§ Subject to and in accordance with the Admiralty Lands and Works Act, 1864, the Admiralty may, by agreement or compulsorily, purchase or take all or any part of the lands delineated in the deposited plan and described in the deposited book of reference, or any interest or easement in or over those lands or any of them:
§ Provided that if any part of the pier or works is not executed within the period of seven years from the passing of this Act, or within such further period as Parliament may sanction, any easement acquired from the Humber Conservancy Board over any portion of the bed and foreshore of the Humber exclusively for or in respect of the unexecuted part shall revert to and vest in the Board and be held by them under the same conditions and covenants as before the easement was so acquired, unless the Board shall consent to the retaining and holding of the easement by the Admiralty, and in the event of any such reversion to the Board a proportionate part of any rent-charge payable in respect of the easement shall cease to be payable.
2045§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. BOOTHThis Clause deals with the purchasing or taking of lands which are delineated in the deposited plan. It says:—
"Provided that if any part of the pier or works is not executed within the period of seven years from the passing of this Act."
Then certain things shall happen. I think we are entitled to know why the period of seven years has been chosen. Why not five, or why not nine? So far as this House is concerned, this seems a purely arbitrary figure. I know there is some charm in the number seven, but I do not see that it has any particular application to this Clause. The very wording of this Clause shows what a complicated matter the holding of land is. When you come to deal with land, as you do in this Clause, then you begin to hear of—
conditions and covenants as before the easement was so acquired.That is a little object lesson. You cannot even have a small pier built by the Admiralty without taking into account the question of easements. There is a great deal more in the question of easements than hon. Members are aware of. If I were so minded there are many useful lessons that could be drawn from the discussion of this word "easement." It almost invariably means that there is someone in possession, either a ground landlord or some board or elected authority—and there is nothing like the never-ending audacity of elected persons; it is more tyrannical than a private owner. It is almost exactly the same problem that you get in a coal easement.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is not entitled on a Clause of this kind to raise a general discussion on the word "easement."
§ Mr. BOOTHThe point with regard to this is that in a work of this kind, which I presume is for the public good, you cannot make any headway without taking into consideration this question of easement, although in this case it comes from the Humber Conservancy Board. I wanted to draw the general lesson that there is the same obstacle—
§ Mr. BOOTHThen I will draw attention to the particular lesson which is contained here. This is a particular instance of the position when you are carrying out something quite useful and you find that you have to consider obeying and acknowledging the authority of the Humber Conservancy Board over any portion of the bed and foreshore of the Humber. Is it reasonable that in considering the North Killingholme Pier something useful to the Admiralty—we should have to be bothering our heads with regard to the bed and foreshore of the Humber? The Government have not explained what connection the foreshore of the Humber has with this particular work. Who is the owner of the foreshore of the Humber? In whom is the foreshore of the Humber vested? Why is it that better terms could not be obtained? The Admiralty seem to have been in a great difficulty, and I should have thought, this was rather a clumsy way to get out of it. It would have been much simpler to put a definite sum in. When it comes to a definite period of years they can agree upon a definite figure—seven years—although they wanted no justification for showing that number; but when they come to the latter part they do not put in a definite sum. The last few words are the most important:—
"Any proportionate part of any rent charge."
We are entitled to some guidance. What is the rent charge of which we are to bear a proportionate part? How much is it? How long will it continue? Is it a ground rent? Is it a leasehold rent? Or exactly of what nature is it? Can any Member of the Government clear up the meaning of an obscure proviso like this? I draw the attention of the House to this fact: that this proviso contains twelve lines in one sentence. Any phrase like that is almost beyond any ordinary man to interpret, You are simply preparing for law suits of an expensive character. There is no necessity for bringing in a tremendously long sentence with only two commas.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member's remarks are not in the question of the merits of the Clause. It is within the experience of the House that such a sentence is of quite common occurrence.
§ Mr. BOOTHYes, it is of too common occurrence, and that is why I rise to protest against it. There is no necessity whatever for these long-winded sentences 2047 in Bills. They appear again and again, and I make an appeal to the Government on the draftsman to word Bills in future in a simple form and not in this way. It was simply meant to be passed in a hurry with the idea that the bulk of the Members need not take any trouble to object because it is a Government Bill.
§ Mr. COTTONmade a remark which was inaudible.