said, the Bill gave additional powers to the Government in connection with the South Indian Railway Company, and empowered the Company, for the purpose of carrying into effect any contract or agreement entered into under the powers of the Act, with the sanction of the Secretary of State in Council, to raise money for the purposes of the Bill. As a matter of fact, the Bill would enable the Government to buy up the Company, paying £126 for every £100 Stock. He objected to any new Stock being created, or of any powers being taken which would enhance the value of the existing capital. However, he did not intend to discuss the question at that moment.

said, he did not gather from what the hon. Member had just said whether he intended to withdraw his opposition to the Bill or not.

Yes, Sir.

complained that there was no Scotch Representative on the proposed Committee.

objected to the appointment of the Committee unless there were a Labour Representative upon it. He moved that the number should be 19.

pointed out that the number of Members constituting the Committee did not rest with the Mover of the Motion. If the hon. Member was dissatisfied be should confer with the Whips of his own Party.

said, he thought the demand of his hon. Friend was a most reasonable demand, which the Government should desire to meet.

said, so far as the Government were concerned, they had not the slightest objection to the proposal of the hon. Member.

intimated that Notice must be given of the two additional names of Members proposed to be added to the Committee.

said, he had placed an Amendment on the Paper to insert, in the first line of page 2, after "Part I." the insertion of Clause 2 (Denomination or Incidents of New Stock); at the end thereof, to insert "Part II.(Conversion or Redemption of New Three per Cent Stock)," and insert Clause I, making it Clause 2. Clause 1, which would then be Clause 2, page 2, lines 10 and 11, he proposed to amend by leaving out all after "amount of," and insert "the new Stock." He proposed to move the postponement of the clause, in order that these Amendments might be discussed, and he had to apologize to the Committee for moving Amendments which might, at first sight, appear to be simply matters of form; but he thought it would be seen that Clause 2 created new Stock which came under Section 1. He was of opinion that the powers relating to the creation of new Stock ought to come in the first part by themselves, and then the position in which every description of Stock stood would be seen at once. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would accept the Amendments, in order that the Bill might be drawn in a proper and logical way. There was, however, something further. The object of the Bill was to enable all the existing Stocks to be converted into new Stock. But the Bill did not provide for that, seeing that it made no provision for the conversion of any Consols or Reduced into new Stock, except such as was so converted immediately with the consent of the holders. It did not provide for notice to be given to those holders of Consols and Reduced who did not accept the offer of exchanging their present Stock for the now Stock at once, but preferred to wait until the expiration of the 12 months' notice that they wore entitled to before making their election. He had understood that the object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to provide that these different descriptions of Stock should come to an end, and that there should be only one new champion Stock. He would therefore venture to move the first of his Amendments.

pointed out that the proper course to take would be to move either that the clause be postponed or negatived.

asked, in the event of Clause 1 being negatived, what would be the best course to adopt?

said, the best course would be to move the postponement of the Clause.

accordingly did so.

said, he thought the Amendment was entirely unnecessary, and he hoped the hon. Member would not press it.

said, he thought the view of the hon. Member behind him (Mr. Sydney Godge) had been somewhat I influenced by a misunderstanding of a portion of the entire scheme—namely, that it related to Consols and Reduced. He was sorry that he (Mr. Goschen) had so expressed himself on a former occasion as to leave any possibility of doubt upon the point. The Bill proposed to make the immediate conversion of the new Three per Cents compulsory, and that of Consols and of Reduced optional on the part of the holders. The question of notice, therefore, did not arise in regard to the latter. There was no compulsory conversion of Consols and Reduced. As a matter of fact, the Bill dealt practically in a compulsory form with regard to New Threes, but in a totally different form with Consols and Reduced. This explanation affected the other Amendments which is the hon. Member put on the Paper. As far as the New Threes were concerned the Government had followed the precedent set by Mr. Goulburn in 1844, which established a compulsory conversion, but in regard to Consols and Reduced they had followed the precedent set in 1884 by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers). He hoped that in these circumstances the hon. Member would not think it necessary to press his Motion.

said, he was quite willing to withdraw the Motion.

said, he wished to put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He did not know whether it arose on a general Amendment in regard to the names of the Stock, but he wished to understand what would be the exact position of the new Stock that was to be created, and whether or not existing Stocks would merge into it. Would the existing Two-and-a-Half or Two-and-Three-Quarters per Cents become one with the new Stock which was created by the Bill? Would the portions of the existing Stock, which might be converted optionally, become one Stock under the Bill? Would the operation of the Bill create one single Stock which would absorb all the old Stocks, the old Two-and-a-Half, the old Two-and-Three-Quarters, the new Two-and-a-Half, and the new Two-and-Three-Quarters, and so on.

said, that would not be the case. The new Stock would not absorb all the other Stocks, because no provision was made in the Bill for the conversion of the old existing Two-and-a-Half and Two-and-Three-Quarters per Cents. He thought, however, it would be well worthy of considering in the future, when this new Stock was once established, whether it was not desirable to offer terms to the holders of other Stocks. But he had been of opinion that it might embarrass the Bill if such a proposal had been contained in it, and therefore there was no provision of the kind. If there wag a large conversion of Consols, they would be merged in the new Stock, and it would then be the duty of himself or any other Chancellor of the Exchequer to give notice to the outstanding portion of the holders of Consols, and endeavour either to pay them off, or to bring them within the purview of the new Stock. The Bill applied to the compulsory conversion of the New Threes and to the optional conversion of Consols and Seduced.

said, it was obviously inconvenient to have different descriptions of Stocks in the market, some of which would be of some amount. Judging from what the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had now stated, there would be some four or five public Stocks, some of them being of the same denomination, and yet separate and distinct Stocks.

said, it would be impossible to deal with the new Two-and-a-Half and the new Two-and-Three-Quarters Stock established by the right hon. Member for South Edinburgh without the consent of the holders; because they were not yet redeemable, and the Government could not yet apply any compulsory conversion to them. Any attempt to bring them under this scheme within the new Stock would have to be conducted on the voluntary principle of offering- them terms. He would undertake to confer with those who might be able to advise with him on the subject with regard to terms. Various suggestions had come to him already from various quarters; but he could say nothing upon the matter until he know what terms were likely to be accepted. No doubt it was inconvenient that the Bill should increase the number of Stocks by one: but it was only adding to an inconvenience which already existed, seeing that there were several kinds of Stock. If any inconvenience were experienced, he would endeavour to meet it; but he could not undertake to delay the present Bill until some conclusion had been arrived at.

said, he had got his idea of the meaning of the Bill not so much from the Bill itself as from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in introducing it. As he misunderstood the object of the right hon. Gentleman he would not press the Amendment.

moved an Amendment to sub-section 1 of Clause 1, to provide that the holders of the New Three per Cent Stock who do not signify dissent by the specified date, shall afterwards receive in lieu of the amount of New Three per Cents an equal nominal amount of new Stock—

"And the reception of that amount of New Stock shall not be considered to be a change or variation of investment by the holder."

He trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would accept that Amendment, or otherwise great difficulties would be imposed upon persons who were in the position of trustees, and who had no power of making a change of investment, or who were disinclined to consent to a change.

suggested that there should be an interpretation clause to provide that the new Stock should be distinctly called new Consols. He would suggest the insertion of words to that effect.

pointed out that an Amendment of that kind would not apply to the present Clause, but to Clause 2, Sub-section (4).

said, that in Part I., Sub-section (1), the following words occurred:—"In this Act referred to as new Stock." He proposed to substitute for those words "new Consols."

said, if the hon. Member would look at Clause 2, Subsection (4), he would see that it referred back to those words "new Stock."

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what the effect of the Amendment would be, as he understood the right hon. Gentleman to accept the words proposed.

explained that if the Amendment was accepted, it would provide that the holders of New Three per Cents who did not dissent would afterwards receive an equal amount of new Stock, which would be subjected to the same conditions as the old Stock.

said, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could not extend the clause, so as to include another portion of the National Debt, not a very large portion, but which, if brought within the scheme, would effect a saving of about £26,000 per annum to England. He referred to the Four per Cent Guaranteed Turkish Stock, originally £5,000,000, of which nearly £4,000,000 were still outstanding. There might be political considerations involved in the question, as the Stock was guaranteed jointly by England and France; but he thought that the ingenuity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer might overcome the difficulty, and that the Stock might be called in and divided between the two Governments. The interest now paid upon this Stock seemed to him to be an extraordinary interest to pay on Government security. By calling in the bonds France would save £7,000 per annum and England £26,000. In line 11 of the present clause the Government took power to give for New Three per Cent Stock an equivalent amount of the Stock to be created. He would suggest that the Government should take power to give £104 of New Two-and-a-Half per Cent Stock, so as to create a fairly permanent Stock with an unchanging income. In his opinion, the Government ought to take power to give a sufficient amount of Two-and-a-Half per Cents that would yield £2 12s. per cent, the same as the new and varying Stock would yield. The Two-and-a-Half per Cent Stock was really the Stock of the future, in which the Three per Cents would eventually be merged, and therefore the popularity of that Stock ought to be maintained, and, if possible, increased, and its market ought to be widened. Certainly 2½ per cent was a more convenient interest than 2¾ per cent. There was no Stock paying 2¾ per cent outside the United Kingdom. In the case of Holland, the Two-and-a-Half per Cents were a much more favourite Stock. It was even in more favour than the Three per Cent or the Three-and-a-Half par Cent Stock, where there was no fear of redemption, and so far as Two and Three -Quarters were concerned, they bore, as regards interest, a complex relation to all other Stocks. Two-and-a-half per cent was exactly one half of 5. No doubt it was quite possible, when they were dealing with fractional interests, to add one-tenth and convert Two-and-a-Half into Two and Three-Quarters; but Two and Three-Quarters was a Stock which never had a good market. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in introducing the Bill, told the House that the banking community preferred a Stock at 1½ per cent to one at 2¾. He quite agreed with that statement, and he also believed that options would tend to confuse the public mind. In some cases it would be difficult to invest in the new Stock, especially when it became necessary to settle annuities. He believed that the public would prefer Stock with a fixed yield for 35 years, and many persons in England and abroad would prefer to invest in the New Two-and-a-Half Stock, under par, than to invest in Stock which was over par, seeing that they would have to sacrifice a certain portion of the capital for the benefit of those who had a life interest in the security. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would promise to provide some means of amalgamating the present Stocks, and he was quite sure that 2½ per cent, at very nearly par, would constitute a real champion Stock. He had no wish to criticize the scheme of the Government unfavourably; on the contrary, he thought the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the New Three per Cents were very reasonable.

said, he must point out that the hon. Member was making a speech which would have been much more appropriately delivered on the second reading of the Bill.

, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 12, after "called," to leave out to "stock," in line 15, and to insert—

"Consolidated Two and Three-Quarter Pounds per Cent Annuities, until the fifth day of April, one thousand nine hundred and three, and thereafter shall he called Consolidated Two-and-a-Half Pounds per Cent Annuities;"

said, he believed that a great majority were in favour of this small modification. Among the many practical reasons he would only mention three. It would prevent the new Stock being confused with the Two and Three-Quarter per Cont Stock created by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh; it would obviate a change in title in 15 years; and it would give the new Stock a right to the time-honoured title of "Consols."

said, there was no very great difference between the two titles; but he was bound to say he thought the name which the hon. Member proposed to give was even more awkward than the name contained in the Bill. "Two and Three-Quarter Pounds per Cent Annuities" did not seem a very simple title for that Stock. As it stood in the Bill it was called "Consolidated Stock," and that Consolidated Stock would, he hoped, carry with it, after a large conversion had taken place, the ordinary appellation of Consols. He had consulted some of the very highest authorities in the commercial world in regard to the name, and he was given to understand that they would view with regret any change in the title it was proposed to give. No doubt it was a simple point; but, as a matter of fact, nearly all the Notices which had been issued in connection with the Conversion Scheme had gone out with the name that appeared in the Bill, and unless some strong reason were shown for it he should be sorry to see it changed.

said, that after the remarks which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman, he did not suppose that the Amendment would be pressed; but it did appear to him that the Bill should give to the Stock the title which it would eventually receive. The name contained in the clause, "Two and Three-Quarter Pound; per Cent Annuities," might be simple, but it was inaccurate in fact, and he was afraid it would not be clearly understood by a large portion of the public who were interested in the matter. At the expiration of 20 years the new Stock was to be entitled only to 2½ per cent, and to call it "Two and Three-Quarters Stock" would give a misleading description to the public who desired to invest in it. As the hon. Member opposite had pointed out, it would present to the public a depreciated idea of what the credit of the country was worth, because it would appear that the market quotation was the price of a Stock carrying interest at 2¾ per cent throughout; whereas it was liable to be reduced to 2½ per cent. He had himself to move an Amendment to provide that the new Stock should be called "New Consols;" but after what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, he would refrain from doing so. He was, however, of opinion that that description would have covered any variation, and would not have misled anybody.

said, that the name by which the Stock would be known in the market would not depend so much on the wording of the clause, as whether Consols were largely converted or not. Under these circumstances, he trusted that his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment.

said, he was ready to withdraw the Amendment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, before the Committee parted with the clause, to explain what was proposed to be done with the small amount of Three-and-a-Half per Cent Stock, to which no reference had been made.

said, he fully recognized the duty which devolved upon the Government in endeavouring to bring all these Stocks into one; but it would be impossible to deal in the present Bill either with the Four per Cent Stock or the Turkish Guarantee Stock. That Stock must claim attention at the proper time; but before it could be dealt with it would be necessary to take steps for consulting the French Government.

, in moving, as an Amendment, to leave out Sub-section (3), which provides—

"That the transfer of any stock to which a dissent relates shall be subject to the prescribed condition, and shall be entered in the books of the Bank under the same number as was fixed for the stock when the dissent was so signified,"

said, his reason for moving the omission of the sub-section was that they were dealing with the stockholders who dissented to the conversion, and would be paid off at such times as suited the convenience of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What might happen was this—it was quite possible that the holders might not be paid off until the 1st of August next year, and the fact that they were liable to be paid off would place them in an embarrassing position, seeing that they would have to hold Stock that was liable to be paid off. It appeared to him that the holders of such Stock ought not to be interfered with in regard to their right of dealing with it. A man might hold £100,000 worth of Stock and might desire to sell it bit by bit; but if he (Mr. Gedge) read the clause aright, there could only be one transfer of that Stock, and it was not to be dealt with unconditionally, but subjected to some conditions to be drawn up by the Treasury. The sub-section would, therefore, hamper the holders of Stock, and he submitted that the Government must either pay off the public creditor or leave him his rights until he was paid off. It would be unfair and inconvenient to the holders of Stock, who chose to be paid off and not accept the conversion, that they should remain until it suited the pleasure of the Government to pay them off hampered with restricted provisions.

said, that if the hon. Member would consult the Scheme of 1844 he would find that exactly the same provision as this was made, and that it did no harm to the holders of Stock. There were certain well-known rules applicable to the holders of Stock at the present time, and it was considered desirable, in dealing with the matter, that the holders should have no capricious right to break up the amount of Stock they held. The Government considered it necessary to follow the precedent of 1844, and he hoped the Committee would support them in that view.

said, he had either shown a grievance or he had not done so. If he had shown a grievance, a mere reference to a precedent set 45 years ago did not cure it, and he considered that the grievance itself ought to be remedied.

pointed out that the holder of Stock could sell his Stock before he accepted the scheme of the Government, and by that means the whole difficulty would be avoided. Much inconvenience would arise if the Stock held by dissentients was liable to be split up into a number of fractions. If there were dissentients, he would endeavour to meet their case by paying them off in full at the earliest possible moment.

said, he was sorry to be so frequently on his legs; but he had been in communication with many persons in regard to this Bill, and he was endeavouring to attain some of their objects. The next Amendment he had to move was to insert in page 4, line 18, after the word "Stock," "or any Consolidated Three per Cent Stock or any Reduced Three per Cent Stock." He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would accept that Amendment. He did not see why the New Throes provided for in the clause should not have the same provisions extended to them as other Stock. Unfortunately, in the Bill, as it stood, all kind of Stock had been dealt with in a confused manner. The whole Bill was full of bad drafting, and it required amendment in various parts.

said, that the hon. Member was again pursuing what he might call the same erroneous hypothesis which had induced him to put his first Amendment on the Paper. The hon. Member said the Bill was badly drafted; but it appeared that it was badly drafted only in the view that it intended to do something which it did not intend to do. Considering that the Bill dealt with a very complicated subject, he thought that it was extremely well drafted, and extremely well arranged. The hon. Member himself complained of the omission from Part II. of Part I. the plan laid down was that the two Stocks, in order to avoid confusion, should be dealt with in two separate Parts. For that reason he could not accept the Amendment, which was contrary to the general construction of the Act.

, in moving, as an Amendment, to omit Sub-section (2), which relates to the application of the High Courts and the Court of Session, said, his reason for moving the Amendment was that the application might be necessary, not only with regard to Part I. of the Bill, but also with regard to Part II. As a matter of fact the sub-section clearly referred to the whole Bill, and not to this part of it merely, and he urged that it should be omitted and re-enacted with another sub-section as a whole in another part of the Bill—namely, Part IV.

said, the Government could not accept the Amendment. The hon. Member had referred to the drafting of the Bill. Nobody would suggest that a lawyer might not have drawn it in a better form if there were only one mind brought to bear upon it; but one of the objects the Government had in view was so to draft the measure that laymen as well as lawyers should be able to feel their way about and fully understand what they were doing. The object had been to make the Bill as easily understood as possible. It was, therefore, important to follow the language of precedents. As to the Amendment, it was thought desirable that the scheme in this particular part of the Bill should be completed, and the sub-section, therefore, was necessary.

said, the Government had no objection to the Amendment.

asked, If it was intended to give the Lord Chancellor power of making the regulations without the concurrence of the Treasury?

said, the only object of the Amendment was to transpose the order, and to provide that the Lord Chancellor should make the regulations with the approval of the Treasury, instead of the Treasury making them with the approval of the Lord Chancellor.

said, the Amendment next, which stood in his name, was purely a matter of drafting. He proposed to leave out the words from "payable" to "or," in line 15; and afterwards to insert the exact wording from the Clause which Lord Herschell had settled. He did not wish to press the Amendment if the Government wore unwilling to accept it.

said, he entirely appreciated the intention of the right hon. Gentleman in moving the Amendment. The Government had, however, considered it, and were of opinion that the present wording which carried out their intention should be retained.

said, he should like to point out that some provision was necessary in the case of trustees who held Consols, the interest of which was shared by many persons, say, in Australia, Canada, India, and other parts of the world. It was necessary that there should be some protection for trustees so placed, and as they could not be too clear in a matter of this kind, unless some distinct reason were given for the withdrawal of this Sub-section, he should himself move an Amendment.

said, the hon. Gentleman's point had been answered by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A clause would be introduced to the effect that trustees who accepted conversion should not be held to have made a new investment.

said, that having addressed the House fully on the subject of his Amendment last Friday, he should not trouble the Committee at length now. He had no desire to assume a tone of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might complain, but desired to deal with the question purely as one of principle. He said that the optional conversion of Stock should rest entirely on its own merits, and that nothing ought to be paid to bankers or agents to induce any person to agree to the terms offered by the Government. The principle of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that it was the interest of the holder of Consols to accept the Reduced Stock, and of course it was to the interest of the State that the conversion should take place; and that principle had always been advocated and carried out in previous conversions. If, then, it was to the interest of the stockholder to accept the Chancellor of the Exchequer's terms, why was it necessary to pay a brokerage for obtaining his concurrence in this conversion. The hon. Baronet the Member for the London University (Sir John Lubbock) on Friday had taken exception to what he (Mr. Fowler) had then said with reference to the London bankers, and the view of the hon. Baronet was endorsed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With all respect to them he did not think there was anything offensive to bankers or agents in saying that no person should be placed in a position in which his interest might conflict with his duty. If the banker was in the position of an agent giving advice, then he thought he was put in a false position and that he had no right to complain if his position were severely scrutinized. They knew that if an agent of a vendor received a commission from the purchaser, he had to account for that commission, because the law did not consider he should be an agent of both the parties to the bargain. This commission was only given in the event of the advice given by the banker or other agent being favourable to conversion. He would like to call attention to the Money Article which appeared in The Standard newspaper of the 18th of January, which, referring to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's New Local Loan Stock, said—

"That the market did not understand the terms of the conversion, that the Treasury with its shortsighted stinginess offered the brokers no remuneration for any work they might do in getting their clients to convert their Stock; and that no conversion of Stocks would ever pass which did not in this way enlist the self interest of the market."

That was the whole of his argument on this part of the case; he rested upon that, and he said they ought not to sanction anything which would enlist the self interest of the Money Market. Their object and duty as Members of the House of Commons was simply to protect the public interests. He was aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Friday repudiated this notion of commission, and he (Mr. Fowler) was not surprised that he did so. He alleged that it was not payment for advice to induce people to assent to terms, but as payment for services rendered by bankers and brokers. Now, he very much doubted the extent of the labour to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred; he did not see what work there was to be done, and besides, the service, if any, was purely voluntary. The Bank of England had provided a very simple form which anyone of ordinary education could easily fill up. No one had asked the bankers to render their services, and he had no doubt that the hon. Baronet the Member for the London University was familiar with the circular which had been issued by a large number of London bankers, which stated that it was the intention of the Government to pay off those holders of Stock who did not send in their assents at par as Parliament had directed, which by the way was incorrect, for Parliament had not yet made any such direction. The circular was to the effect that it was generally thought desirable to accept the terms of conversion, the interest at work in favour of the scheme being considered so great as to insure its success. He found no fault with the banks for sending that circular; he found no fault with the phraseology of the circular; but he said it was a voluntary service, and that they had, therefore, no right to come on the public funds, and ask to be remunerated for what they had done. But if it were for services rendered in aid of conversion, why should not everybody who converts Stock have this 1s. 6d. per cent paid to them? Why should bankers and brokers alone receive it? If the large holders were to have it, why were not the small men who conducted the whole matter for themselves? If that were so then he thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's contention would be logically sound. If the right hon. Gentleman said that some expense was necessarily incurred in filling up these forms, and if he would say that every stockholder should be entitled to this commission, then he thought it would very much weaken the strength of the objection which many hon. Members felt to this provision. It would then be a fair and arguable contention that the allowance was being made to the holders for the expense to which they were to be put. What he did ask the Committee not to assent to, was this payment to bankers and agents now proposed for the first time for obtaining assent from holders for the conversion of Stock, which, however it might be expressed, was nothing else than a payment to the banker or broker for getting people to accept these terms.

said, he had given Notice of a similar Amendment, in order that at the end of the Bill a clause might be inserted which would fix a commission for the conversion of the New Threes also. It seemed to him that they were giving a commission of 1s. 6d. merely to induce people to waive the year's notice. Those who supported the clause might be open to the comments of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton; but the real reason for this provision had been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Friday last, when he pointed out that this 1s. 6d. was not paid practically to the broker or recognized agent, but really to the stockholders to cover the expense they were put to. He had since that time received letters from ladies as to whether they should be paid off, or whether they should accept the conversion. For his own part, if he received 1s. 6d. per £100 Stock, he should not charge his client with the expense he was put to, and he was interested in very large Trusts, and had considerable correspondence with regard to them. But the trouble was very much the same with regard to the New Threes as to the other Stocks. He entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) with regard to secret commission to bribe agents to act unfairly between clients; such things were abominable. The right hon. Gentleman, being himself a practising solicitor, knew that under the Solicitors' Act, a solicitor receives a brokerage fee oven from the borrower for whom he did not act, and he also gets a fee for investigating the title. But that was openly done, and there was no corruption about it; and it was well known that every solicitor made a part of his income by commissions of that kind. He should hope no one would believe that a solicitor was bribed by receiving that commission to advise a loan contrary to the interests of his clients. With regard to the present payment of 1s. 6d., he thought that it should be universal; and, therefore, that the matter should be so put that they might decide the question as to whether its application should be universal or limited.

said, he understood the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Sydney Gedge) proposed to support the omission of these words in order that, by a subsequent Amendment, the 1s. 6d. should be given in the case of the New Threes as well as Consols. He (Sir John Lubbock) thought, however, that the hon. Gentleman had himself given the reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer excluded the New Threes. In the case of the Three per Cent Consols and Reduced Threes, assent was necessary, which involved a good deal of trouble, and which was not so in the case of the Now Threes; and that seemed to him (Sir John Lubbock) to place the latter in an entirely different position from the two former classes. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolvorhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) that the optional conversion should act upon its own merits; but then he went on to observe that the bankers were placed in a false position unless the result was favourable. He would, however, point out, on the other hand, that this resembled all Stock Exchange business, for there also, if nothing was done, there was no commission. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the London bankers were themselves very large holders of Stock, and surely if they were going to convert their own Stock, there could be no objection to their recommending their friends to adopt the same course as they were themselves taking. It remained to be seen what that course would be, because until the Bill became law, he took it that the matter would remain open. But the right hon. Gentleman asked why the bankers were taking a different course now from that which they took in the case of the conversion scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers). The answer was that the circumstances were different, and they now thought it wise to convert, and therefore they suggested to their friends to look into the matter; whereas, in the former case, they did not think it wise themselves to convert, and consequently did not think it proper to recommend their friends to do so. What bankers did themselves they naturally recommended to their customers. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh was so enamoured of his plan that he seemed to think that bankers were mistaken in the advice they gave. He could only account for it by replying to inquiries made to him that "bankers were not infallible;" but he (Sir John Lubbock) would point out that the result on the market had justified the advice they gave on a former occasion. The right hon. Gentleman had evidently forgotten the facts. He offered the Two-and-a-Half per Cent Stock at 92, and he complained that bankers told their customers they would get better terms by waiting. But he forgot that in 1885 the Two-and-a- Halfs which he offered at 92 fell to 81, so that those who wanted to do so had the opportunity of purchasing at 8 per cent less than at the time. He (Sir John Lubbock) admitted that was a temporary fall, and that it occurred during the war scare; but everyone know that they stood for some time at 88 and 89, or 4 per cent below the price the Rt. Hon. Gentleman offered, and thus, although there was no corresponding fall in Consols, the result justified the advice given. It was true they had risen subsequently, in common with other Securities. But now the case was very different, and bankers were no doubt under the impression that holders of Stock would be wise to accept the terms offered. He thought it was a little unfair to expect that any banker would be influenced by this very small commission of 1s. 6d., seeing that they were only advising their customers to take the course they were themselves adopting in reference to their own affairs. Unless the House agreed to the course proposed by the Government, it would be very difficult for trustees to convert, because there was no fund under their control from which they could pay the expense of doing so.

said, this was really a proposal made for the first time by the British Government to pay a commission for getting something done on the Stock Exchange which would not be done otherwise. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) had asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other night what precedent there was for this course, and the right hon. Gentleman, being pressed very much by that challenge, suggested the case of the Suez Canal. He (Sir William Harcourt) was surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted that precedent; because if ever there was a precedent that ought to be avoided it should be that. It was now objected that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to the Stock Exchange, and saying—" We make it worth your while to give us your support." But in the case of the Suez Canal there was the payment of so much for the accommodation of advancing the money required. He had heard it stated, notwithstanding, that the Government might have had that money for one-quarter of what they paid for it; and if that was so, a worse precedent was never set than that of the Government going into the market and paying a premium for money at a higher rate than they would have had to pay to the Bank of England. For the first time the Chancellor of the Exchequer offered a premium to the Stock Exchange for getting his proposal accepted. He would not ask whether it was large or small; how much or how little it was, mattered not; but the fact remained that they wove asked to set up this fatal example, which might in future be extended under very objectionable circumstances. Hitherto the British Government had been entirely free from anything of this description. He made no insinuation at all; but they knew perfectly well that certain language had been used during the last month, and it was that language that made it necessary that they should be extremely cautious on a subject of this kind. No one could have listened to the preliminary conversation before the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was made, without hearing that it was of no use to make this proposal unless the right hon. Gentleman "greased the hands of the stockbrokers." He did not suggest that that was the object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but it showed the danger of proposals of the kind with a view to what might happen in the future. His hon. Friend the Member for the London University (Sir John Lubbock) had not answered the question put by his right hon. Friend the Member for East Wolver-hampton—namely, what was going to be done with reference to the large Stocks held by the bankers themselves? Was that money to be paid to the bankers and insurance companies for converting their own Stock? Those were things which made the House properly jealous of the introduction of new precedents. The amount in question was small; but the precedent was not so; and he should like to hoar from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether this payment was to be made to the bankers and those who themselves held large amounts of Stock. He would also like his hon. Friend the Member for the London University to understand exactly the point of the objection taken, which was not as to the magnitude of the sum of money to be paid, but to the precedent set up by the Treasury, paying to bankers for the first time what was a commission on a transaction in which they were engaged as agents.

said, he was not surprised at the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler), but his complaint was against the tone of the remarks which he made the other day. He agreed that there was some force in the objections which had been taken. He had not quoted the precedent of the Suez Canal as a justification of their proceeding, but had referred to it in contradiction of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that there was no precedent of a commission being paid by the British Government. He did not think it fair to say that this was the first time that a commission had been paid by the British Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) had said that the case of the Suez Canal was totally different, not only in point of commission but in respect of circumstances. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the Indian Government last year conducted a very successful operation for the conversion of £60,000,000 from 4 per cent to 3½ per cent, and that it paid a commission of 4 per cent. It might be said that that was not the British Government, but it formed an extremely close parallel to that which was taking place at the present moment. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman did not complain of the amount of the commission; but he had one word to say on that point—namely, that the ordinary brokerage on Consols was 2s. 6d. per cent, whereas this commission was only 1s. 6d. per cent. He called the attention of the Committee to this fact, that by this payment they secured to the holders, who had to employ bankers, solicitors and brokers, that they should have their work done for them much more cheaply than would have been otherwise the case in the ordinary course of business. This commission was to be paid, because it was presumed that there were few bankers who would charge more to their clients than that which was devoted to this purpose by the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman called attention to the fact that he was not aware that there would be much trouble connected with the business, but he (Mr. Goschen) was informed that there was a very considerable trouble. Bankers were obliged to consider the interests of their clients, and he was told that persons residing abroad had immediately to be informed by their bankers of what was going on with reference to the Funds, and that was an operation which they had under all circumstances to perform for the interests of their clients. There could be no doubt therefore that the trouble connected with the conversion scheme was very considerable. The right hon. Gentleman had asked him whether those persons who took their Stock to the Bank of England would receive any commission. He presumed that no commission would be paid to them, because they were not agents, and the same remark applied to the case of Insurance Companies. The commission was a brokerage to pay expenses to free holders from the charges which they would otherwise in our. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby had spoken of "greasing the hands of the Stock Exchange." Considering that solicitors and bankers in the country and others would participate in this payment, he did not think it worth while to say that the Stock Exchange would be gained over by an amount charged really lower than the amount of commission generally paid on Consols.

said, he was reluctant to offer any opposition to any enactment of this Bill; but he must confess that he did not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made out any case for the proposal now before the Committee. In the first place, with regard to precedent, the question of precedent was altogether out of the way. There was no precedent in the case at all. The Indian precedent was no more a precedent than if it were a proceeding of the French or Spanish Government, because it was not a Parliamentary precedent. It was quite obvious also that the case of the Suez Canal was absolutely no precedent at all, because the payment in that case, however unwarrantable it was—and he thought it most unwarrantable—was a payment for services rendered to us, and not for services rendered by bankers and agents to other people. Secondly, it stood upon a totally different ground, and taken upon its merits, he did not think anyone would insist that it was necessary to pay any commission at all. Therefore, pre- cedent disappeared altogether. He did not think that it was unfair to say that the fact of this being an entirely new proposal was that which constituted an objection to it. He did not say it was a fatal objection, but the absence of precedent undoubtedly afforded an unfavourable presumption. Then, as to the form of the proposal, was it an awkward and unmanageable form? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that if a banker, being a large holder of Stock himself, transacted the exchange at the Bank, he would receive no commission. But what would be the consequence? It would be that the banker would employ a broker, and the commission would be divided. That was not a desirable arrangement to make by Act of Parliament. Again, take the case of the small holder who transacted his own business. He would have all the trouble and probably rather more trouble than would fall on the banker or broker. Why was that small holder, who was the person really interested and who transacted his own business, not to have that allowance for his trouble which would be paid to an agent? No answer had been given to the question, and he doubted whether any answer could be given to it. But, taking a broader view of the question, he thought that if payment was to be made at all this was not an extravagant payment. He took objection to the ground of payment, and it was that which, in his opinion, was a mistake. He could not agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's argument advanced in illustration of the smallness of the payment—namely, that it was less than an individual would pay in order to have a transfer effected, because, in the case of a transfer, he had alienated his property. In this case he was doing nothing of the kind; he was not a moving party in the case, and the operation performed for him was not alienation, but a simple change of form. Therefore, he considered there was no analogy between the two oases. But it seemed to him to be a mistake altogether to introduce the recognized agent into this transaction, because the question arose whose agent was he? Let them pay their own agent, but do not let them pay the agents of other people. If the money was to be paid at all, he ventured to say that it ought to be paid to the principal and not to the agent. He was not saying that the 1s. 6d. was too much for the service to be performed; but it was to be performed for the customer, who was the principal. If the agent advised the exchange, it was for the customer and not for the public interest that the advice was given. He was not like Members of that House-who sat there to make the best arrangement they could for the public interest; he worked in the interest of his principal, and the service done was a matter between his principal and himself. He thought, then, having regard to the basis on which this arrangement ought to be founded, that they were paying the wrong man. They agreed that those in the position which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had described should be paid the value of his services in money, but, without saying that the amount was too much or too little, he said that it was not for the State to pay the agent.

said, he confessed that when the matter first came before him he did not at all like the idea of this commission. He was certain, with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler), that the course was without precedent, and he was equally certain that Parliamentary sanction of such a course might form an evil precedent for the future. But he did not quite follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), though he felt it was almost presumptuous on his part even to hint a difference of opinion with him; and if he differed from the right hon. Gentleman it was because of his intellectual incapacity to rise to the same height to which he habitually soared. Why did the right hon. Gentleman argue that a person assisting in the conversion of the National Debt from 3 per cent to 2| per cent Stock was not rendering a service to the State? That he could not follow. The right hon. Gentleman would surely agree that the conversion of the Debt, if it could be legitimately effected, was a great public object from which the State, as a whole, derived considerable benefit; and, therefore, if in effecting that conversion a great financial organization and great financial machinery was set in motion, it was difficult to argue that no service was thereby rendered to the State. If he had any ob- jection, to this proposal at all, his objection would be founded upon grounds of public economy. The conversion was a great public object. Could it be obtained without paying money in this way? That seemed to him to be the point. There was no doubt of this, that if the commission were a very much larger one than that in the Bill, it would not be assented to by Parliament. If the commission had been at all open to the charge of being excessive, Parliament would not have assented to it. If that was admitted it threw a considerable amount of suspicion upon the merits of the commission altogether. They were told that the commission was a small one. He could not altogether agree that a financial charge of £250,000 was a small charge. That £250,000 must come, he supposed, out of the revenues of this year or the next, and he objected most strongly to paying one sixpence for the conversion of the National Debt, in the shape of commission, unless it could be proved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the House of Commons that he could not effect the conversion without it. That was a point which the right hon. Gentleman had not got rid of. Could he get up and prove to the House that, without this payment, his conversion scheme would not have any chance of success? He could not see that the right hon. Gentleman could alter what had passed, because they w ere told by bankers and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Consol holder was placing himself in an advantageous position by converting. If that was so, and if what was widely asserted in the Press, that all Consol holders were in a frame of mind eager, at any rate willing, to convert, was true, why should they sanction a payment which might amount to £250,000, and might amount to a good deal more, when they might perfectly well attain their object without paying a sixpence? That was a point of view which nobody had yet touched upon. The commission, he thought, might be objected to on other grounds. He sympathized very much indeed with what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler), and, to a great extent, with what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) as regarded what he would call rather the bitter and unsavoury taste of these commissions to the Stock Exchange. He did not like it at all; but if the Government stated and proved that the great object of the conversion could not be attained without a payment of this kind, then the House must consider was the amount excessive? If it was agreed that if the amount was not excessive, and that the payment was absolutely necessary for the success of the scheme, he owned, though he did not like it, he should not be able to vote against the proposal of the Government.

said, the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) had just laid down one of the most extraordinary doctrines he (Mr. Haldane)had ever heard. The noble Lord had said, in effect, that it was legitimate to bribe, because the party in whose interest they proposed to bribe was the State. [Cries of "No, no !"] What the noble Lord said came to that. It was an assertion that the end justified the means. But he was not going to discuss that point, because he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) said enough to lay the foundation for another objection to this clause which he wished to point out. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had considered the question whether this clause would really protect him in the transaction which he proposed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must remember that it had often been said, rightly or wrongly, that the morality of the Courts was higher than the morality of commerce. There were many things done in commerce every day which would not stand when they came to be tested, and when they were entering upon transactions of enormous magnitude like this, it was necessary they should take care they did not get themselves into an invidious or awkward position which would not bear the light of day. In the light in which the Courts regarded these transactions, if they made a payment, however innocently, to an agent, one of two things might happen. The agent's principal might say, "I affirm this transaction; I take the benefit of it;" or he might say, "I set aside this transaction because there was a bribe given," and the transaction would not stand. What was there in this Bill which would protect the Treasury from the consequences of having its transactions set aside in this fashion? It was said the Treasury might, if it thought fit, authorize the Bank to pay a slight commission to the agent. If the Treasury did this, it did not make the transaction better. It was not enough to say the Treasury might do so and that everybody knew it. They ought to put words in the clause to say that it should be lawful for the agent to retain the commission of 1s. 6d., and that the transaction should not be liable to be impeached on that account.

desired to say a word in defence of the bankers. The other night the hon. Baronet the Member for North Antrim (Sir Charles Lewis) said that the country bankers had complained that this commission was not large enough. The country bankers never did anything of the sort. The country bankers had decided that they would give no advice whatever to their clients in a general form as to what they should do, but that all they would undertake to do would be to send out a short statement to say that if their clients wished to convert and to make use of their services, they would be happy to place their services at their disposal. Some hon. Gentlemen had taken exception to the word "commission;" the word seemed to stink in the nostrils of some hon. Members, including the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill). This conversion must be done on behalf of the small stockholders in the country by someone or other. They were entirely ignorant as to how they were to set about the conversion, and they went to their bankers and said—" Will you put this forward for me in the proper way?" Were the bankers not to be remunerated by someone for doing that service? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had very properly explained that, as this was a compulsory conversion of Stock, the holders ought not to be put to any expense by the process of conversion. The right hon. Gentleman said, in effect, in this clause—" We offer you this 1s. 6d. per cent, in order that the business of the conversion of Stock may be done free of expense to the different holders of Stock." The right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) and Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H Fowler) objected to the introduction of the words "recognized agents." He (Mr. W. Beckett) also objected to those words. He thought the 1s. 6d. ought to be granted to everybody. If that were so, the banker would say to his customer—" You are allowed 1s. 6d. per cent in order to remunerate someone for the trouble of doing this; therefore, if I take the; trouble to do it, I shall expect you to pay me this small charge." He had asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer privately to do away with the term "recognized agent," and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian had pointed out how easily that could be done. He (Mr. W. Beckett) thought it would be much better to do away with the term altogether, and let it be a fairly understood thing that 1s. 6d. per cent would be paid to anyone in order to cover the expense incurred by the compulsory conversion of their Stock.

desired in a few sentences to enter his protest against the doctrine laid down by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Haddington (Mr. Haldane). He did not think any lawyer would give the opinion that where a Statute had said that an agent should receive 1s. 6d., or any other fee, for doing certain work, the transaction could be set aside by the principal, on the ground that the agent had received the commission. The very worst that could possibly be made of it was that the principal might claim a share of the 1s. 6d., on the ground that the relation between principal and agent did not entitle the agent to receive it.

said, the Attorney General had misunderstood him. His complaint was that the Bill did not say that the agent might receive the 1s. 6d.; it only gave power to the Treasury to pay public money.

confessed he had found great difficulty in arriving at a conclusion on this subject. When his right hon. Friend (Mr. Goschen) first brought forward this plan, he did not altogether object to the 1s. 6d. as a mere commission to meet expenses; but he was startled by the reasons which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave for that commission. Those reasons led him to consider further; to consider whether it would be proper that this payment should be made. The right hon. Gentleman at first said that a large amount of trouble would be taken by bankers and others in connection with the conversion of the Three per Cents and the Reduced Three per Cents, and that it was in respect of that trouble that he proposed that this money should be paid, but now he could not deny that this commission was intended as an inducement to bankers and others to persuade their customers to convert their Stock. But oven if the charge were only to meet money out of pocket, he (Mr. Childers) could not help looking back on what was done in the case of previous conversions. Nothing of this kind was done in the case of the great conversion of Mr. Goulburn; and in 1884, when it was thought advisable to propose to Parliament a great conversion of Stock, not only did they not think it right to offer this inducement, but they made full provision for the expenses actually incurred in applying or dissenting or assenting. Instead of waiting for persons to send in their applications, they sent to all holders of every kind of 3 per cent. Stock forms of acceptance or non-acceptance of 2½ and 2¾ per cent Stocks, properly filled up, and all the holders had to do was to sign their names on one or other of these forms. All expense in connection with the conversion was met in the arrangement of 1884, and, if he was not mistaken, the whole of the expense so incurred and met by the Treasury was something like £5,000. This proposal, as it stood, might result in the payment of £150,000 or £200,000. Therefore, he thought the question of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) was a very pertinent one, and that was—" Why did the Chancellor of the Exchequer find it necessary to spend this large amount? "The Chancellor of the Exchequer had argued that the payment was solely to meet the expense of conversion. It was quite impossible that £150,000 or £200,000 could be the real amount of the expense incurred by the holders of Stock through their agents, whoever they might be, in carrying out this conversion; and, therefore, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to refute what he (Mr. Childers) had stated, and to show that for the business trouble in the matter more need be spent than was spent in 1884, he should vote against the present proposal.

said, he did not know whether he would be able to give any assurances which would be satisfactory to his right hon. Friend; but certainly he had every wish to do so. The right hon. Gentleman said that in 1884 circulars were sent out to all holders of Stock. From whom did those circulars come? They came from the Bank of England, an establishment which stood in no relation whatever to those selling or holding the Stock. The consequence was that the circulars were very probably put in the waste paper basket, and the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman failed because of the insufficient means taken to make the holders acquainted with the terms of conversion. It was a very different thing for holders to receive a circular from the Bank of England and to receive a letter from their bankers, or other persons who were competent to advise them, and with whom holders were in communication. He did not know what happened to his right hon. Friend, when he was at the Treasury; but, speaking for himself, he had received countless letters asking for information on every possible point from trustees and other persons. The right hon. Gentleman put it as if it was simply a question of "Yes" or "No;" but there were many questions to be answered—whether they must consult with their fellow-trustees, whether a majority of the trustees could decide, or whether other persona besides the trustees had to be consulted. He had previously no idea of the variety of questions which would arise in connection with the scheme. The sending out of a circular, therefore, was insufficient to acquaint everyone with what was going on. The noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) put the matter very fairly from an economical point of view. He wished him to say whether or not the conversion could be effected without the payment of the commission. It was extremely difficult to prove a negative. He thought this conversion was a very large scheme, and depended for its success, so far as the voluntary conversion was concerned, on the circumstances of the day, and upon a variety of other circum- stances. It was impossible to say for certain whether or not it would have been possible without this payment to have secured this conversion, which he hoped was now within sight; but he would frankly tell the noble Lord that unless he had considered it was right to offer this commission, and that the machinery employed would be the means of bringing home to all Consol-holders what was proceeding, he would have been the last person to propose anything of the kind. He knew beforehand the kind of speeches which would be made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) and other right hon. Gentlemen. He was fully aware of the gravity of the precedent and the difficulty of carrying out this conversion scheme to a successful issue; and therefore he did not feel inclined to refrain from offering to the holders, through these means, those facilities and that freedom from expense which he trusted they would secure by the measure as now proposed. He regretted that there should be a division of opinion on the subject. He admitted it was a perfectly natural division of opinion, but he trusted the majority of the Committee would sustain the Government in the proposal they had made.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would be good enough to tell the Committee why, if this was income, it should not be subject to Income Tax. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had arrived at a right decision; but perhaps it would be well that he should give the Committee some explanation.

said, he thought he had explained to the Committee that it was very doubtful whether this was really capital and not income. On the whole, one might say it was equivalent to an increase of the capital value of the Stocks; but on account of its being so small a sum it would be very inconvenient in many cases for trustees to re-invest it, and so they were authorized to treat it as income. If Income Tax had been imposed upon the additional percentage which his right hon. Friend gave, it might be fairly looked upon as capital. Of course he should be glad to have Income Tax upon it; but it struck him it might be considered they were taking away with one hand what they gave with the other.

suggested that "shall" should be substituted for "may." This would only affect trustees and tenants for life. If they said "may" who was to be the judge, the trustee or the tenant for life? Surely, Parliament ought to decide the matter.

hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not agree to the suggested Amendment, because most unquestionably in point of law, this was capital and not income. The decisions upon the subject had been more rigid every year. Very recently the House of Lords had overruled the Courts below in declaring that this was capital. Why should they compel trustees to treat as income that which in point of law was clearly capital?

said, that in some cases it would be very difficult to re-invest small sums, and he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that authority ought to be left to trustees to treat this as capital and not as income. It would only amount to 10s. on £200 of Stock, to re-invest which would be expensive and troublesome.

said, that supposing a trustee chose to treat this as capital, and a widow lady interested said it was income, who was to decide?

said, that the trustee would be enabled to deal with the money as though it were income. The trustee would be the judge on the point.

said, that the clause provided that a distringas which was now operative upon Stock which would be converted should also be operative on the Stock to which it would be converted; but it did not deal with the case of Stock as to which there might he dissent. He hoped the Government would inform the Committee in what way effect would be given to the numerous cases in which there would be such a distringas.

said, he was obliged to his hon. and learned Friend for calling attention to this matter. The Committee would observe that by Clause 21 the Treasury had power to make rules, and it was proposed, in accordance with the existing practice, that a rule should be made, providing that the money which would be paid would be under the control of the persons having the charge.

said, the Amendment the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given Notice of was no doubt designed to meet cases where there was a change produced by conversion under the Act. But there was a large class of cases which would not be met by the words proposed. It was doubtful whether this clause as it stood would have any effect upon the will of a living man, and he would propose an Amendment to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment, which he believed the hon. and learned Attorney General assented to.

said, that the clause as it stood gave the bank power to do what it could do already. It stated that the bank might allow any holder to have more than one account. The bank could do that now. It was only according to the rule of the bank that it had not been done. In order to make the thing compulsory the word ought to be "shall," and he moved the omission of the word "may" in line 1 in order to insert the word "shall."

said, that he would agree to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

said, that it would be necessary to make a slight alteration in the clause. The words "or, at the option of the person entitled to the benefit of the agreement," were not necessary in the case of Stock which stood, as this stood, at or about par. He would move the omission of the words.

said, that after Clause 20, words ought to be inserted to enable the Lord Chancellor to deal with Lunacy Funds. He had prepared for that purpose a new Clause, which he begged to move.

, in moving the insertion, after Clause 17, of a now Clause, said he could not see why the State should pay commission in one case and not in the other.

said, he could not assent to the Clause, because no action of the Bank was necessary at all; in the case of assent there was no trouble whatever to be taken. The action was quite automatic. No papers had to be sent in signifying assent, and, therefore, the holders were relieved of any of the stops which had to be taken at the bank in the case of the conversion of Consols and Reduced Three per Cents.

said, there were a great many small chari- ties in the country receiving a fixed income from Consols left them by testators, with the intention that they should receive that income. That observation also applied to individuals. Under the scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, these incomes would be diminished. For instance, if a charity or individual had been receiving £300, that sum would now be reduced to £250. He proposed to ask the Committee to carry the purpose of the testators into effect, so that charities and individuals might continue to receive their fixed incomes. He did not wish to interfere with the conversion scheme, but suggested that a clause should be inserted, to allow money in such cases as he had mentioned to be re-invested under the direction of the Court of Chancery, so as to secure substantially the same incomes as charities and individuals now received from Consols.

The proposed Amendment appears to enable a trustee to extend his power of investment. I have already considered that point in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for the Elgin Burghs (Mr. Anderson), and I held it to be outside the scope of the Bill, in the absence of special instructions to the Committee. The Amendment cannot be moved without such special instruction, but I think the proposal in the name of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Gedge) may be moved.

said, that by the indulgence of the Committee he might be allowed to suggest to his right hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir Henry James) whether an opportunity for bringing forward this proposal might not be secured during the progress of Lord Herschell's Bill. The question was no doubt a very important one, and no doubt the clause suggested by his right hon. and learned Friend went very far. He (Mr. Goschen) undertook to deal with it in some way or other, though it was not dealt with in the present Bill. He had had a great deal of correspondence on the point under discussion, and he was aware that very great interest was excited in regard to it; but be thought it would be much safer to examine it apart from the present measure, and either deal with it in Lord Herschell's Bill or deal with it separately in another Bill.

said, that if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would undertake to deal with the question, he supposed that would be taken as sufficient. He had thought from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he had intended to deal with the subject in this Bill, and, therefore, he (Sir William Harcourt) had been very much surprised by the ruling of the Chairman. He took that ruling as correct; but they certainly had had a statement to the effect that it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to relieve trustees in this matter and to allow them to escape from a loss, both in the case of charities and private institutions.

said, that so far as annuities were concerned, the question had been dealt with, and it was with regard to annuities that he had made his original statement. But the present proposal went beyond annuities, and affected the case of marriage settlements and other points which were outside the scope of the clauses of this Bill. It would be best not to deal with this matter in a hurry.

said, he accepted the ruling of the Chairman; but if he altered the suggested Amendment, leaving out the words which rendered it open to question, he might, perhaps, obtain a ruling in his favour. But he was anxious at that stage not to introduce controversial matter, and he would defer it to the Report stage, by which time he hoped that some understanding would have been arrived at, and that the question would be dealt with. He thought they ought to deal with it in this Bill, and not trust to the Bill of Lord Herschell.

said, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have to consider whether what he proposed would not go too far. The right hon. and learned Gentleman in his suggested Amendment said, "any person," and named no limit as to amount, and that would open up the question as to whether trustees of large amounts might not be left a great deal too free. The Government sympathized with the right hon. and learned Gentlemen's objects, but thought that the matter should not be dealt with without careful consideration.

said, he thought they ought to pass such a clause as he had put upon the Paper. He would point out that they had testators setting aside certain sums of money in order to produce fixed incomes for certain persons. Such testators instructed trustees and executors to set aside a sufficient amount of Stock to produce the exact sum willed to the annuitant, and to keep that stock intact. Well, the Government now proposed to take off one-twelfth of the income derived from that Stock, and at a future date to take off a sixth. Considering that it was the paramount object of such testators to provide a fixed annuity, it would only be right that the Committee should meet the views of such persons by enacting provisions to enable the stock to be sold and the proceeds invested in such a manner as would make up the amount of the annuity the testator had in his mind. No doubt, if this were not done, there would be a great outcry throughout the country on the part of persons who had money left to them in this way, when they found their incomes reduced by a twelfth, and after a time by one-sixth. There would be no chance of risk in the proposal he made, as the investments could under his clause be made only in securities allowed to Trutees by the Court of Chancery. He, therefore, hoped the Committee would accept his clause.

said, he had no objection to the principle of the clause; but he did not know how far the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) agreed with it, or might think it would interfere with the further steps which he might think it necessary to take.

said, he should prefer to have the Amendment accepted, but he should like to have the word "fixed" struck out.

asked, whether it was meant that the amount of the income must be stated on the face of the trust-deed?

said, there must be some reference to "fixed income." He did not think that any lawyer would assume that a testator intended to have a fixed income, unless there was some fixed income stated on the face of the trust.

said, that though that was good, so far as it went, it did not meet the general case of marriage settlements, especially the older marriage settlements, and other cases where people had invested certain sums in Consols. Relief was required in those cases, and not where it was intended to secure particular incomes. What was required was that where persons had only power to invest in Consols, that they should in future have power to invest in other Funds which were considered safe which would produce the amount produced by the original investment.

said, that the proper way to deal with those cases would be by an independent Motion, or by a Bill, or by the introduction of an Amendment into the Bill in the House of Lords. The point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury referred to was limited amounts, or where it would be a great hardship to have incomes reduced. It would be a question as to how far it would be right to release trustees from the obligation of investing in Consols, when there was an express provision in a trust against any other sort of investment. Perhaps it would be well to wait and allow the right hon. and learned Gentleman to state the exact case he wished to raise on the Report stage.

said, he was not limiting his case to any amount. He simply referred to cases of great hardship, and he hoped there would be no limitation in the matter.

said, the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Sydney Q-edge) was limited to fixed incomes, and he (Mr. Cozens-Hardy) proposed to submit an Amend- ment to it, which he hoped would not be out of Order. He proposed to leave out the first line and to add words, so as to make the clause read—

"When any Stock liable to be converted or exchanged by this Act into new Stock, is held by a trustee, such trustee shall be authorised to invest the proceeds thereof in any of the securities from time to time permitted by the High Court of Justice for the investment of trust funds, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the instrument creating or regulating the trust."

A trustee should have this power if there was not any express prohibition. Such prohibitions were very rare, so rare that they would not justify the Committee in keeping back a clause of this kind which would be of great advantage to trustees. He would move the Amendment.

The clause has not yet been read a second time.

said, that this Amendment introduced rather a new question, giving, as it did, the right of conversion in all cases. It might arrest conversion to a considerable extent, which would not be the object of the hon. Gentleman. He should be sorry to accept such words without having had an opportunity of considering them; and he would suggest to the hon. Member the advisability of bringing them up on Report. He should be glad if the hon. Member would get rid of the words "liable to conversion." In cases where it was said in the trust that the money was to be invested, it did not at all follow that in the event of the amount of interest realized in such investment being changed, the testator would have desired a change to be made in the description of Stock invested in.

said, that there were, no doubt, cases in which a testator had stated—"I leave £1,000, or I leave £10,000, to produce such and such a sum per annum," intending the legatee to have that fixed amount. A testator might have left a sum to realize £300 a-year, never intending, under any circumstances, that the charity or the legatee should only have £250 a-year; therefore, if they accepted the words "fixed income," this clause would become nugatory. The phrase "fixed income," if left in the clause, would, so far as old settlements were concerned, negative the whole object of this concession. Therefore, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider this matter on Report. These words were fatal to all he (Sir Henry James) contended for.

Will the hon. Member (Mr. Cozens-Hardy) withdraw his Amendment?

Yes, Sir; I withdraw it.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Bill will be reprinted before the Report?

I am sorry to say it will be quite impossible to have the Bill reprinted before the Report stage. Indeed, we shall have to ask the indulgence of the House with the view of taking the measure at 12 o'clock to-morrow, and before the Business on the Paper is proceeded with. I am exceedingly sorry that it will be necessary to postpone the Motion on the Paper; but I think the debate upon the Report stage of the present Bill will be extremely short, as the discussion we have had this afternoon has cleared away all debatable points.

There are only two points remaining over, that is to say, the question of the Charity Commissioners, and the question which has just been raised.

I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has felt it necessary to make this demand upon the time of the House. He knows there is a debate of very great importance coming on to-morrow, and I do not think the Government have any reason to complain of the manner in which this Bill has been dealt with this morning in the House. There has been every disposition shown to get forward with Public Business. I trust that every effort will be made to deal with the Report stage of this Bill without interfering with the discussion which is to come on to-morrow.

I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman and the House, that this Bill has to be passed in the House of Lords. The Easter Holidays are coming on very soon, and then there will be the Commission for obtaining the Royal Assent; therefore, the time at the disposal of Parliament for passing the Bill is extremely limited. If this Bill is allowed to go on to-morrow morning, I really do not think that much time will be consumed by it; half-an-hour, at the most, will suffice.

I must say I think it a little unfair that this proposal should have been sprung upon the House without Notice in the absence of any Irish Members. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury is asking a privilege or taking a right. If he is asking a concession in appealing to the House to take the Report stage of this Bill to-morrow morning, I must say that if I am in my place at the commencement of Public Business tomorrow, I shall raise my voice against it. Of course, if he is taking this as a right, there will be no opportunity of resisting him, and there is no more to be said. I think, however, I can. suggest to the right hon. Gentleman a very easy way out of the difficulty. Let him bring on the Report stage of this Bill after the discussion of the Bill of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell.) I do not see why the discussion on the Bill of the hon. Member for the City of Cork should not close soon after 5 to-morrow evening. If the opposition offered to that Bill is obstructive, we shall be willing to assist the right hon. Gentleman in making a Motion to effect a Closure, and he would then have plenty of time to spare for the consideration of this Bill.

I have not the least desire to interpose or bring about the least delay in the consideration of the measure to which the hon. Member refers. The extreme necessity of the case is my only apology for asking the House to depart from its usual practice. I will consider the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, and if I can meet it, I will be happy to do so.

I do not think that the Government should make up their minds that the discussion on the Report stage of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Bill will be of a merely formal character. The proposal the right hon. Gentleman has just consented to consider, deals with matters of re-investment in Colonial and other securities which are perfectly sound. It is intended to raise that point on the Report stage, and, therefore, I do not think that the Government can assume that the debate will be a purely formal one.

On the question of Order, before this Bill leaves the Committee, I should like to ask if I am to understand that you, Sir, have ruled that the point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury cannot be raised in Committee, because, according to the new Rule of the House, if it cannot be raised in Committee it cannot be raised on Report? It is, therefore, important that we should know what is your ruling on that matter. If we cannot raise it on Report, it might be necessary for us to do be on the third reading, and if we cannot do so on the third reading, it might be necessary for us to move that the Bill be re-committed, in order to enable this point to be dealt with.

The question of the enlarging of the power of investment, whether by trustees or otherwise, would be out of Order and cannot be introduced into thin Bill without a distinct Instruction; but where a definite amount of income is bequeathed arising out of Consols, that question may be dealt with in this Bill, and Amendments upon the subject dealing with small amounts would be admitted.

May I ask what is the small amount according to your definition, Sir, for if we are bound on the question, some limit or figure should be given.

Perhaps I was wrong in using that phrase. Where Stock is left to produce a fixed income and the interest on that Stock is affected, that income is necessarily affected, but the mere diminution of income generally would not justify the insertion of any clause in the Bill to enlarge those powers.

When this Bill comes before us on Report, should I be at liberty to move to strike out the words "fixed income?"