§ This Act shall not apply in the case of a testator dying before the Commencement of this Act.—[The Attorney-General.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ 12.6 p.m.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time"
This second new Clause which I am offering to the House provides for the commencement of the Bill when it becomes law. At present there is nothing to say, or at any rate there is nothing clear to say, when precisely it will come into operation. It is dealt with in Clause 6 after a fashion, where the expression "testator" is defined in a particular way, but I do not think it is quite satisfactory in that form. It is much better that everybody should understand when the Bill is to come into operation. I am bound to say that I have had a great number of letters, as no doubt my hon. Friend opposite in charge of the Bill has, from people whose expectations have been raised very high indeed by this Bill. I have been asked to give directions that the Bill shall apply to estates which were subject to testamentary disposition as long ago as the nineties of the last century, but I have informed my correspondents that, although I have a great many powers, they are not so far-reaching as that, and I have told them that they had much better communicate with my hon. Friend opposite, who would perhaps put it into his Bill. Subject to any proposal of that sort, I suggest if only in order to give the House an opportunity of considering when the Bill should begin, that it should be made not to apply in the case of any testator who may have died before the Bill receives the Royal Assent. I do not know whether my hon. Friend agrees with me or not on that point.
§ 12.8 p.m.
§ Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNEIn my ignorance I should have thought the Clause to which my right hon. And 2034 learned Friend has referred, namely, Clause 6, made it perfectly clear that the Bill as an Act would not apply until the end of the present year. If he, however, with his very much greater knowledge, is in a position to tell the House that his Clause is necessary, I have nothing to say. To my lay mind it seems unnecessary, but I am prepared to accept it on the statement of the Attorney-General that it is necessary. I would only add that I am very pleased to hear that my right hon. and learned Friend has asked his correspondents to send their suggestions to me. I can tell him that the one suggestion to which he referred, with regard to the nineties, has not yet reached me, but I have had many requests to bring the Bill into operation, in such a way that it would deal with estates which were closed at least 20 years ago, so that my experience is very similar to that of my right hon. and learned Friend, and the amount of correspondence to which it has given rise is very great indeed.
§ 12.9 p.m.
§ Mr. RHYS DAVIESIt is very difficult for a layman to enter into a legal argument, but I always understood that no Act of Parliament could be made retrospective, and I think this Clause is reasonable from that angle. Having said that, I always thought the hon. Gentleman who is responsible for this Bill wanted a Measure of this kind to be passed into law in order to remove hardships that prevailed at the moment. Unless I am mistaken, this Bill was brought before Parliament because of certain hardships that exist now, and it seems to me, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman is once again too ready to accept the opinion of the learned Attorney-General. I do not mind the opinions of the right hon. and learned Gentleman on law, but on politics I do not think we should accept them.
I would ask the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether it is not a fact that the hardships which brought this Bill into being will still remain among us in spite of the passing of this Measure. I should have thought that at any rate the Bill might be made retrospective to a given date, say, for one or two years in order to clear up those cases. This is a private Member's Bill, and we are all entitled 2035 to give our opinions on it, but I do not know whether it is too late to ask the learned Attorney-General to consider whether it is possible not to make the Bill retrospective for 20 or 30 years. There are one or two cases on record which are really very terrible in this connection, and I should have thought the Government would have made the Bill retrospective just to include them.
§ 12.12 p.m.
§ Sir J. WITHERSI think the last speaker has not quite considered what he said, because the Bill deals with the distribution of estates, and although we lawyers are very slow, we have not held up the distribution of estates for five or six years if we could avoid it. What has happened is that such estates have already been divided up in accordance with the wishes of the testators. It would be very nice to make this retrospective, but in that case you would have to call in all these estates, and the executors would have to redistribute them according to the terms of this Measure.
§ Mr. DAVIESDoes the hon. Member mean to say that the estate of a rich man who died two months ago will have been cleared up already by the lawyers?
§ Sir J. WITHERSNot two months ago, but I understood the hon. Member to say some years ago. The Bill might be made to refer back, say, to the beginning of this year, but that is not the evil which I understood he wishes to cure. He wishes to cure some cases in which estates have been distributed already, unjustly as he thinks. It is not a practical suggestion that where an estate has already been distributed, you should call it back and redistribute it.
§ 12.13 p.m.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENThis Bill introduces an extraordinary principle into the jaw of this country. A man who leaves money has the right to the disposal of it, but the whole question only applies to a very small section of the community, because I regret to say that the majority of the population die without leaving any money behind them at all. My father used to say that the greatest endowment a father could give to his son was to throw him entirely on his own resources, and that he then always made good, 2036 whereas once he got a substantial portion it was another matter. As an hon. Member said the other day about great expectations, those who were waiting for dead men's shoes had great difficulty in making good. I remember a very distinguished professional secretary with a very large business, and I commented upon the capacity of a young man who was doing some work for him in which I was interested. He replied, "He has the advantage that he is the son of a gentleman, and he has not got a penny in the world. It is a rigid rule in this office that we never take a young man in whose father has any money, because you can never get any work out of such a young man." The fact has always impressed me that it is a very difficult thing for wealthy people to bring up their children.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. and learned Member's remarks are very interesting, but they are not related to the Clause before the House.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENI will come to the Bill.
Viscountess ASTORMay I say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is difficult but not impossible to bring up your children to work, even if they have a wealthy home.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENI bow to the opinion which the noble lady has expressed. I agree that it is difficult; almost impossible is nearly the same thing as impossible, and when the noble Lady and I are in agreement on one of these occasions, it must make both of us doubt whether we can possibly be right. This Bill is for the purpose of altering a man's testimentary dispositions. We have had some experience of that in Scotland—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. and learned Member is not speaking to the Clause, which deals with the case of a testator dying before the commencement of the Act.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENI am sorry; I was late in coming in. I thought it was the question of the passing of the Bill. I hope that I shall have an opportunity of resuming my speech later.
§ 12.18 p.m.
§ Mr. TURTONMight I ask the learned Attorney-General to reconsider the 2037 Clause? So far as I understand what is intended, at a later point he is going to delete the interpretation at the beginning of Clause 6. As there is no other definition as to when this Bill comes into force, will not the effect be to make the Bill come into force earlier than my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) intended? Much as we like the provisions of the Bill, there are a great many administrative and legal difficulties involved. Is it a wise thing to make this Bill suddenly come into force, probably about Whitsuntide? Would it not be far wiser to make it operate from the beginning of January, 1935? I maintain that there is a parallel in my Bill, which was introduced last year—the Summary Jurisdiction (Appeals) Bill—which was passed at the same time of the year that this Bill is evidently going to be passed, and did not come into operation till January. Surely, the revolution in practice is much greater in this Bill than it was in that Bill. That is one consideration I would ask the learned Attorney-General to consider about this Clause.
There is another consideration. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster defines the word "testator" in the Bill. If we follow the suggestion of the learned Attorney-General to take out that definition there will be no definition in the Bill. The promoter had some very good reason for defining "testator," because he wishes to put something in as to an intestator. I think the word "testator" is rather a mistake in this Bill. For those reasons I would ask the House to consider carefully before they agree to this Clause, the very great difficulty in carrying it out, for I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend will agree with me that this Bill is not an easy Measure to carry out, and probably a most expensive one. Therefore, I think it most unwise for the House to accept this Clause unless we get some assurance that the Act will not come into force until 1st January, 1935, and I hope that there will be, either in this House or when the Bill goes to another place, an adequate definition of the word "testator" which will include all the conditions my hon. Friend the promoter included in his original Bill.
§ 12.22 p.m.
§ Mr. MAITLANDI am always interested, and I am sure the House is, when the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) intervenes in our Debates. He is amusing and entertaining Perhaps he is most effective when he is entertaining, but I hope that the House will not assume that this is a Bill in which only legal Members should take part. At least one or two hon. Members who, like myself, are not connected with the law, are taking an interest in this Measure, and I hope that other hon. Members will show interest and take part in the various matters which are raised. Of course, we always have a certain diffidence in attempting to intervene in debates which are couched in purely legal terms. I would like to refer to the suggestion of the hon. Member opposite first of all to make legislation retrospective. That is a dangerous principle.
Might I look at his suggestion from another point of view—that of an accountant. It is of course, well known that accountants have a great deal to do with the distribution of estates. My hon. Friend with, perhaps, some justification, referred to the reputation that members of the legal profession have that they are dilatory or wanting in the quality of acceleration. Speaking from an accountant's point of view, I hope that the same charge cannot be made with justification against accountants. I would point out that there are many cases where an estate is distributed within a very few months, and if the hon. Member's suggestion that there should be retrospective legislation were put into force, it would, in practice and in fact, create serious difficulties. In trying to cover one or two exceptional cases, he would also cover a large number of other estates, including smaller estates, which have been distributed, and where it would be utterly impossible for the assets to be followed. I, therefore, hope that he will not press his suggestion, although I appreciate the significance of it.
The suggestion of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), that the date upon which the Bill should come into operation should be a later date than that suggested by the learned Attorney-General, is, I think, worthy of 2039 consideration. There are serious objections to certain parts of this Measure. There is an objection. to the fact that a small estate might be the subject of litigation which is entirely outside the scope and intention of the promoters of the Bill. It is therefore very important before any measure of this kind is put into operation that there should be a reasonable time in order that the public can be informed exactly what the Measure is intended to do. I therefore support with pleasure my hon. Friend and hope the date will be some date later than December, 1934, and certainly not before.
§ 12.25 p.m.
§ Mr. MOLSONI rise to ask the Attorney-General to make clear what will be the effect of paragraph (b)of the new Clause which has been accepted on this proposed new Clause. As I understand, it means that in cases where a man dies intestate this Bill will have no operation and that, if he leaves a will in which he disposes of some portion of his estate and the rest is intestate, that will go to the next of kin and that in that case also the matter will not arise. I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will make that clear, because I thought that under the new Clause which we have accepted the Bill would have no application in cases of intestature.
§ 12.27 p.m.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMSI hope we may have a definition from the Front Bench on this matter of "testator" in order to clear up the confusion in the minds of one or two people as to the difference between testators and intestators. When we have two or three lawyers speaking on these Bills I feel that other hon. Members must act as a jury. They explain something which is often done so much better by a layman, except in the case of the learned Attorney-General. I would like to comment on the very dangerous speech of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies). He said he wanted to make the Bill retrospective. We do not as a general rule make Bills retrospective. He wanted it to be made retrospective in regard to certain cases for a few years. Has he any authority from the leaders of his party for making a statement of that kind? Has he 2040 consulted his hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) as to what happens when we begins to make Bills retrospective?
§ Mr. RHYS DAVIESIf the hon. Gentleman listened attentively to what I said he would know that I made it clear that this is a private Member's Bill and that we all speak our own minds on it.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSI understand that position, for I was listening as I always do to his speeches when I stay here. Although he spoke with the voice of a Private Member, he is sitting on the Front Bench, and I have always held that there should be a difference between the authority to be attached to a Front Bench speech and that of a Back bench speech. The House should have its attention drawn to the fact that the hon. Member who is acting as leader of the Opposition to-day wishes, with no contradiction from his Party behind him, to make this legislation retrospective. It is essential in these matters to have a definite date for the Bill. I do not like this proposed new Clause, for I think it would be much better if the Bill were kept as it is, and it came into operation at the end of the year. I do not like the wobbling attitude of my hon. Friend who is in charge of the Bill. The Measure interferes with the right of people making wills. If it passes, as I hope it will, we should give the ordinary person who wishes to adjust any error that has been made in the will a chance to do so. He should be given reasonable time—five or six months—to do it. This Bill will affect a great number of people, and they should be able to receive the advice of their legal advisers as to any changes that should be made in order to make their wills in accordance with the Bill. Six months is not too long a time for that to be done. My hon. Friend was wise in his original intention, because it gave time for any changes to be made. If the Bill is put into operation too quickly, it will lead to cases of legal dispute.
§ Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNEMy hon. Friend suggests that I have wobbled a little in connection with this particular Clause. I have not yet dealt with the conditions of Clause 6. We have not yet reached that point. There are two matters raised in that Clause.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSI never for a moment thought that with regard to Clause 6, and it would not have been in order if I had brought it in. I feel inclined to vote against the new Clause. I like to feel that anything that comes from the Government is good, but on this occasion I feel, with great regret, obliged to ask my hon. Friend to stand firm on his original position. There is a further point as to whether the Home Office comes in under this particular provision. It would be awkward if this Bill led to some trouble which might affect that Department.
§ 12.34 p.m.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALMy hon. Friend opposite, I am afraid, will have to make up his mind whether he agrees with the new Clause now proposed or whether he prefers Clause 6 as it stands in its present form. He led me to think that he proposed to make the best of both Clauses.
§ Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNEThe point about Clause 6 is that it contains a definition which is not covered by the new Clause. It will have to be considered when Clause 6 is reached. That is a different thing from the point in regard to the date on which the Bill should come into operation
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALReally my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension when he says the Amendment to leave out the definition in Clause 6 will have to be considered. If he means that when it comes to be considered the House can leave the so-called definition in the Bill after it has accepted this new Clause, that would be to make sheer nonsense of the thing.
§ Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNEThe right hon. and learned Gentleman has put down an Amendment to Clause 6 which proposes to leave out the definition regarding such portions of an estate as come within the meaning of "intestate" and that will be dealt with. I have accepted my hon. Friend's Amendment regarding the date.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALI desire to say no more, because my hon. Friend is in charge of the Bill and he will take his own course, and will advise the House to do what he thinks proper, but, for what it is worth, I tender my advice to the House, and the point is simply this. 2042 The Clause which my hon. Friend has called the definition Clause describes the testator as a person who dies after the 31st December, 1934. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk (Mr. Turton) pointed out that in certain circumstances my own suggested date will be an earlier date than 31st December, 1934. It is for the House to say whether it prefers the date 31st December, 1934, or the date when the Bill becomes law by receiving the Royal Assent, or some later date, or some intermediate date. My proposal is made in the interests of clarity. It is very desirable that the public, especially the unlearned public, shall have in this Bill a very clear definition as to the testators to whom it will apply. At present that information is tucked away in obscure language in a definition of "testator", but it is only a definition used in connection with the date, and not a definition of a testator apart from the question of the date of his death. If my Clause is accepted this definition will not be required.
My hon. Friend opposite will advise the House as he thinks fit and make his own decision. I put forward this Clause to give the House the opportunity of saying what date is preferred, the 31st December, 1934, or the date when the Bill becomes law, or some other date. So far as the definition of testator is concerned, somebody has suggested that we want a definition, but I submit that we do not. A testator is a person who leaves a will or testament. The fact that he does not dispose of some of his property does not prevent him from being a testator. Somebody has invented an expression which I have never heard—"intestator." That may be a Yorkshire expression. But, for once, "testator" means what it says, and I do not think any definition is wanted apart from this question as to which class of testators are to be covered by the Bill—people who die after the Bill passes or people who die after the 31st December, 1934.
§ Mr. TURTONFrankly I think that most lawyers in the House will prefer my right hon. and learned Friend's way of dealing with this to that of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne). At the same time I am not alone in wanting this Bill not to come into operation until January, 1935. 2043 Perhaps now, or in another place, the Attorney-General would so alter the wording that it shall be quite clear that the Act will not come into force until 1st January, 1935. I quite agree that it is a monstrous thing that the date of operation should be tucked away in a corner where nobody can find it.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALIf the hon. Gentleman desires that date to be put in it is for him or somebody to move that the words should be "1st January, 1935," instead of the words "the commencement of this Act". I cannot undertake to do that in another place. My duties in connection with this Bill are very limited. I do not know who will be in charge of it in another place, and now is the time.
§ 12.40 p.m.
§ Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNEThere is no question in the minds of the promoters that a proper date is a date such as the 1st January, 1935, or the 31st December, 1934. My right hon. and learned Friend put before the House the advantages of bringing the Act into operation at once, and I said that if that was the legal view I should have no objection to that, but I am still in favour of the words in the Bill. I had been advised that there was a further point in Clause 6 which would have to be dealt with, but the right hon. Gentleman now tells me that that is not necessary. We are dealing at the moment, however, with the date only, and if the object of the Amendment is to bring the Act into operation immediately it receives the Royal Assent instead of the 1st January, 1935, I think the House would prefer the words in the Bill.
§ 12.41 p.m.
§ Mr. DENMANI think the motion before us is that this Clause be read a Second time, and, if that were got out of the way, it would be in order to move an Amendment to leave out of the new Clause the words "the commencement of the Act" and to insert the words "1st January, 1935." That would produce the effect which a great many Members of this House want. The House hears such a variety of speeches from the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) that I am not sure whether hon. Members appreciated the real importance of the 2044 argument which he included in his last speech, and that is the importance of giving testators time to look round. This Measure will produce a great change in the law, and people who have executed a will will not, perhaps, tumble immediately to the effects of the change, and six months is not too long a time to enable them to take stock of the new position. The interests of lawyers and others have been freely referred to this morning, but not so much the interests of testators. I think the least we can do is give them a full six months to revise such documents as they may have made.
§ Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
§ 12.43 p.m.
§ Mr. TURTONI beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 1, to leave out "commencement of this Act," and to insert "first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-five."
This is a manuscript Amendment, and I do not think I need to argue it, because the House is fully seized of the problem, and I feel we can agree with the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) that an opportunity ought to be provided for testators who may think of bringing their wives back into the fold of their wills to do so.
§ Mr. DENMANI beg to second the Amendment.
§ 12.44 p.m.
§ Mr. RHYS DAVIESIf all wills made in this country were to be affected by this Bill I should agree with the Amendment, but I always understood that it will affect only a very small number of wills. If the date 1st January, 1935, is included no will up to then will be affected. On this question of the date, I would point out the difference in the attitude of the Government towards the same question in another Bill. They are introducing a Bill next Monday to commence on 1st January, 1936, so far as young children are concerned. This Bill, of course is only concerned with a quarrel between the rich people of this country, and nothing else.
§ Mr. DAVIESThis Bill has arisen because some people have too much money 2045 to give away. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name"] If we had a Socialist State, this Bill would not be necessary.
§ Mr. MOLSONAre we to understand that in the happy Socialist State of the future there is to be no inheritance at all?
§ Mr. DAVIESIn the proper order of society these problems cannot arise.
§ Mr. DAVIESI imagine that the Attorney-General has put the date in the Bill for the sake of security and clarity. Might I ask the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) one thing? It is the intention of the Bill to deal with cases of very great hardship. Why are we asked that it should come into operation on the 1st January, 1935, when some of those very hard cases may arise immediately upon the passing of the Bill? If the Bill is necessary, it ought to be available so that cases may be dealt with immediately upon the passing of the Bill.
§ 12.47 p.m.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENThe hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) has given the key-note why this manuscript Amendment should be accepted. He says that very few wills would be affected by the Bill. I think that that is so. The position contemplated by this Bill is an unnatural one which very seldom arises, but if you put it off until January, 1935, the wills will be put in order, and there will be no cases. If you give a reasonable time, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), a man who has unnaturally disinherited his lawful wedded wife and his children will say to himself, "I find I cannot do it. I must go and put my will in order," and he will go and put his will in order. That will be a disaster for my profession, because he will not have to go to court about it, and a strain upon a very deserving class will be avoided. The way to avoid it is to put in the proposed words, "January, 1935." I do not gamble and I will not be affected by the Betting Bill, but I would be prepared to bet that there will be none of this class of will in existence, because they will all be put in order, if this Amendment is inserted.
§ 12.49 p.m.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMSThe hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) has confirmed my opinion that, as I told the House just now, there will be less work for lawyers, and that is the reason why the Amendment should be accepted by the House. I congratulate the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) most sincerely upon his agreement with my view.
§ Mr. DENMANIt was due to the hon. Member's lucidity, which made it impossible to mistake his meaning.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSMy only object in rising on this occasion is to express the hope that the Amendment will be accepted, as it will meet the whole of the difficulties which have arisen between the promoters of the Bill and the Attorney-General. If they can be dealt with in this way, we shall be able to get on with the Bill and perform a useful morning's work. If this Amendment is accepted, it will smooth out of the way all the real difficulties in the Bill.
§ 12.50 p.m.
§ Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNEFor the reasons which I gave a moment ago, I am perfectly willing to accept this Amendment. I have always thought that time should be given for the ground to be prepared. The experience of other countries shows that the result of legislation of this sort is not a large amount of new litigation, but on the contrary it has very often led to the making of just wills. It is desirable that time should be given for the preparation of the new conditions. I am afraid that what has been said from the Socialist Benches regarding the rich is also not quite accurate. We find in practice that this is not a question of the wills of rich people at all. Most of these very hard cases arise out of very small wills. People may build up a business together, and from inadvertence or from spite some change is made at the last moment, very often against the woman or the man who has been the partner in building up the business. Hon. Members must not be led into thinking that we are dealing with rich people; we are dealing with all classes, and probably more with the lower middle-class than with any other.
§ 12.52 p.m.
§ Mr. LECKIEI oppose the Amendment. This morniz we have heard very useful arguments in favour of the [...] being brought into force at the earliest possible moment. We all hope that the Bill will be passed by the end of July, and in that case there will be five months left before 1st January. In view of what the Attorney-General has said about the correspondence he has received and of the correspondence which has also been received by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne), it is very desirable that the Bill should be brought into force at the earliest possible moment. There is no adequate reason why it should be postponed to 1st January. Although I do not wish to be disloyal to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster, who has done so much and acted so wisely in promoting this Bill, I must support the Attorney-General, and I hope that the new Clause will be accepted.
§ 12.54 p.m.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALSpeaking for myself, I should have thought that if this were a good Bill, and if the hon. Member for Kidderminster believed in his Bill, he would agree with me that it should be brought into force at the earliest possible moment. Apparently, he thinks less of this Bill than I do.
§ Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNEIt has nothing to do with thinking well of the Bill. It may be desirable to give time for people to know about it.
§ 12.55 p.m.
§ Mr. W. S. MORRISONThose who support this Amendment forget that it cuts both ways. It will be possible for a testator, the effects of whose enmity, vindictiveness and spite this Bill is trying to cure, to cut people out when the Bill is passed by making over his estate in the form of a debt which will be a first charge upon the assets of the estate when he dies. My hon. Friends who seek to give the testator time to make a just will by postponing the operation of the Bill till the 1st January next are at the same moment giving the vindictive testator the opportunity of taking legal measures to prevent the Bill from affecting him. I see no answer to the proposition that, if this is an evil which we desire to remedy, it ought to be 2048 remedied at once, and, far from the Amendment giving the testator an opportunity to make a just will, if he [...] just motive in his mind it will give the same testator, with that unjust motive, an opportunity for making his motive effective, to the detriment of his wife and family. Accordingly, I shall resist the Amendment.
§ 12.56 p.m.
§ Mr. CROOM-JOHNSONI desire to adopt the same attitude as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison). It seems to me that, if there is some deficiency in the existing law which is resulting in a number of people suffering real hardship, the manifest duty of this House, when it decides to amend that law, is to see that the hardship is removed at the earliest possible moment. I express no opinion—and, indeed, I should probably be out of Order in expressing any opinion—as to whether the precise form of this Bill is the right way to achieve the object, but, assuming that it is going to be put into shape, it seems to me that the right thing to do is to see that it is brought into force at the earliest possible moment. For these reasons I shall support the Clause which has been moved by the Attorney-General, and shall oppose the Amendment.
§ 12.57 p.m.
§ Mr. JANNERI desire to add a few words in agreement with the last two speakers. It appears to me that, if we intend to carry this Measure into effect, we ought to take the earliest opportunity of putting its provisions into practice, and I believe that people who have already studied the reports which have been published will have had ample opportunity of finding out, from the papers and from the general information which is going about, whether a Measure of this nature is likely to be passed or not. I cannot understand why it should be argued that there should be any delay in this matter at all. If a person wishes to change his will, he can do so in a few hours. A person who is vindictive is very likely to find out quickly what has happened in regard to a Measure of this kind, and will take such steps as are necessary without waiting until the 1st January next year; or, on the other hand, he may wait until the day before 2049 the 1st January, in the hope, I will not say that he may die, but in the hope that if he does die his vicious intentions may be carried out in spite of the fact that such a Measure is likely to come into operation later. In these circumstances, I think the House ought to accept the Clause.
§ 12.58 p.m.
§ Mr. SPENSI desire to support the Amendment. I am always frightened lest hard cases may make bad law. We have to remember that many people in this country have made provision for their wives and families otherwise than by their will, and there may be nothing in their will relating to the surviving wife or one or more children. Obviously, if there is nothing in the will to that effect, there will be a primâ facie case for the particular person who has been left out to go to the courts and say that no reasonable provision has been made. In the case of persons of this sort, many of them belonging to the lower middle class, who make provision outside their will for one particular charge, or perhaps for a wife if they are living apart, or something of that sort, ample time ought to be given to enable them to understand what is intended by the Bill, and to afford them the opportunity of making some provision in their will or explaining why they have made no provision by their will, so that anyone who wants to take advantage of the Act cannot do so without the court being fully seized of all the facts relating to the case.
§ Mr. JANNERWould the hon. and learned Gentleman be good enough to tell us whether, in the event of a person consulting him under the provisions of the Bill in such circumstances as he has outlined, he would advise him to take the case or not?
§ Mr. SPENSI should advise anybody who had made no provision by his will for a wife or child to make a new will, and to put into the will the reason why he had not made such provision.
§ Mr. JANNERThat is not my point. Supposing that due provision had been made in his lifetime by the testator, would the hon. and learned Gentleman then, in view of the provisions of this Bill, advise a person who desired to contest the will to do so?
§ Mr. SPENSAs the Bill is at present drafted, it would entirely depend upon whether I was informed by that person that any due provision had been made. That is the whole point. With the Bill as it is at present drafted, the great difficulty would be to find out what, if any, provision had been made outside the will, and it is because, where people have made provision outside their will, there may be nothing in the will at the present moment relating to that particular member of their family, that I think they ought to have at least six months in which to make a new will.
§ 1.3 p.m.
§ Mr. KNIGHTI should like to say a few words as a friend of the Bill who understands the motives of a number of those who have taken part in this discussion. I want to advance the Bill. The immediate question before the House is whether the Bill should come into operation at the earliest possible date, and I want to commend to the House the view that that course should be taken. The Bill is designed to end a scandal which has affected a good many people for a good many years, and the practical consideration put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ash-ford (Mr. Spens) is that this delayed change in the law should be still further delayed, so that persons who are affected by it may be able to make further preparations to avoid it. The hon. and learned Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison) actually went so far as to propose a device by which this Measure could be defeated, and, as a matter of fact, that device can be used at any time, even if the Measure comes into operation. The creation of a charge to avoid the purposes of the Act will be open to anyone after the Act comes into operation if they choose to take that course, so that the hon. and learned Member is not, if he will allow me to say so, really assisting the House to get on with the Bill, but, on the contrary, is getting it off the Bill by making that suggestion. He reminds me of something that was said by a very great Member of this House—that the practice of the law was not calculated to liberalise the understanding; and, as I have listened to this discussion, a good deal of it has appeared to me to be an exemplification of that statement, especially the speech 2051 of the hon. and learned Member, whose constituency at the moment escapes me, whose desire seems to be to prevent any change in the law.
§ Mr. CROOM-JOHNSONThe hon. and learned Gentleman has no right to say anything of the sort. If he had followed the proceedings of the House he would have known that frequently I have raised my voice in favour of amending the law.
§ Mr. KNIGHTI was unable to indicate the hon. Member to whom I referred and, since the hon. and learned Gentleman apparently thinks that the description applies to him—
§ Mr. CROOM-JOHNSONThat really will not do. The hon. and learned Gentleman pointed deliberately at me. There are only two of us sitting on this bench. He said the name of my constituency escaped him. That I can well understand. If he did the decent thing, he would withdraw.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENOn a point of Order. Is it in Order for one Member of the House to point at another?
§ Mr. KNIGHTThe direction in which I was looking and pointing—I apologise if I was out of Order in pointing—happened to be a direction in which were sitting three learned counsel in the law, and the fact that one of those three gentlemen chooses to get up and accept for himself a description which I did not put upon him the House will judge in its own way. I was going to say, in conclusion, that I hope the House will follow the advice of the Attorney-General and enable this change to come in the law as speedily as possible.
§ 1.8 p.m.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENThe hon. and learned Gentleman says the tendency to follow the law does not liberalise the mind. In the case of some gentlemen who follow the law it seems to labourise the mind and not increase their intelligence. Most people hate to think of the way the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes and plunders their estates. I am glad to think that one of the reforms that has been introduced in Italy is that there are no Death Duties. A testator with a grown-up family may select one particular member of it and settle him in life with capital or in a business. Some may not 2052 want to consult lawyers, least of all learned counsel, and, if you do not give them reasonable time to turn round, there will be cases of very great hardship and fresh litigation which everyone wishes to avoid. After all, it is only a miserable minority of mankind, half-witted people, that the Bill is meant to deal with.
§ Mr. MAITLANDrose—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert)I think the hon. Member has exhausted his right.
§ 1.10 p.m.
§ Mr. MAITLANDNo, with great respect I have not spoken. I want to support the Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman below me has made a very powerful case, but let us test it. None of us desire that a person should make a will actuated by motives of vindictiveness or ill-will to his wife or family. A similar Bill to this was introduced by the hon. Lady the Member for the combined Universities (Miss Rathbone), and, in one speech, she took a rough and ready estimate of the number of people who might be affected by a Measure of the kind. She assumed—a figure which was not accepted in any sense as correct—that one out of every thousand might be regarded as a person who would be unjust. I will accept her figure for the purposes of my argument. It still leaves a vast number of just wills, and the House should be careful, in introducing what the Attorney-General has said is a very important change in the law and in attempting to remedy a grievance, that we do not inflict a greater hardship on a larger number of people.
There is on the Paper an Amendment which is very germane to this matter. It seeks to give to a testator the right to make a statutory declaration at the time that he makes his will as to the reasons why he does not make what the court may in the absence of such a declaration wrongly decide as to what is or is not reasonable provision for his wife and family. If that Amendment should be accepted as being in the general interest of a vast number of people, surely it would be a reasonable thing for the House to say, "We will give those people who are concerned an opportunity of explaining their reasons why they are making the provisions of 2053 their will in a certain way." If the Attorney-General's proposal is carried, there will be a large number of people making just wills who will have no opportunity of making a declaration. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) and his friends have shown a most persuasive desire to accept Amendments couched in terms calculated to help the purpose of the Bill. I am sure if they accept the Amendment they are helping to improve the Measure, and at the same time they are avoiding the possibility of doing grave injustice to a number of people who would otherwise suffer.
§ 1.13 p.m.
§ Mr. PIKEI support the Amendment, But on grounds which have not yet been put before the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman below me said that in
| Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to. |
§ his opinion the Bill was designed to put an end to scandal. Whether it is designed to do that or not, I believe its effect will be to put an end to personal liberty. The word "vindictiveness" has been mentioned many times. Many wills have been declared vindictive without any word having been written to show that they were vindictive. I support the Amendment because, if we say that the Bill shall not become operative until January, 1935, we shall at least give testators every opportunity of avoiding this continuous interference with their liberty to do as they like with their own.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Clause."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 75; Noes, 44.
2053| Division No. 221.] | AYES. | [1.15 p.m. |
| Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) | George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea) | Moreing, Adrian C. |
| Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton) | Goldie, Noel B. | Moss, Captain H. J. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) | Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. |
| Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J. | Groves, Thomas E. | Palmer, Francis Noel |
| Banfield, John William | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Pybus, Sir Percy John |
| Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.) | Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd) | Rathbone, Eleanor |
| Bernays, Robert | Holdsworth, Herbert | Rea, Walter Russell |
| Broadbent, Colonel John | Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. | Reid, William Allan (Derby) |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Rickards, George William |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Hume, Sir George Hopwood | Rosbotham, Sir Thomas |
| Cape, Thomas | Hurst, Sir Gerald B. | Rung, Norah Cecil |
| Carver, Major William H. | Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. | Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Llverp'l) |
| Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) | James, Wing-Com. A. W. H. | Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- |
| Copeland, Ida | Janner, Barnett | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart |
| Crooke, J. Smedley | Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) | Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles |
| Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro) | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Daggar, George | Kerr, Hamilton W. | Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford) |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Knight, Holford | Wallace, John (Dunfermilne) |
| Danville, Alfred | Leckie, J. A. | Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour |
| Dickie, John P. | Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.) | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| Dobbie, William | Lunn, William | Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.) |
| Edwards, Charles | McEntee, Valentine L. | Wilmot, John |
| Essenhigh, Reginald Clare | Magnay, Thomas | Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff) |
| Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen) | Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. | |
| Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) | Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Fuller, Captain A. G. | Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.) | Mr. W. S. Morrison and Mr. Croom-Johnson. |
| NOES. | ||
| Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. | Harves, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Rutherford, John (Edmonton) |
| Bailey, Eric Alfred George | Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) | Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart |
| Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) | Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Savery, Samuel Servington |
| Blaker, Sir Reginald | Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander | Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor) |
| Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.) | McKeag, William | Southby, Commander Archibald R. J. |
| Clarry, Reginald George | Macquisten, Frederick Alexander | Spans, William Patrick |
| Clayton, Sir Christopher | Maitland, Adam | Tate, Mavis Constance |
| Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry | Meller, Sir Richard James | Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale | Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S. |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr) | Warrender, Sir Victor A. G. |
| Davison, Sir William Henry | Nunn, William | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) |
| Galbraith, James Francis Wallace | Pike, Cecil F. | Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.) |
| George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) | |
| Greene, William P. C. | Remer, John R. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Grimston, R. V. | Ropner, Colonel L. | Mr. Turton and Mr. Denman. |
| Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Ross, Ronald D. |