HC Deb 22 June 1943 vol 390 cc1097-113
Mr. Hutchinson (Ilford)

I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, to leave out "all sources," and to insert "the land."

The purpose of this Amendment is to meet the case of the tenant for life whose income is derived partly from the settled estate and partly from other sources. As the Bill is drafted, the court is required to take into consideration, in determining whether it shall sanction the payment of maintenance expenses out of the capital of the settled fund, the income of the tenant for life derived from all sources. If this Amendment is adopted, that position will be changed, and the court will only be required to have regard to the income enjoyed by the tenant for life from the settled land. My hon. Friends and I have put down this Amendment because it seemed to us that, if the Bill passes as it is drafted and the court, in dealing with the matters with which it will have to deal under the Bill, is required to consider for this purpose the income which the tenant for life enjoys from all sources, that might result, in certain circumstances, in unfairness to the tenant for life; and in certain circumstances it might also result in unfairness to the remainder man who would ultimately be entitled to the settled estate.

Take, for example, the case of a tenant for life whose income is derived, partly from settled estate, and partly from a profession or business which he may conduct quite apart from his interest in the settled estate. It may be, and it very often is the case, that the family of the tenant for life are not the persons who will be entitled as remainder men to the ultimate enjoyment of the settled estate. Therefore, the position of the tenant for life will be that, on the one hand, he will be faced with the obligation of maintaining the settled estate from a depleted income, and, on the other hand, he will be confronted with his natural desire to make provision for his immediate dependants. His dependants may not, as I have said, be entitled after his death to the enjoyment of the income from the settled estate. The tenant for life who is placed in this situation will, I suggest to the Committee, be disposed to devote that part of his income which he derives from his own exertions or from his property which is not comprised in the settlement, to making provision for the members of his family after his death. He will not feel disposed to devote more of his income than he is obliged to do to the maintenance of the property which he enjoys for his life only but which, after his death, is going to pass away to somebody else.

If the Bill passes in the form in which it is at present drafted, the tenant for life will not be encouraged to making any application to meet maintenance expenses out of the capital of the settled estate, because if he does so the court will have regard, not only to the income which he derives from the settled estate, but also to the income which he enjoys from other sources. Therefore his inclination would be not to make any application but to allow the settled property to depreciate, is the result which this Bill seeks to prevent—and devote as much of his income as he is able to making provision for those members of his family who would not enjoy the income from the settled estate after his death. Therefore, to that extent, this Bill seems likely to fail, in the sort of case to which I have drawn attention, to achieve the purpose for which it has been introduced.

Let me add a few words about the converse of the situation I was putting before the Committee a few moments ago. Take the case of the tenant for life whose income derived from sources other than the settled estate has been depleted owing to war circumstances, so that the major part of his income is derived from the income of the settled estate. In these circumstances the court, in determining whether his income has been reduced by war conditions in such a way as to justify the expenditure of capital on maintenance, must have regard to all the cources of income which he enjoys. This position may arise; because of the failure of income not derived from the settled estate, the tenant for life may become entitled to expend upon the maintenance of the estate part of the capital of the estate not because the income derived from the settled estate has failed, but because his income derived from other sources has been unduly reduced. In these circumstances the purpose of the Bill seems more likely to be achieved if the court is restricted to the consideration of the income of the tenant for life derived from the estate only and not from other sources.

Mr. Rostron Duckworth (Manchester, Moss Side)

I beg to support the Amendment which has been proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson). He has covered the ground pretty thoroughly, but there are one or two points I would like to mention for the purpose of further emphasis. In page 2 of the Bill, paragraphs (b) and (c), the source of income which must bear the expenses of repairs and management expenses is defined. The first point to be observed here is that there is a distinction between cases where there is a tenant for life and where there is not. In the latter case, the only income to be dealt with is ex necessitate the income arising from the settled land. But in other cases where there is a tenant for life and the expenditure on necessary repairs and management expenses is too great to be borne by this income, then the whole income derived from other sources outside the settled land, but coming to the benefit of the tenant for life, must be brought into account. This is both illogical and unjust.

The usual procedure is to take the expenditure on repairs and management expenses from the income on the settled land, and that is why the tenant for life cannot in any way deal with the capital for this purpose. It therefore seems very unjust that where the expenditure is greater than the income derived from the estate by the tenant for life, he should, out of his own private estate and investments, quite apart from the settled land, pay the expenses of repairs for the benefit of the remainder man. In substance this amounts practically to a partial capitalisation of the private income of the tenant for life in favour of the remainder man. It is a particularly additional piece of injustice where the tenant for life is a man of advanced age or is unable to enjoy the advantages of the expenditure incurred. It has to be remembered that the relief which is sought by this Bill is not merely to relieve a tenant for life who is embarrassed by taxation on an unprecedented scale, but he should be encouraged in the good management of his estate. He should be enabled to pay for such repairs as will enable him to keep together in concrete form the capital assets which would be to the advantage of the nation as a whole, to all the beneficiaries and, indeed, to the revenue itself. I would like to point out that the procedure under the Bill is of a temporary nature, due to the emergency in which we find ourselves at the present time. I think it is clearly defined in Clause 1, Sub-section (6) of the Bill.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell)

I appreciate the reasons which have led to the putting down of this Amendment, but I cannot recommend the Committee to accept it. Like most of the matters about which one can argue, it all depends upon the way one looks at it. In effect, Clause 1 of the Bill entitles a life tenant to take someone else's money, namely, the remainder man's money, for expenditure repair and management, income expenditure, which clearly and in law falls on him and for which, in law, he is not entitled to resort to capital. It is always attractive to be able to take someone else's money for the purpose of defraying expenditure which would normally fall on oneself, but it is a process which requires careful safeguarding. The case raised by this Amendment is a case in which income from settled land itself is insufficient for the proper repair and management expenditure of the estate but in which the life tenant has other resources. The question therefore is: Should the deficit be made up out of the resources of the life tenant or be made up from the property of the remainder man? Looked at in that way—which I think is a fair way to look at it—we felt that in that case the life tenant, who has enjoyed and will enjoy the results of this income expenditure during his life, should look first to his other resources which he has himself before he himself should be entitled to draw on the resources of the remainder man.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) referred to a case in which the life tenant was not personally interested in the remainder men, who may not be his children or members of his family. That, I think, would not be the usual case, and one has on the whole to do one's best to make a sensible provision for the usual case. I quite see the point of what he said, namely, that he might have less motive for keeping the property in good condition. But, on the other hand, he is the life tenant of it, and there are various motives, personal and financial, which should lead him to keep the property in good condition. But from one point of view the case in which the remainder men are wholly unconnected with the life tenant is the case in which one might be slower to allow him to dip into their property, where they were not his own children whose interest one would assume he would have at heart. Although I appreciate the point, we felt—and I hope the Committee will agree—that where the tenant for life has other resources aval1able, they should be looked to to make up the assumed deficit in keeping up repairs and management of the estate, and the court should take those resources into account before authorising him to take property which is not his for the purpose of defraying his expenditure. Although my explanation may not completely satisfy the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, they will realise that there are strong reasons for the Bill remaining in the form in which it is, and I hope they will see their way not to press their Amendment.

Sir John Mellor (Tamworth)

I am flat quite convinced with my right hon. arid learned Friend's explanation as to the fairness of expecting a tenant for life to subsidise, in effect, the interest of the remainder man out of his independent income. In this matter, which is, after all, a war emergency matter, the Government are being a little inconsistent in showing a rather excessive desire to protect the capital interest as distinct from the life interest, when we remember that in the case of the war damage contribution they were particularly careful to make it clear that that was to be treated as capital liability. No doubt in that case the Government were actuated by an ulterior motive; they wished to prevent any possibility of the amount of the war damage contribution being treated as a permissible deduction for the purposes of assessment for Income Tax. But none the less that is the line they took, and if we were to contrast that with the line they are taking with regard to this Amendment, it does appear to be somewhat inconsistent. However, as my right hon. and learned Friend has said there are two points of view and it depends upon the one you take. I admit that and I, personally, would not press this Amendment very strenuously.

Mr. Hutchinson

In view of what my right hon. and learned Friend has said I do not desire to press this Amendment, and I ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Hutchinson

I beg to move, in page 2, line 8, to leave out from "or" to "or," in line 9, and to insert: to make it in the opinion of the Court unreasonable that he should bear such expense. This Amendment aims at avoiding the use of the expression "undue hardship," which seems to me and my hon. Friends who have put their names to this Amendment to be an expression which is capable of undesirable and unnecessary ambiguity. Accordingly, we have put down this Amendment to avoid the use of that expression and to afford a wider latitude to the court in dealing with these matters than it would enjoy under the Bill as it is at present drafted. If the last Amendment had been accepted, the point which we make here would have been met to some extent.

What is the meaning of the expression "undue hardship?" Clearly it is intended that there should be something more than ordinary hardship, something in the nature of exceptional hardship. But the courts have to construe this expression and as my right hon. and learned Friend said about the last Amendment there are always two opinions on these matters. If this expression is used there are likely to be more than two opinions. Take, for example, the case where a mansion house which forms part of a settled estate become uninhabitable unless certain expenditure is made upon it. Is that undue hardship which would justify a court in permitting expenditure to he met from the capital funds of the settled estate? Is it undue hardship that the tenant for life should be precluded from residing in the mansion house in which he otherwise would have been entitled to live? I do not know. Again, is it undue hardship that the tenant for life should not be able to send his children to the schools to which he otherwise would have wished to send them if he had not been faced with the expenditure of maintaining his settled property? Are these undue and exceptional hardships which would justify a court in authorising expenditure from the capital estate? It would be much better to avoid the use of an expression of this sort altogether. If the matter is to be left, as it must necessarily be left in a very large measure, to the discretion of the court, it would be best to give the court free and unfettered discretion and to say that if the court considered, having regard to all circumstances in each individual case, that it was unreasonable that the tenant for life should be expected to bear the full maintenance expenditure of the settled property, then the court might authorise the necessary expenditure to be met from capital funds, without having to consider whether there was hardship or undue hardship, or what exactly was meant by the expression "undue hardship." I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to accept the view that it is much better in a matter of this nature to leave the court complete and unfettered discretion.

Mr. Rostron Duckworth

I beg to support the Amendment.

The Attorney-General

I thought my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) would suggest at one time that his form of words would make a solution of these problems easier, but I do not see myself how they would affect that. He asked whether it would be undue hardship that a man should not be able to finance certain repairs to a mansion house which would enable him to live in it. I might say, "Would it be unreasonable?", which is the word used in the Amendment. Then my hon. and learned Friend asked whether it would not be an undue hardship if repairs or management expenses could not be carried out and whether children of the life tenant could not be educated at schools at which they were at present being educated. Those are, I agree, questions of the type that might arise, but I do not know that one would really assist in their solution by substituting the word "unreasonable" for "undue hardship." I quite agree that this matter must be left to a large extent to the discretion of the courts taking into account, as they have to, all the circumstances, but we really intend—I hope the Committee will think it right—that undue hardship should be the test, interpreted reasonably, as we have every reason to anticipate it will be, having regard to the circumstances, by the court.

There is no doubt that war taxation, in itself, inflicts hardship in one sense on a very large number of people whose incomes have been greatly diminished, and who have had to adjust perfectly reasonable pre-war commitments and obligations to the restricted incomes at present available. Therefore some degree of hardship on those whose incomes have been considerably reduced is the common lot, which is gladly shouldered by all concerned, in order to assist in paying the taxes to finance the war. It is only in cases in which a man can show some- thing over and above that ordinary adjustment, in which we feel that the court could confer on him the right to draw on the capital that is vested in the remainder man. I think it proper and relevant to mention that these words were shown by my noble Friend to the Chancery judges, who will have to administer the Bill when it becomes an Act, and they have approved the words and regard them as words which can properly and fairly be applied in the administration of the Measure. I agree that the word "unreasonable" is a little vaguer—I think the court might complain that it is really too vague—but I very much doubt whether there will be any appreciable difference in how the courts would apply it. We feel that." undue hardship "expresses our intention as the proper basis on which an application for the using of capital money for income purpose should be granted and I hope my hon. Friend will be satisfied with that explanation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Hutchinson

I beg to move, in page 2, line 30, at the end, to insert new Sub-section: (5) Notwithstanding anything herein-before contained in this Section trustees of settled land or of land held on trust for sale may, on the written request of a person beneficially entitled as aforesaid and without any order of the Court under this Act expend capital money in or for the management of land as aforesaid. Provided that capital money so expended under this Sub-section during the period of the emergency shall not exceed an aggregate sum equal to twice the annual value of the land comprised in the settlement or trust, This Amendment would have the effect of enabling the trustees of a settlement to expend moneys from the capital funds of a settlement within certain restricted limits, upon maintenance without the necessity, which arises in every case under the Bill as at present drafted, of making an application for the sanction of the court to do so. The purpose is really to assist the tenants for life of small settled estates. Under the Bill the sanction of the court is necessary for every expenditure which is sought to be made out of the capital funds of the settled estate. We propose that, in the case of certain restricted sums, the trustees of a settlement shall be entitled to make certain limited expenditure without incurring the additional expense of having to make an application to the Court for sanction to do so. There may well be cases in which the additional expense of going first to the Court to get sanction will be prohibitive and will deter the trustees from taking the course, which may be really in the interests not only of the tenant for life but of the remainder man too, of expending a small part of the capital for maintenance purposes at a time when the tenant for life is not in a position to do so. Here again we think the purpose of the Bill, the object of which is to ensure that property is properly maintained during the period of emergency, will to that extent be defeated.

It is particularly in the case of small settlements that this is most likely to arise. An application to the court is not something that can be done for nothing. Evidence is required, sometimes expert evidence of a rather expensive character, and the necessary professional assistance must be employed. All that increases the expense, and in the case of a small settlement it may well have the effect of deterring the trustees from doing what they would otherwise desire to do and meeting the maintenance expenses by some small draft upon the capital funds of the settled estate. I entirely agree that this is something of an exceptional nature which one must not encourage beyond a certain point. In framing the Amendment I have endeavoured to keep this consideration clearly in mind and therefore this proposed Clause provides that the amount of capital which may be expended shall be restricted to twice the annual value of the settled estate. That means that the settled property cannot be permanently or very seriously impoverished. In that way the proposed Clause meets the argument that this power of the trustees to dip into capital ought to be carefully restricted. This power is not some thing which we are giving to the trustees for ever. It can only last during the period of the emergency—only so long as the power which the Bill gives to make expenditure with the sanction of the court continues. Therefore, what we are asking is really a very small matter. It is to enable the trustees of small estates to make expenditure, within very restricted limits, out of the capital of the estate without imposing upon them the additional expense of making an application to the court. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will see his way to give us some encouragement that this matter will be taken into account. twice the annual value is considered to be too much, we shall be very glad if a smaller sum is substituted. But I hope that, in the interests of these small estates, my right hon. and learned Friend can give us some hope that something on the lines of what the Amendment suggests may be adopted.

Mr. Rostron Duckworth

I consider it essential that law costs and applications to the court should be reduced to a minimum during war-time. It seems to me that it should be unnecessary for an application to be made each time a sum is required for payment for repairs and that an application should only be necessary for the expenditure of capital moneys on repairs or works which have already been done to any specified property within a particular time, say a year. It seems also desirable that there should be a fixed sum for the covering of expenses for management during one year, without continual application to the court. The amount that we desire is twice the annual value of the property, but I quite agree with what my hon. and learned Friend has said with regard to that. The trustees and any other persons who are interested in the property can be protected by applying to the court for directions, just as they can in all other matters that are dealt with by the Settled Land and Trustee Act. Unless an Amendment of this kind is permitted, I fear the relief which the Bill purports to afford will be purely nugatory. This was pointed out by a distinguished judge in another place. A similar Amendment to this was negatived, but the opinion was expressed that elsewhere more favourable consideration might be given to it. I therefore rely on the good sense of my fellow Members and of my right hon. and learned Friend.

The Attorney-General

As my hon. Friend knows, we cannot go into what happens in another place, or I might have made an effective quotation in answer to his suggestion as to what happened there. My hon. Friends have stressed the case of the small estate, and that undoubtedly is a case which one ought to consider. On the other hand, I think it is just and relevant to mention that it is in the case of large estates and people with larger incomes that war taxation has made a more devastating reduction of expendable money. The amount by which large incomes have come down is far greater in proportion than the amount by which smaller incomes have come down, and that is worth bearing in mind. There are various difficulties that we feel about this Amendment. One of them is, I think, insuperable though it is not perhaps the most fundamental in principle. Under the Bill as it stands—the first Amendment of my hon. Friends not having been accepted—in order to obtain the right, or in order to dip into the remainder man's money, account has to be taken of the other resources of the tenant for life. It seems to me quite impossible to ask the trustees of any settlement, who would have no power to make inquiries into, or be satisfied as to the other resources of a tenant for life, to exercise a discretion which, by the Bill, is made dependent on what those other resources are. If it had been thought proper to restrict the income to be considered to income from the settled estate, no doubt the trustees would have had full knowledge of what that income was. But under the Bill as it stands—which we think right for the reasons I have given—before the tenant for life is entitled to take the remainder man's money, you have to take into account his other resources. As a practical matter it would be impossible to expect the trustees of a settlement to exercise a discretion which would depend on facts regarding which they had no means of finding out the truth. That is the practical objection which, I think, is insuperable.

The objection in principle is that this really is a matter which ought to be sanctioned by the court. It is taking other people's money for income purposes, and although the Bill says that income expenditure must be shown to be for the benefit of the estate, it is right to remember that income, maintenance, management and repair expenses are primarily necessary for the proper enjoyment and upkeep of the property by the tenant for life. If he neglects them the the rents will not come in or his house will become uncomfortable, or there will be a leak in the roof. It is expenditure which anybody who owns property makes in order to get a proper return for it. Therefore, as a matter of principle—and this was stressed in another place—it is a case in which the sanction of the court should be got and it would be an unfair burden to put on the trustees of a settlement, to whom the tenant for life, of course, has immediate access. He sometimes is a trustee himself. It would be much more difficult for them to take a detached view than it would be for the court.

My hon. Friends said—and I have great sympathy with this view—that one wants to reduce to a minimum the number of cases in which the costs of an application to the court might be prohibitive and might, therefore, prevent an expenditure which was really desirable under the Act. Of course, an application to the court must cost something and I am not suggesting that we can get it done for nothing. My Noble Friend has this point in mind. I will communicate to to him what has been said to-day, and when the rules come to be made, we will do our best to see that the costs of an application of this kind shall be as little as may be. There may well be cases, particularly of smaller estates, where no great expenditure on experts will be necessary, and there may be questions with regard to representation of parties, in which it would be possible by rule to cut out unnecessary expenditure. We will bear that point very much in mind and do everything that can be done to see that all proper issues and points of view are brought before the court without undue expenditure. For the reasons I have given, one practical and the other in principle, we feel we cannot accept the proposals in the Amendment.

Mr. Hutchinson

The purpose of this Amendment was to avoid any unnecessary expenditure in obtaining the sanction of the court which, having regard to the principles of this Bill, could properly be avoided. My right hon. and learned Friend has held out to us some prospect that that will be done when the rules under this Bill are framed. I entirely agree with him that it will be possible to avoid the mischief which we seek to avoid by this Amendment, by framing proper rules. In those circumstances, the purpose for which the Amendment was moved having, to some extent, been met by the assurances of my right hon. and learned Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Rhys Davies (Westhoughton)

I hesitate to speak on a complicated Bill like this because I do not know very much about it, but I happen to be a trustee of an estate and I have found since the war began that it is not as easy to be a trustee during the emergency as it was in peace time. I have found, too, that there are several parties concerned in this problem—the landlord, the tenant, the beneficiaries, the solicitors, the accountants and the trustees. I have come in contact with some of these problems as trustee and I want the right hon. and learned Gentleman to tell me—because the Bill is too complicated for anybody except those conversant with the law to understand it—whether it in any way makes the position of trustees more difficult than it is now. A great deal of this property has been destroyed by enemy action. The incomes of estates have declined, the expenditure for Income Tax purposes has gone up, and there are annuities to be met in connection with some estates. In some cases there is not much income left. I am, therefore, wondering whether the position of a trustee will, under this Bill, be made more difficult.

The Attorney-General

That is a very general question, but in some ways the position is made easier by the Bill. What it enables to be done in certain circumstances is this. If the life tenant, who, normally, is the person who keeps up the repairs and bears the expenses of management, and the income expenses, is able to show that the income he gets from the land and the income he gets from other sources, if he has any, are insufficient to keep the estate run efficiently and on the lines on which it has been run, assuming they are reasonably economical and proper, he can get the leave of the court to draw on the capital of the estate to enable the estate to be kept in proper condition and not to deterioriate. To that extent it eases the position of the trustees in that trustees are no doubt anxious, and in some circumstances have a duty, to see that the land they hold is properly kept up. So far as it enables that to be done in circumstances in which it might not be done if the Bill were not passed, the trustees as a body will welcome the Bill.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Dr. Russell Thomas (Southampton)

I do not wish to oppose the Bill, and I believe that the tenants for life will welcome it. I do not think, however, that the Bill is as benevolent as it appears on the face of it. It seeks to relieve the overburdened property owner at the expense of the estate itself. At the risk of some repetition, I would point out that Clause refers to Section 64 of the Settled Land Act, 1925, and Section 57 of the Trustee Act, 1925, and the powers already invested in the courts under those Acts to make orders in regard to the application of capital money and the apportionment of any expenditure of money as between capital and income and so on. Clause r gives new powers to the court in certain circumstances, which are specified in Section 2, to make an order authorising any expense of action taken or proposed for the management of settled land or land held in trust for sale to be treated, as the case may be, as a capital outgoing notwithstanding that in any other circumstances such an expenditure could not be properly incurred. The circumstances set out in Sub-section (2) after admittedly qualifying it in paragraph (a), that the action taken should benefit the person entitled under the settlement are set out in paragraph (b) that the resources of the persons in possessions may be so reduced by war conditions as to render them unable to bear the expenses without causing them undue hardship. The management of settled land is to include all the acts referred to under Section 102 of the Settled Land Act, 1925, and the expenses referred to therein and to include the employment of a solicitor, a surveyor, an accountant or other persons to manage the estate. It is of special interest that the hardship and impoverishment of the tenant for life owing to war conditions includes increased rates of taxation as specified under Section 6. It is clear to me that the Bill must be welcome to tenants for life for it will get them out of some of their difficulties.

The difficulties are recognised in the Bill both in a general and a particular sense such as taxation. What are the general difficulties of property owners over and above the difficulties of the rest of the community. They are very considerable. I believe I am right in saying that property owners are already bearing an unfair burden. War insurance payment is admittedly capital payment, but there are also the Rent Restriction Acts and other burdens which property owners have to bear. The Bill seeks to relieve the property owner and the tenant for life not from the burdens which the war naturally lays upon him as upon all of us but from some of those extra burdens and restrictions from which he is suffering. The Bill will leave him to maintain the property for himself and the remainder man and to carry the burdens by utilising capital in one way or another. First of all the tenant for life will be called upon to show whether he has means or resources to maintain this burden from his own income. If not it must be taken out of capital. So property owners have it both ways—heavy burdens on the one hand and slow but sure infringement of the corpus of the estate on the other. These are sacrifices which are not asked for from any other section of the community.

It was my intention to go into another point which this Bill brings up and which I think will be strictly in accord with the Third Reading. I will mention in passing that this is another of the many Statutes passed in the last 30 years which tends to the disintegration of property and the law of property, and, in so far as it does that, it tends, in my opinion, to the disintegration of society and its eventual replacement by a regime based on force. I am glad that the Bill still requires the permission of the court, because I think that is a great safeguard to the remainder man. We are rather inclined to forget too much the future and the past in the present difficulties which confront us, and we are inclined to forget the traditions on which ordered society are based. So I am glad the Attorney-General has safeguarded the remainder man by an application to the court. I am pleased too, that the Bill is of a temporary nature, as explained in Clause 2, but unfortunately once a Bill has become a Statute it is easily renewed by a generation which revels in statute law. I feel therefore that the Bill is first of all not such a benevolent Bill as we are expected to believe, and it is another step in the disintegration of the law of property which is so rapidly occurring in the generation in which we live.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.