Lords Sitting of 28 March 1922

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
STOKE-ON-TRENT CORPORATION (GAS CONSOLIDATION) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
OSSETT CORPORATION (WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION (TRENT NAVIGATION) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CROFT'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Christopher Nason Crofts not to marry adulterer.
5. The bond of matrimony between the said Violet Emily Crofts and Christopher Nason Crofts having been violated and broken by the adultery of the said Christopher Nason Crofts with the said Julia Taylor it shall not be lawful for the said Christopher Nason Crofts at any time hereafter to contract matrimony or intermarry with the said Julia Taylor.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move the omission of this cause.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 5.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

MORTON'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Provision for Alice Mary Georgina Morton and issue of marriage.
6. The said Alice Mary Georgina Morton shall forthwith transfer the said stocks and shares into the joint names of two trustees to be appointed in writing by the said Robert Morton Junior, and the said trustees shall stand possessed of the said stocks and shares upon trust to permit the same to remain in their present state of investment or in their discretion to sell the same and to invest the proceeds of such sale in any investments authorised by law for the investment of trust funds and shall pay the income thereof to the said Alice Mary Georgina Morton so long as she shall continue to live a chaste life and shall remain unmarried and subject thereto shall pay the same to the said Robert Morton Junior during his life and after his death shall hold the said trust funds upon trust for the children of the marriage of the said Robert Morton Junior and Alice Mary Georgina Morton in equal shares.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move that this clause be deleted.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 6.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7:
Proviso that Alice Mary Georgina Morton not to marry George Stuart Clements.
7. It shall not be lawful for the said Alice Mary Georgina Morton at any time hereafter to contract matrimony with the said George Stuart Clements, but such matrimony shall be and is hereby declared to be illegal and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever, and the child or children born therein shall be illegitimate and subject to all the disabilities, privation and restrictions which any child or children born out of lawful wedlock is, are or may be subject to by the laws and customs of the United Kingdom or any part thereof, anything in this Act contained to the contrary notwithstanding.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move that this clause also be deleted.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 7.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is a consequential Amendment to the Preamble of this Bill, and I move that the last paragraph but one of the Preamble be omitted.
Amendment moved—
Leave out the said paragraph of the Preamble. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LAW OF PROPERTY BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of D0N0UGHMORE in the Chair.]
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The first clause to which notice of amendment has been given is Clause 138, and I suggest that it would be for your Lordships' convenience if we took the first 137 clauses en bloc. I propose to do that unless any one of your Lordships desires to discuss a particular clause.
Clauses 1 to 137 agreed to.
Clause 138:
Provisions where manorial incidents are extinguished on expiration of ten years after the commencement of the Act.
138. Where in respect of any enfranchised land or in respect of any other land liable to any heriot, quit rent, chief rent, free rent, or other manorial incident, the manorial incidents affecting the land are by virtue of this Act extinguished upon the expiration of ten years from the commencement of this Act by reason of no compensation agreement having been made or notice given to ascertain the compensation before the expiration of that period, the following provisions shall have effect:—

(a) At any time after the expiration of the said ten years and before the expiration of fifteen years from the commencement of this Act the lord or the tenant may apply to the Minister to determine the amount of compensation to be paid by the tenant to the lord for the extinguishment of the said manorial incidents and upon such application being made the Minister shall proceed to determine and award the amount of the compensation in accordance with the Copy-hold Act, 1894, as modified and applied by this

917
part of this Act in like manner as if the lord and the tenant had in accordance with Part I. of that Act agreed in writing that the amout of compensation should be determined by a single valuer appointed by the Minister: Provided that in assessing the compensation no amount shall be allowed in respect of any rent, frine, relief, heriot or fee, which apart from this Part of this Act would have accrued due and become payable, between the expiration of the said period the expiration of the said period of ten years and the date of the application:

(b) The annual terminable rentcharge (if any) payable as compensation shall commence from the date of the application (to be mentioned in the award), and the lord shall not be entitled to any interest in respect of the period between the date of the expiration of the said period of ten years and the date of the application:

(c) If no such application has been made before the expiration of the said period of fifteen years, no compensation shall be payable in respect of the extinguishment of manorial incidents:

(d) The costs and expenses of determining the compensation in any case to which this section applies shall, notwithstanding anything contained in this Part of this Act, and in default of agreement, be borne by the lord and the tenant or either of them or by both in such proportions as the Minister may determine to be just according, as nearly as may be, to the advantages derived from the extinguishment by the lord and tenant respectively or by either of them.

LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR moved, in paragraph (d), to omit all words after "be borne by the" and to insert: "tenant unless the Minister, on the application of the tenant and after consideration of any representations made to him by the lord or tenant, shall determine that, having regard to unreasonable conduct on the part of the lord or his unreasonable refusal of any proposal made by the tenant or other special considerations, part of such costs or expenses should be borne by the lord and in any such case the Minister shall, in determining the part to be borne by the lord, have regard to the advantages derived from the extinguishment by the lord and tenant respectively."
The noble Lord said: On the Second Reading of this Bill last Tuesday I alluded, on behalf of the Land Union, to Clause 138, paragraph (d), and I expressed regret that my noble and learned friend in charge of the Bill had not been able to see his way to
918
insert my Amendment in the Bill when he was having it reprinted and reintroduced. I would remind your Lordships that it was on the Report Stage last year that my noble and learned friend inserted the words which appear in this clause in the Bill. He intimated that there was liberty to move a further Amendment in another place, and added that in his view the tenant generally gained by the enfranchisement of a copyhold. With that in my mind I now move the Amendment that stands in my name. I want at once to make it clear to your Lordships that my Amendment refers only to the cost of enfranchisement when dealt with under Clause 138, paragraph (d), and to no other part of the Bill —that is to say, only after the expiration of the first period of ten years. What happens during the first ten years is dealt with in other clauses.
Under Clause 126 of the Bill all copyholds automatically become freehold. Compensation is provided during the period: of ten years from the commencement of the Act, firstly, by agreement between the parties; secondly, by notice served by the lord on the tenant to have the compensation ascertained; and thirdly, by notice served by the tenant on the lord to the same effect. The person giving the notice pays the costs unless the conduct, of the other party has been unreasonable. Regarding the costs during the next five years following the expiration of ten years from the commencement of the Act, Clause 138, paragraph (d), says that such costs and expenses shall be borne by the lord and the tenant or either of them or by both irk such proportions as the Minister may determine to be just according, as nearly as may be, to the advantages derived from the extinguishment by the lord and tenant respectively or by either of them. I submit that as in the great majority of cases the tenant alone derives any benefit from the extinguishment of the old copyhold fines and other dues, the tenant should bear the whole of the cost as a mortgagor does in redeeming a mortgage, unless there are special or exceptional conditions, or the lord has acted in an unreasonable manner.
During the ten years it would not be worth the lord's while to move and pay costs on some trivial sum in ordinary circumstances, but if there are some special benefits to cause him to move, then under the Bill he has to pay the costs. But

919
during the next five years the lord must give notice, otherwise he would get no compensation because if nobody gives notice no compensation is paid, and the fines, dues, etc., come to an end after the first ten years. I maintain, therefore, that the tenant ought to pay the costs. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 138, page 127, line 16, leave out from the first ("the") to the end of the clause and insert the said words.—(Lord Dynevor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD): The industry of the noble Lord and his good will towards this Bill were of great assistance to me at more than one stage in the last session of Parliament, and I wish to make it plain at once that I do not quarrel with the merits of the Amendment which he has recommended to your Lordships to-day, but I rise for the purpose of making an appeal to him, to which I hope he will not be unwilling to respond. This is a very bulky Bill, and it is a very expensive Bill to amend. It is almost certain that it must be amended in another place, and, therefore, it will have to be reprinted. There are two or three other Amendments to which my attention has been directed only at a late stage, and they undoubtedly will form the subject of discussion, and may be made the occasion of actual change in the wording of the Bill.
I would, therefore, ask my noble friend whether he would be willing to assent to this course. A similar Amendment to his should be put down by his friends in another place. Mr. Pretyman holds, of course, the same view as himself in this matter, and he is entitled to speak, and is accustomed to speak with great authority, in another place on matters affecting land. I would suggest that he should put down this Amendment there, and I will at least undertake this. The Bill in another place will be in the hands of one of the law officers, and I will discuss the matter with him, and tell him that it is my wish that this Amendment should be sympathetically considered. I have very little doubt that it will be so considered. I hope my noble friend will be willing, in these circumstances, to avoid the expense and delay of reprinting the Bill, and to assent to that proposal.
LORD DYNEVOR: My noble and learned friend has put me in a little difficulty.
920
He says this Amendment, if it were moved in another place, would be sympathetically considered by whoever is in charge of the Bill. I hope he will go a little further, and say that considerable assistance will be given to an Amendment of this kind.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I meant that. I did not wish to go quite the length of saying that I would undertake that it should be accepted, because I think that would be a little dictatorial in dealing with another deliberative Assembly where arguments may be put forward, and it would look a little disrespectful, without the Government hearing the arguments, to say now that the Amendment will be accepted. I will say, however, that I will give the noble Lord every encouragement.
LORD DYNEVOR: In these circumstances I will do what my noble and learned friend asks. The point that he has made as to the cost and delay of reprinting the Bill appeals to me very strongly, and I desire, therefore, to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 138 agreed to.
Clauses 139 to 189 agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

JURIES Bill. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Alteration of method of preparing jurors book.
1.—(1) After the commencement of this Act, lists of the persons qualified and liable to serve as jurors shall cease to be prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Juries Act, 1825, as amended by any subsequent enactment, and the jurors books shall be prepared in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, it shall be the duty of every registration officer within the meaning of the Representation of the People Act, 1918, in making out in pursuance of that Act the electors lists for the autumn register for any year, to mark in the prescribed manner the names of such of the persons included in the lists as are qualified and liable to serve as jurors and the names of such of the persons so qualified and liable as are qualified to serve as special jurors.
(3) For the purpose of enabling registration officers to perform their duties under this section,

921
the overseers of every parish shall, if so required by the registration officer of their area, furnish to him, in the prescribed manner, particulars with respect to the persons in their parish who are, on the last day of the qualifying period for registration in the autumn register, qualified and liable to serve as jurors or qualified to servo as special jurors.
For the purpose of their duties under this subsection, the overseers shall have power to inspect and take extracts from any duplicates of charge for their parish, and any expenses properly incurred by them under this subsection shall be paid and allowed to them out of the poor rate of the parish.
If any overseer fails to comply with any of the requirements of this subsection, he shall be liable on summary conviction in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "have power to inspect and take extracts from any duplicates of charge for their parish," and to insert: "on an application in that behalf made at any reasonable time to the collector or other officer having the custody of the duplicates of assessment to inhabited house duty for their parish, be entitled to inspect and take extracts from any of those duplicates."The noble Viscount said: I have to ask your Lordships' leave to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 2, line 8, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 9, and insert the said words. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Abolition of present practice of striking special juries, and provision as to description of jurors in panel, etc.
5. —(1) Subject as hereinafter provided, a special jury shall in all cases be balloted for and called in the order in which they are drawn from the box in the same manner as common jurors, and any enactments providing for the striking of a special jury according to the present practice shall cease to have effect:
Provided that nothing in this Act shall affect the manner of striking a special jury to try a question of disputed compensation under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845.
(2) Where under the Juries Act, 1825, the addition of a juror is required to be stated on any panel, parchment, card or list, it shall be sufficient to set out the profession, calling or business of the juror.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved to leave out subsection (1). The noble Lord said: I ask your Lordships to omit this first
922
subsection. My attention has been called to the Report of the Departmental Committee presided over by Lord Mersey, which recommended that the practice of striking special juries should be abolished, but after studying the Report and the evidence given I am unable to concur with the recommendation, nor am I able to appreciate the reasoning. The evidence given with regard to this matter was to the effect that the striking of special juries was, not common, but did exist. In fact, two of the Committee mentioned cases in, their own knowledge where it was done. Other witnesses spoke of its existence, and one witness spoke strongly in its favour. The only witness who spoke against it was a Member of Parliament who had had a political libel action tried at Northampton in which he said the result had not been, in his view, satisfactory. I do not think on his own case that that was true; even on his own story the striking of a jury did good.
The procedure is this. The names of about forty-eight special jurymen are drawn out of a box. Each party is then allowed to object to twelve. That reduces the number to twenty-four, and out of this twenty-four twelve are drawn by lot. I was told that this practice had gone out, and Mr. Justice Channell, who gave evidence, said that it had. I find that that is not the case. Mr. Justice Channell said he remembered that as a Judge he had given orders, but that it had dropped into disuse. But two members of the Committee were aware of cases in which it had been done, and the Member of Parliament complained in a third case that it had been done. In my own experience at the Bar I remember that it was granted on one occasion; and as a Judge I remember am occasion when a jury was struck in a political libel action which I tried.
I think this power is an occasional advantage and there is no reason for it being taken away from the Courts. It is not in the option of the litigant and is-intended to effect impartial trials. In the case in which I was concerned while at the Bar it had that effect, although the ultimate verdict was against my client. It is subject to the control of the Court, and I see no reason, after having studied Lord Mersey's Report, why this sometimes useful power should be taken away.
Amendment moved—
Clause 5, leave out subsection (l).—(Lord Phillimore.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With great respect to the experience and knowledge of the noble and learned Lord on this subject, I do not think he has really established his case against the high authority of the Committee which was entrusted by Parliament with the task of inquiring into these and cognate matters. The practice of striking a jury in what is known as the "old style" has been very occasional. It is an extremely cumbrous, tiresome, and obsolete performance, involving both officials and everyone concerned in all kinds of inconvenience. I have never known anyone in the world say a good word for it until the noble and learned Lord singled it out for his approval. I do not gather—he will tell me if I am wrong—that he has ever known, in his long experience as a Judge for eighteen years in the High Court, more than one instance in which it was resorted to.
LORD PHILLIMORE: The noble and learned Lord was occupied at the moment I was speaking. I stated that two members of the Departmental Committee mentioned existing cases where it was pending at that moment; that a Member of Parliament complained of the action in his own case recently, and that Mr. Justice Channell stated that he had given such orders as a Judge, though he thought that they had been rather dying out. I also stated that I tried a case at Gloucester in which it was done, and that I had had one case in my own experience at the Bar.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Apparently the noble and learned Lord knows of one case as a Judge and one in his experience at the Bar. There is another case in which a Member of Parliament is concerned; but Members of Parliament are always complaining about something. And in Mr. Justice Channell's experience there is a single case only. It comes to this: if you take the experience in such matters of Lord Phillimore, Mr. Justice Channell and the Member of Parliament who complained, in all that experience—Mr. Justice Channell is, I believe, over 80, though the noble and learned Lord is younger—there are only four of these cases. Against this we have the very authoritative Report of the recent Committee presided over by Lord Mersey who has unique experience as a Judge and extraordinary common sense in all these matters.
This is what the majority of Lord
924
Mersey's Committee said with regard to striking the jury in the "old style."
"We think that the provision in the Juries Act, 1870, which allows the Court to make an order for the striking of a jury in what is known as the old style, should be repealed. It is not only that we favour the requirement of one fixed and uniform system for the selection of all juries, but we also regard it as extremely undesirable to give any opening for the sense of injury which an unsuccessful litigant is pretty sure to feel, when the jury that has decided against him has been struck in the 'old style.' This procedure may be used by litigants with the sole intention of securing a prejudiced jury, and, so far as our evidence goes, we are disposed to believe that in practice it is seldom likely to be adopted for any other reason."
I do not know that I should have gone quite so far as the Committee went, but there is a basis in my judgment for their conclusion that the procedure is little likely to be adopted for any other reason than that of securing a prejudiced jury. I really cannot think that your Lordships will be desirous, in the face of such a Report from a Committee of the authority of that which is under discussion, to preserve a practice which I and many others are satisfied plays no useful part in the modern legal world, and I hope the noble and learned Lord will not think it necessary to press the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.

QUEENSLAND LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON had given Notice to move, That His Majesty's Government should lay on the Table all Papers relating to the Royal Assent having been given for the abolition of the Legislative Council in Queensland. The noble Lord said: My Lords, though your Lordships may be acquainted with the main features of the subject of my Motion, I do not propose to raise any discussion until all the facts of the case are before your Lordships' House. At the same time it is an important matter, as I think it shows how it is possible for a Constitution to be manipulated in the interests of one Party in the State. It tends also to show the value of Second Chambers. Having said this, I will simply move my Motion, and express the hope that the noble Duke who, I believe, is going to reply, will not only agree to it but will also lay before us a very complete résumé of the history—the inner history, if possible—of the abolition of this Second Chamber in Queensland.
VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD: My Lords, as a former Governor of Queensland, I am equally interested with my noble friend in this Motion, and I should like to support his request. I chi not suggest for one moment that it is possible for its in any way to interfere with the self-governing powers of the Dominions, but I feel that it is most desirable in a matter of such very great importance that full publicity should be given to any correspondence that has passed between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the Dominion.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, I am glad to be able to assure the noble Lord Lamington, who moved this Motion, and the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, who supported him, that Papers will be laid on the Table shortly—within a fortnight, I think—relating to the Royal Assent which Las been given to the abolition of the Legislative Council of Queensland. They will be very full and will give not only the Despatch from the Governor but also a full Report of the proceedings of the Queensland Parliament, together with any other information that can be given to make the résumé as complete as possible.
LORD LAMINGTON: I am much obliged to the noble Duke.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government—(1) When the Bill dealing with industrial assurance, which has passed its Second Reading, will be proceeded with; and (2) whether the lapses of industrial assurance policies, by the Prudential Assurance Company alone, exceeded 1,200,000 in 1921. The Report of Lord Parmoor's Committee on Industrial Insurance was published two years ago. That Report was an exceedingly important document, because it proved up to the hilt that some striking abuses had grown up in our whole system of industrial assurance. It also showed that great loss and hardship was inflicted upon a large number of people with very small means. That Report proposed practical and definite remedies as a basis for legislation, and it went on to say—
"The need is urgent, and legislation should be undertaken without delay."
926
I then tried to bring the whole question before your Lordships' House, and to show that there were some abuses which even went beyond the Report of Lord Parmoor's Committee.
On July 8, 1920, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, who then represented the Board of Trade in your Lordships' House, admitted the evils which the Report pointed out, and also said that some action was "inevitable," But no action of any kind followed. After I had again pleaded strongly the urgency of this Bill, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, presented the Government's Bill and it was read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House on August 10 last. On that occasion the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shandon, gave his complete blessing to the Bill and said this:—
"It is absolutely essential that a Measure of this kind should be passed into law, in the interests of policy holders and also of insurance companies."
The Government Bill embodied all the remedies proposed by Lord Parmoor's Committee and is, in my opinion, a very good Bill, though it may want a little strengthening in one or two directions.
But nearly eight months have now elapsed since the Bill was read a second time. During that period very strong opposition has been mobilised against the Bill, and I even understand that an alternative Bill is being or has been drafted. On the other hand, there has been none of that insistent public demand which one might have expected for the redress of one of the greatest of the grievances from which the most thrifty sections of our working classes suffer, though I am informed that the Labour Party is at length beginning to take some interest in this very important question. The reasons for this apparent apathy are somewhat obscure, but the immense power of the great corporations which spend hundreds of thousands a year in advertisements must be taken into full account. One paper which used formerly to champion the interests of the policy holders has, with rather suspicious suddenness, abandoned their cause entirely. I earnestly beg His Majesty's Government to go on with this Bill without arty further delay, so as to leave on the Statute Book a measure affecting the welfare of the most thrifty section of our workers, before it falls upon them to retire from their place.

927
My second Question is intended only to bring out the fact that the terrible extent of unemployment at the present time may result in increasing the number of lapses, and the effect of lapses is that immense numbers of very poor people lose the whole of their past contributions to the companies.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I think I can assure the noble Lord that there is no apathy on the part of His Majesty's Government to this Question, and I hope that what I shall be able to tell him will reassure him on that point. I remember that last year, when I introduced this Bill, I said that it had been brought forward for a Second Reading so that it might be considered by all those concerned and subjected to any criticisms or objections which might be put forward. Since that time several deputations have been received at the Home Office by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, and the whole question has been most carefully discussed. Some of the parties who have been to the Home Office favoured the Bill and others did not. Some of those who did not favour it have, as the noble Lord mentioned, suggested an alternative Bill. They have actually produced that Bill and handed it to the Home Office.
My right honourable friend, the Secretary of State, informed their representatives on a deputation at which I was present that this alternative Bill did not provide satisfactory safeguards and would not be acceptable to the Government. Considerable discussion took place on the point, and it was agreed that the Secretary of State should forward to those companies who objected and were presenting the alternative Bill, his criticisms and objections to their Bill. That has been done and the companies have been asked to assist in setting up a small committee of their members to confer with the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies and the Government actuary, and any other experts who may be appointed, in order that this Committee
928
may meet together to see whether it is possible to reach some measure of agreement, if not perhaps on every point of detail, at any rate on the main provisions of the Bill. I may say, in addition to this, that my right honourable friend is anxious that these negotiations shall be pushed forward as quickly as possible, but of course they may take some time, and I am not able to say with certainty when they will be concluded, or when it will be possible to reintroduce the measure. I should like to state, however, that my right honourable friend is convinced that a Bill providing adequate safeguards for policy holders is very necessary and should be carried out without delay.
Then I turn to the second part of the noble Lord's Question, and all I can say is that we have no official information available to enable us to give a reply; but the Home Office has communicated with the Prudential Insurance Company and has received a letter in reply. I have given a copy of the letter to the noble Lord. It is very long, and I do not think it is necessary for me to read it to your Lordships, but the figure which is stated in that letter as to the lapsed policies is 638,811.
LORD SYDENHAM: I beg to thank the noble Earl for his reply. I hope the negotiations will not take very long. I am very glad to know that the Government is in earnest about this matter, and feels that these very grave abuses ought to be brought to an end as soon as possible.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I beg to give notice that, to-morrow, I will submit a Motion to consider the Standing Orders with a view to their suspension in relation to the Consolidated Fund Bill.
House adjourned at ten minutes before five o'clock.