NAVY AND MARINES (WILLS) BILL. (Hansard, 10 April 1930)

§ Commander SOUTHBY
I must plead ignorance of the fact that His Majesty's sailors and marines laboured under so many disabilities as this Bill would appear to show. There must have been some reason for them, although I am ignorant of it and have never heard any complaint about them, while I was in the Service. The House would like to know something more about these disabilities.

§ Major LLEWELLIN
In my view, the Government, in this Bill, might well have repealed the whole of the Navy and Marines (Wills) Act, 1865. On what ground has the hon. Gentleman retained Section 5, which provides that a will made by a seaman or marine is not valid to pass any wages, prize money, bounty money or other money payable by the Admiralty or any effects or money in charge of the Admiralty unless it is made in accordance with English law. No such disability rests either upon the officers or the warrant officers of the Navy. Why should it rest upon our seamen and marines? They are entitled to these wages, which should be paid to them. What happens to those wages payable by the Admiralty? It seems to me that the seamen and marines should be put on the same footing as the officers and warrant officers. These provisions may have been quite proper in 1865, but why are they retained now? In this Section, the words which are to be altered are— Persons not being soldiers in actual military service or mariners or seamen at sea, 2513 and he is going to substitute— persons to whom Section eleven of the Wills Act, 1837, as amended by any subsequent enactment, does not apply. If one looks at the last Act, one finds exactly the same words as are here in Section 5, and, if one looks at the only other Act, the Soldiers and Sailors Wills Act, 1918, one finds that there is very little alteration in that Measure. I know that in the explanatory Memorandum of this Bill it is said that a reprint incorporating the Amendments made by the Bill will be issued by the Admiralty for use in the Service, and I ask the hon. Gentleman not to give the men just a bald statement referring them back to the Act of 1837, which very few of them will have facilities to acquire, but to explain to them what the Act of 1837, as altered by the Act of 1918, actually means in common English, and not in the English of the lawyers. The third point on which I should like to have an answer is why Section 6 of the Act of 1865 is still necessary, because that says: Notwithstarding anything in this Act or any other Act, a will made after the commencement of this Act by a seaman or marine while he is a prisoner of war shall be valid for all purposes if made in conformity with the following provisions. In the Act of 1865 these provisions are not alternatives; the three provisions are just set out, and, as a matter of fact, they are contradictory. One is that it shall be in accordance with English law; another is that it shall be in accordance with the law of the country in which it is made; and the third is that it must he acknowledged by a witness, who must be either a commissioned officer, or a warrant officer of the Navy. Why is this Section still necessary in the case of sailors or marines, when it is not necessary in the case of soldiers or airmen? It is, I think, quite settled law that a soldier or airman is on active service if he is a prisoner of war and if a man is on active service, he need not make a written will at all. He can make an oral will, and, if properly proved in the Courts, it will pass all his belongings just as well as a written will. If the hon. Gentleman is repealing practically the whole of the Act of 1865, is he leaving these two Sections? He is repealing Section 7, which is the one Section which allows the Admiralty, in the case of no will having been made in accordance with this Act, 2514 to pay any wages due. If the hon. Gentleman is leaving any Sections of this Act at all, he ought to leave one which gives the Admiralty the right to pay to the relatives of a man what is due to him. If the hon. Gentleman keeps in the original sections of this Act he certainly ought to retain Section 7. Those are the four points on which I would like the hon. Member to give me a reply.

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon)
The short point is that the Act of 1865 requires a testamentary declaration to be made by men in the Royal Navy and in the Marines such as is not required of other citizens. That arose 12 m. out of the old time feeling, for which there may have been some justification, that sailors required additional protection in these matters. It was felt that they were open to certain influences, and that they might be made the subject of fraud, and therefore these requirements were laid down. With the spread of education and with the different type of men we now get in the Navy it is felt that this protection is no longer necessary and it is proposed that they should he placed on all fours with other members of the community; in future it will not be necessary for them always to have their wills attested by an officer or some other qualified person, but other witnesses may act. As to the position of officers, it was felt at the time that they were not in need of the same protection as the men, and no special requirements were laid down in their case. The hon. Member also raised the point of why it was necessary to alter the words which are in Section 11 of the Act of 1837. We are doing that on the recommendation of our legal advisers, who say that it is far better that the wording should be amended. Regarding his further point relating to Section 6, we retain that because certain relaxations may be necessary in the case of prisoners of war, who may not be in a position to get the requisite persons to sign their testamentary declarations although one responsible person may be available. The wills of men who die after the passing of this Act will come under it. The position will not be worse on this account. As regards Section 7, I am advised that there is not much point in its retention. We are concerned with 2515 removing those provisions of the old Act which bear hardly on seamen and marines and place them at a disadvantage as compared with other citizens. There is no more in it than that. In order that the men should know how they are affected, form F 545 will be issued to give them the necessary guidance. They can fill it up and will be safeguarded as regards their testamentary declarations.

§ Major LLEWELLIN
By the change which is now suggested it seems to me that it is not so clear what is meant when you refer the marines and the sailors back to another Act of Parliament. I hope they will be given a clear explanation of what is meant. If it is thought necessary in the case of seamen and marines, not in the case of their private property, but only in relation to money payable by the Admiralty, to have the 2516 will in a certain form, it seems to me that some further consideration should be given to the necessity of leaving, in Section 7 under which the Admiralty can waive these formalities.

§ Mr. AMMON
The form has been prepared in a way which makes the position quite clear.