in other European countries. The same kind of scares exist there—rumours of British fleets appearing and preparing to bombard important towns when no difference or question of any kind exists between the two countries. We know how impossible such an attack on our part is, and whatever we may think of other countries, we are bound to assume that there is a certain sort of what I may call brigand attack which would not be made by any civilised Power. But I am far indeed from saying that we ought not at all times, in time of peace as well as in time of anxiety, to take all reasonable precautions, and I am quite certain that my right hon. friend at the head of the Admiralty is as fully convinced of this as the noble Earl opposite.

ASSURANCE COMPANIES BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, the objects of this Bill are two—the consolidation and the amendment of the law regarding insurance and assurance. I use those two words advisedly because they are both to be found in the Bill. The word "assurance" is used where life business is dealt with, and the word "insurance" where other forms of business are dealt with. I confess that up till yesterday I was under the impression that the separate use of those words was nothing more than a custom of the trade, but I found on investigation that there is very sound precedent for a separate use of the words. The earliest precedent, I think, goes back to the year 1670. I cannot promise that I shall invariably use the words in the right place myself, but I thought it well to give the reason for their both appearing in the Bill.
As far as consolidation goes, I do not think I need labour the point. The advantage of consolidating the law of insurance is very much the same as the advantage which has been claimed for the many other Consolidation Bills which have passed through Parliament in recent years. It will, I think, obviously be more convenient that the law of insurance shall be contained in a single Act rather than be spread over half a dozen. The more important point in the Bill is the amendment which it is designed to make in the existing law; and here I have a small difficulty. An amending Bill of this sort is necessarily made up of a mass of small details. Any of these details may very properly be dealt with in Committee, but it is quite impossible to mention all of them on Second Reading. What I shall endeavour to do, therefore, is to indicate generally the nature of the alterations in the law as they will affect each different class of insurance.
First of all I ought to point out that the Bill does not strike out any new line in regard to the control of insurance by the State. We have not followed the example of certain foreign countries where there is a very complete, and, I might almost say, a grandmotherly control of insurance. The

129
model that has been followed is the control which has hitherto been exercised over life assurance business. I use the word "control," but in reality companies are given the greatest possible freedom to carry on their business in their own way. The two main conditions imposed upon them are these. First of all every new company before it is allowed to commence business in this country has to deposit with the Paymaster-General a sum of£20,000; and, secondly, each company has every year to file with the Board of Trade its accounts in certain specified forms. The first of these provisions—the deposit of£20,000—has been found to be most useful in preventing the formation of unsubstantial life assurance companies, but it has never been pretended that after the company has collected a certain amount of business the deposit was any protection whatever to the insurers, because£20,000 might very likely be but a small fraction of the liabilities of the company. The real security afforded to the insurer in the case of established companies is the publicity given to their accounts by the Board of Trade. The two main provisions of this Bill consist in extending to other forms of insurance those two provisions which have hitherto been confined to life assurance companies. Those two provisions have raised British life assurance companies to a very high level indeed—a very much higher level than they ever attained before the passing of the Act of 1870.
There is undoubtedly a necessity for extending these provisions to fire, accident, sickness, and bond investment companies. They have already been extended by the Act of 1907 to employers' liability companies. I take the case of fire companies as being typical. The great majority of British fire companies are beyond question sound, but there have been cases—I do not know whether there are now, but there certainly have been cases—where that soundness has not existed. Particularly has this been the case among British companies carrying on business abroad, of which very frequent complaints have been made by our Consuls. I do not know why, but for some reason or another Turkey and Norway seem to have been selected principally as the field of operation of these concerns, many of which were nothing better than a swindle. The most impudent case of all, the case
130
I should like to quote as showing the length to which it is possible to go under the existing law, was that of a company called the Credit Foncier Company—a British company registered in this country and which carried on considerable fire insurance business in Constantinople. When this company failed to meet its liability it was ascertained that its paid-up capital amounted to exactly seven sovereigns. A thing of that sort must be very bad indeed for British credit abroad, and it ought not to be possible that it should happen. It is, of course, a monstrous exception to the usual stability of British fire companies, but there have unfortunately been other cases of companies whose capital, though far more than£7, was, nevertheless, quite inadequate in view of the risks which they cheerfully and hopefully undertook.
This applies also to other forms of insurance, such as accident and sickness insurance, to meet which risks a number of companies are in existence. Most of these companies, again, are perfectly sound concerns, but there are some which have started business with a financial backing altogether inadequate unless they are very lucky and very discriminating in the risks they undertake. And I may say that luck and discrimination are just what you do not expect to find in these cases, because the people who have first-class risks to insure naturally go to the established and sound companies, and the new and doubtful ones have to take what is left, so that disaster is very likely. This Bill provides that all new companies, with whatever class of insurance they may deal, shall deposit a sum of£20,000 before they will be allowed to commence business, and they will also be obliged to file their accounts with the Board of Trade in certain forms which are set out in the Schedules of the Bill.
Then there is another class of insurance also dealt with—bond investment companies. They also would come under the same rules, and under Section (E) of the Fifth Schedule of the Bill it is provided that they will have to give statistics of the number of policies which have lapsed during the past year and particulars of the conditions upon which policyholders allowed to surrender their policies should they desire to do so. That is the same form of protection which is given

131
to other classes of insurers, and it seems really to be the only adequate form of protection and the only adequate way of bringing to the notice of people who take out these policies the real nature of the bargain into which they enter.
I have alluded to the deposit of£20,000 which is now required from life companies. At present a life assurance company is allowed to withdraw that sum when the accumulated life funds amount to£40,000. A Select Committee of this House, over which my noble friend the Lord Steward presided, recommended that that practice of allowing the withdrawal of the deposit should be discontinued. That is done by the Bill. Accordingly, all life companies which have exercised that right will now be called upon to redeposit the money. I may say that the representatives of British life assurance interests have been approached on this matter, and I understand that they have signified their willingness to do this. It is thought that this provision will be particularly useful in the case of foreign companies. My noble friend's Committee recommended that no discrimination should be made against foreign companies, and in that recommendation they were supported by the almost unanimous opinion expressed by the representatives of British assurance interests who came before them. The Select Committee recommended that every company which carries on business in Great Britain should be required to maintain the deposit of£20,000 so long as any policies continued outstanding in this country. The Committee said—
"We are aware that this sum would be of littl use to meet the liabilities of large companies which do business in this country, but we feel that if this amount were deposited and could not be withdrawn by the company it would afford an absolute guarantee to policyholders in foreign countries of being able always to proceed, if necessary, against such companies in the Courts of this country."
I may add that the object of the Committee has been furthered by a provision of the Companies Act of 1907, which requires that all foreign companies who have a place of business in this country must file with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies the name and address of some person resident in the United Kingdom who may be sued on their behalf. I do not think I need say anything more about the life assurance companies.
132
Clause 34 of the Bill deals with collecting societies and industrial insurance companies. The clause is designed to regularise the position of these great undertakings, and to facilitate the conversion of collecting societies into companies where that is thought to be desirable. I may say that this has been rendered necessary by the enormous growth of some of these societies. One society alone, I am informed, has a membership of 2,200,000 and has altogether outgrown the machinery of the Friendly Societies Acts under which it is registered. This Bill is designed to give to policyholders and intending insurers the fullest possible protection which can reasonably be given, and, at the same time, to avoid any undue interference with the business of the companies. If your Lordships agree to its being read a second time to-day I will undertake not to put down the Committee stage for three weeks, so that if we have unwittingly trodden on anybody's toes he may have an opportunity of coming to the Board of Trade and explaining his case to us, when I can promise that it will receive the fullest and the most careful consideration.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, my noble friend has given a very clear and sufficient explanation of the Bill which he is asking the House to read a second time, and I think your Lordships will agree with him that it was unnecessary at this stage to go into more details. I believe he is correct in stating that the life assurance companies are quite prepared to agree to what has been suggested by His Majesty's Government, and to give a general support to the Bill. They will be obliged to the noble Lord for his promise to allow a reasonable time before taking the Committee stage, particularly as there are still points which we hope His Majesty's Government may consider; and I trust that in regard to such suggestions of the insurance companies as may seem to be reasonable an agreement may in the interval be arrived at with the Board of Trade.
There are still points on which many of the insurance offices would like to see some change in the Bill. In the first place, as regards the reserve for unexpired risks, if I understand the Bill correctly no amount is laid down in the Bill. Insurance offices

133
generally consider that 33⅓per cent. is about the minimum amount that ought to be held as a reserve for unexpired risks. The general opinion is that it would be very desirable to settle some minimum percentage. Another point arises with reference to foreign deposits. It is thought that the exception which is made in Note 1 of the Third Schedule—
"NOTE 1.—When part of the assets of the company is specifically deposited, under local laws, in various places out of the United Kingdom as security to holders of policies there issued, each such place and the amount compulsorily lodged therein must be specified in respect of each class of business, except that in the case of fire insurance business it shall be sufficient to state the fact that a part of the assets has been so deposited"
ought also to extend to employers' liability business.
With reference to amalgamations between companies, one of the provisions laid down in the Bill is that in the case of an amalgamation or transfer there shall be a notification to every policyholder of each company. So far as life policies are concerned, no doubt there is sufficient reason for that, but I ask my noble friend to consider whether it is really necessary in the case of fire, accident, and employers' liability policies. These policies are for short periods, and as regards employers' liability it seems the less necessary because it appears to be already covered under the law as it now stands. In any case it seems to most of us that it would be practically impossible in the case of amalgamation to give notice to all the policyholders if it is to apply to fire, accident, and employers' liability business. As regards employers' liability business, everybody to whom an amount is due or a weekly payment is payable would come within the definition of policyholder, and it does seem unnecessary that they should all have notice, however essential that may be in the case of life policies. There are several other minor points with which I need not trouble the House at this stage; and I hope that before the three weeks have elapsed many of them may be satisfactorily settled with the Government.
THE EARL OF MAR AND KELLIE: My Lords, I think this Bill will be welcomed, not only by the public, but by the insurance companies themselves as an attempt to put the law in relation to those companies on a more sound and improved
134
footing. There are, however, one or two points to which I should like to call your Lordships' attention very briefly.
Clause 1 denotes the various classes of insurance business to which the Act is to apply, and subsection (c) of that clause applies its provisions to accident insurance, which is defined as—
"the undertaking of liability under policies of insurance upon the happening of accidents whether fatal or not disease or sickness or any class of accidents disease or sickness."
It appears that under this subsection the framers have in view personal accident insurance only, but as the subsection reads it would also include liabilities which many companies incur resulting from personal injuries under such contracts as property owners', third party, and vehicle owners' liability policies. Under these policies the risks of damage to persons and to property are included in one premium, and, in rendering the account which will be required, on the revenue side will appear the whole premium, while on the expenditure side only the amount paid in respect of damage to persons. It may be the intention to include this class of insurance under this subsection, but, if so, I suggest that the phraseology of the subsection should be made somewhat clearer.
Clauses 30 and 31 provides that the Bill is not to apply to fire insurance and accident insurance companies existing prior to its passing, and Clause 32 provides that employers' liability insurance companies are not affected by the Act if they were in existence prior to August, 1907, the date of the last Employers' Liability Act. Therefore these companies are not required to make a separate deposit against each class of insurance business transacted. I think it very desirable that, as in the case of life business, the Act should be made retrospective in all its provisions, and that the old companies as well as the new companies should be required to make and maintain a separate deposit in the case of each of the four classes of insurance business described in Clause 1.
Again, subsection (e) of Clause 32 provides that under certain conditions securities may be released in the case of employers' liability insurance. This subsection is obviously taken from the Life Assurance Companies Act of 1870, which

135
I understand is repealed by this Bill. I cannot see why securities should be released in the case of employers' liability when they cannot be released in the case of fire, life, or accident insurance business. But these are really Committee points, and I will not pursue them further at this stage. I hope that when the Committee stage is reached the Government will be prepared to accept Amendments for improving and strengthening the Bill. In any case, speaking as a director of an insurance company and a member of the insuring public, I should like to express a hope that the Government will find time to place this measure on the Statute-book this session.
LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, I venture to think the insurance companies will heartily support His Majesty's Government in their endeavour to pass this Bill during the present session. As representing two of these companies I would thank the Government for the way in which they have met the suggestions made, and I am hopeful that other suggestions will be accepted at a later stage. There are one or two points to which the noble Lord did not refer in moving the Second Reading of the Bill. One is the position of members of Lloyd's. It is not quite clear whether the term "underwriter" is sufficiently defined, and whether it might not be held to include every one of those members of Lloyd's who puts his name to a policy. I understand that it is not the intention of the Government that each one of the members of Lloyd's whose name is on a policy should deposit the sum mentioned. Further, I think, on behalf of the companies, we might ask the Government to consider, in some matters in which the insurance companies are, in their estimation, put at a disadvantage as compared to some members of Lloyd's, whether it may not be desirable for them to accept an Amendment which would place the companies in the same position. I understand that the object of the companies as well as of the Government is that any one who is doing business with absolutely inadequate capital should not be allowed to go on, either at home or abroad, and that there should be publicity given to the financial position of those who are undertaking very large liabilities. I will not trespass further on the time of the House to-day, but I hope that in such an important matter, involving large
136
interests, there will not be undue haste, but that full consideration will be given to the suggestions made. We have had experience in connection with Acts relating to employers' liability and workmen's compensation of the many pitfalls which arise in consequence of hasty legislation. I thank the Government for the way in which they have met the suggestions that have been made, and I join with the noble Lord who last spoke in expressing the hope that the Bill may become law this year.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: My Lords, the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has intimated that three weeks will be allowed between this and the Committee stage, and I think one may hope that during the interval the opportunity to which he referred of a conference between the bodies interested and the Board of Trade will be so utilised as to remove the causes of the criticisms which now attach to certain provisions of the Bill. On the whole, I think the Bill is welcomed by insurance companies.
The Bill does involve a somewhat new departure in what may be called, perhaps, its leading first principle—that of requiring from fire insurance companies a deposit of£20,000. Fire insurance contracts differ essentially from those of life assurance. The circumstances in connection with the former are temporary; the contracts may be modified, changed, or dropped. If an insurer thinks he cannot trust a company and any reason arises suggesting the propriety of transferring his business to another company, he can, with little difficulty, make the requisite change. It is essentially different in the case of life assurance, where the contract is made for many years and the contracting party enters into a contract from which he cannot afterwards depart without great loss—possibly the loss of the whole of the advantage he had in view when he entered into the contract. It is obvious that a person effecting a policy of life assurance ought to be protected in the way proposed; but no such reason can be discovered in the case of fire insurance, and the introduction of that principle here is a novelty.
My noble friend suggested a reason for this provision in the unfortunate fact that certain companies have been estab-

137
lished, though they have not done business, in this country, and have deluded residents in other countries, especially in Turkey and in Norway; and perhaps for the honour of our name we ought to interfere to prevent this happening in the future. But I would point out to my noble friend that he is introducing this principle of requiring a deposit from fire insurance companies only in the case of those companies which come into existence after the passing of the Bill. That is, in my opinion, straining the doctrine of vested interest very hard. I am sure that no respectable company would hesitate to make the deposit, and if it is unfortunately the case that many recent companies have started into existence with inadequate capital, or which have been the instruments, or capable of being made the instruments, of such deceit abroad as my noble friend referred to, then such companies had better be brought as soon as possible under the provisions of the Bill. I think we shall have to consider the question of making the provision to which I have referred apply to existing companies.
It follows from requiring a deposit from fire insurance companies that the question to which my noble friend who has just sat down referred arises—What are you going to do in the case of underwriters at Lloyd's? An underwriter under the Bill as it stands is required to make a deposit—a limited deposit, but a deposit. The members of Lloyd's are exempted from making a deposit as long as they comply with the rules of association of Lloyd's. That seems to me a very singular position to assume. It is a matter of delicacy, but it will have to be considered if you are to make your legislation consistent.
There is another provision in the Bill requiring foreign life assurance companies which do business in this country to make the deposit and publish accounts in the same way as our companies. That, I think, differs in some degree from the conclusion of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House which sat upon this subject and presented a Report three years ago. That point, however, can be cleared up in the interval between this and the Committee stage. I will not dwell upon it further now, except to say that it raises some very delicate considerations with respect to international comity of legislation in matters of trade. I note the assurance given by my noble friend that an
138
interval of three weeks shall elapse before the Committee stage is taken, and I hope that during that interval the conciliatory action which has already, I know, been adopted by the Board of Trade in conference with representatives of insurance companies may lead to a settlement of minor points, so that the Bill may become law this session.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not desire to offer any remarks to your Lordships at any rate on the present occasion, because, as my noble friend Lord Mar said just now, all the questions which have been raised are practically Committee points. I do not think the noble Lord opposite has any reason to complain of the manner in which the Bill has been received. It has been received with general favour.
The only point which has been really dwelt upon has been the question of whether the£20,000 deposit in the case of a fire company should be made retrospective or not. As. the noble Lord who has just sat down said, the provision in Clause 1 of the Bill is a new departure, and primâfacie one would expect that a new departure would not be made retrospective in character. But that is really a matter for the facts of evidence to determine. I had the impression that there were not existing at this moment a material number of the bogus companies of which the noble Lord spoke. If there are a large number that require to be controlled, that might be a good reason for making the provision retrospective. If, on the other hand, when we come to consider the Bill in Committee the noble Lord, on behalf of the Board of Trade, is able to assure us that there are none, or very few, then one would be rather inclined not to make it retrospective. But that is a matter which can be discussed in detail when we reach the Committee stage.
The only other remark I am tempted to make will take the form of a general observation. When we are dealing with these Bills which are in a large degree consolidation and in a small degree amending Bills, would it not be possible so to print them that there might be some indication on the face of the Bill as to what is consolidation and what is amendment? Many of your Lordships are very hard-worked men, and it would save an immense amount of trouble if my suggestion could be carried out. Matters may, of course, be so dovetailed as to render this impracticable, but it very often is not so, and if the

139
noble Lord will devote his ability to that point in regard to Board of Trade Bills, in which this phenomenon frequently occurs, it will save considerable time.
THE LORD STEWARD (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, I think His Majesty's Government have every reason to be gratified by the reception which has been given to this Bill, and I hope for the measure an easy passage through your Lordships' House. I am sure your Lordships will agree that for a Bill of this technical character, the course suggested in regard to conference between the bodies interested and the Department concerned is probably the best method of procedure.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to the exception which is made in favour of fire insurance offices in Note 1 of the Third Schedule, and he was anxious that that exception should be extended to companies which do other classes of business besides fire insurance. The noble Lord probably knows that this exception as it stands in the Bill does not meet with universal approval, and that there are those who think that the exception should not be allowed to remain. His Majesty's Government, therefore, are betwixt two fires. The noble Lord behind me, Lord Courtney, seemed to object to the inclusion of fire insurance companies at all in this connection, and he laid emphasis upon the difference between the business conducted by a fire insurance and life assurance office.
As to the matter of accounts, I regret that although I was Chairman of the Select Committee which went into this matter I cannot safely charge my memory with the details;
140
but I have a very clear impression that the details with regard to accounts which are asked for in this Bill in the case of foreign companies doing business in this country are practically those already required in the United States and in other countries. Therefore accounts of that kind will not inflict any great hardship on the various companies. The noble Marquess who has just spoken referred to the point as to whether the provision regarding fire insurance companies should be made retrospective. I am sorry that the question of fire insurance companies was not included in the terms of reference to the Select Committee. On that account we were unable to go into the question.
The suggestion of the noble Marquess that there should be some distinction made in Bills between what is mere consolidation and what are matters of amendment has been brought forward more than once by noble Lords on both sides of the House. My impression is that this is not entirely a matter for any Government Department. I think the suggestion would be very useful and of great assistance, but I rather think it is one which should come before the House of Lords Offices Committee. The matter of printing is not directly under the control of the Government in this House, and certainly it would be necessary to take the Committee's advice and the advice of the printers before anything could be done.
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.