CLAUSE 1.—(Execution of Instruments on behalf of Commissioners of Woods.) (Hansard, 25 June 1913)

§ Mr. C. BATHURST
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "may" ["which they or he is a party may"], to insert the words "if and when sealed with the seal of the Department."
I must confess that in submitting this Amendment I feel some little difficulty, because after considerable research I am not able to ascertain whether the Department possesses a seal. I find that by Section 35 of the original Crown Lands Act of 1829 the Commissioners "shall 1155 execute all instruments under their hands and seal," but, if it is the fact that there is no Departmental seal, it will only be a waste of time if I move this Amendment. I, however, just formally move it in order to ascertain whether such a seal exists.

§ Mr. BOOTH
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman)
The Amendment will be of no use to the Department or those who have dealings with the Department, because the Department is not in possession of what is known as an "official seal."

§ Mr. BATHURST
I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Mr. BATHURST
I beg to move, after the word "by" ["may be executed by any secretary"], to insert the words "either of the permanent."
A consequential Amendment will be necessary to leave out the word "secretary" and to insert the word "secretaries," so that the Sub-section will read: "Any instrument requiring to be executed by the Commissioners of Woods…may be executed by either of the permanent secretaries of His Majesty's Office of Woods." If there is no official seal of the Department, it becomes all the more important for the protection of those who may derive title under any document purporting to originate with the Office of Woods that it should be made perfectly clear who is the person executing the document and that he is a responsible official of the Department. It appears that there are at the present time two permanent secretaries of the Office of Woods, and, as this Bill is framed, any secretary—he might be a locum tenens or a temporary secretary, and even the secretary of the Minister who supervises the Department—would be authorised to execute such document, and his execution would be sufficient to give for all time a validity to that conveyance or other instrument. It is in order to protect future derivative interests that I beg to move this Amendment. It is in order to secure that the signatory shall be some responsible official of the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presides.

§ Sir W. ESSEX
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Mr. RUNCIMAN
I am prepared to accept the Amendment in substance, but I would point out to the hon. Gentleman and the House that although their are two permanent secretaries at the present time, their might conceivably in future be only one, and in that case the words of the Amendment would not exactly fit the case. If I might make a suggestion, it would be that we should leave in the word "any" and insert "permanent," so that it would read "any permanent secretary," and that would apply if we had two permanent secretaries or only one.

§ Mr. BATHURST
That would meet my point, and I desire, with your approval, to submit it in that form.

§ Mr. BATHURST
(who had upon the Order Paper an Amendment in Sub-section (2) to leave out the words "until the contrary is proved"): It has been pointed out to me that if those words are omitted it might operate against the bonâ fide purchaser. I quite see that it might conceivably have that effect, and, therefore, I do not desire to move the Amendment. I beg to move to leave out the word "without," and to insert instead thereof the words "but subject, if required, to." If this Amendment is carried the Sub-section will read: "Any instrument purporting to be so executed shall, until the contrary is proved, be deemed to have been duly executed by the Commissioners of Woods but subject if required to proof of the official character or handwriting of the person appearing to have executed it." I lay stress upon this Amendment not merely in the interests of the bonâ fide purchaser of property, the title of which has originated with the Crown, but in the interests of persons who may find themselves prejudiced by imposters who purport to convey to them, or attempt to agree for the sale of, property when they themselves have forged a signature purporting to be that of one of the permanent secretaries of the Board. It would, as this Section is framed at the present time, be wholly impossible for such a person after perusal of the abstract of title to call for proof of the official character of the person 1157 purporting to sign on behalf of the Government Department. It would be very unusual to say that such a person when he attempts to trace back the title must be satisfied with the appearance on a certain document of a name which may be that of a person who has been at some time or other a permanent secretary of the Board. It is in order to protect the bonâ fide purchaser for value, against imposters, that I desire to move this Amendment. I should like to draw attention to the fact that in the Crown Lands Act of 1829, which is one of the most important Acts to which reference is made in Sub-section (2) any person forging the name or the handwriting of a Commissioner of Woods is deemed to be guilty of a felony. I do not know quite what effect this Bill will have upon that provision, but it seems to me that, although under the existing law anyone attempting to forge, or actually forging, the right hon. Gentleman's signature would be guilty of felony, a permanent secretary purporting to sign a document on his behalf and thereby forging such document would be free from the provisions of this Section.

§ Mr. RUNCIMAN
This is a matter more for practising lawyers than administrators, but I am informed by those who have had experience in these matters that if we insert the words suggested we shall be putting a burden on the purchaser instead of relieving him. In the case of a sale in the second stage the vendor would be in the position of having to produce proof, it might be at great legal expense, without giving any greater guarantee of security to the person who is going to buy the property. I am told that it would add to the conveyancing expenses, which I certainly have no desire to do by this or any other Bill. The words which the hon. Member quoted from the Crown Lands Act, 1829, I believe, apply equally strictly to the Permanent and to the Under-Secretaries, and I am advised that any fraudulent signature of the Permanent Secretary would render the forger subject to the severest penalties. The safeguards which the hon. Gentleman asked for would not be in the interests of purchasers of Crown Lands, but would only add to the expense of conveyancing, whereas the safeguards which at present exist appear to me to be sufficient.

§ Mr. C. BATHURST
Would he be sufficiently protected if the vendor or the purporting vendor were in fact an impostor?

§ Mr. RUNCIMAN
It is not a question of forgery in the second or third degree. All I suggest is that the provision against forgery of any kind is sufficient, and I therefore think it unnecessary to accept this Amendment.

§ Mr. WEDGWOOD
I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
It seems to me that we ought not to discuss legal points of this nature without the presence of the Law Officers, and, in view of their absence, and of the indication given us by the Home Secretary earlier in the day that only three Bills, which we have already passed, would be discussed, I think we might have the support of the Government to a Motion for the adjournment of the Debate on this Bill. At the same time, while we are discussing that Motion, we might get some information as to whether the Government intend to proceed with any other business this evening, or whether they will be content if this Bill goes through. There is another contentious Bill on the Paper, the Herring Fishery (Branding) Bill, and I think it is most undesirable, after the statement from the Home Secretary to which I have referred, and seeing that the three Bills have already been passed, we should be subjected to the possibility of other Bills of a contentious character being unexpectedly thrust down our throats. The Herring Fishery (Branding) Bill contains a doubtful precedent, that of throwing the onus of proof on a person who is charged. I think the Government might well adjourn the Debate under these circumstances, rather than persist in opposing Amendments and trying to force Bills through.

§ Mr. BOOTH
seconded the Motion.

§ Mr. C. BATHURST
Although unconvinced by the arguments adduced by the right hon. Gentleman, I have no desire to press the Amendment.