SECOND READING. (Hansard, 26 July 1887)

§ LORD HERSCHELL,
in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, explained that its object was to prevent testators from directing that their property should be left to accumulate for a period of 21 years after death. The 10 measure would abolish the right which was given to testators by Thellusson's Act of 1799. The Bill came from the other House, where it was agreed to without opposition, and where it was, moreover, supported by the Attorney General. No one would be more unwilling than himself to limit the disposing power of a testator with respect to the objects of his bounty, but he could not conceive that a testator had any natural right to insist that for a certain length of time his property should not be distributed at all. The power of accumulation was a mischievous power. It no doubt gratified the posthumous vanity of a certain number of testators, but it inflicted grievous hardship upon those who were excluded by its instrumentality from enjoying the property left to them. The power of accumulation served no good public end, and when it affected real property was the cause of very substantial and serious injury, for nothing could be more mischievous than to tie up real estate in such a way as to prevent the owner from dealing with it for 21 years. The property remained in the hands of trustees, whose only duty was to collect the income derived from it. Such a state of things could not be beneficial to the tenants who lived upon the estate. The system of accumulation was in opposition to the whole tendency of modern years, which had been in the direction of promoting actual and effective ownership of land. It had been pointed out that it would be reasonable to retain the power of accumulation for certain specific purposes, such as the payment of a testator's debts and the raising of portions for his younger children. He was quite willing that these proposed exceptions to the operation of the Bill should be considered. The point upon which he relied was the prevention of accumulation for the gratification of posthumous vanity. The measure had been received with general favour in the other House, and he trusted that it would not meet with opposition from their Lordships.

§ THE EARL OF SELBORNE
said, that he approved the object of the Bill as explained by his noble and learned Friend, He was, however, dissatisfied with the drafting of the measure, which he feared would go further than was intended and he saw no good reason for abolishing these exceptions to the Thellusson Act, when the accumulation was for 11 payment of the settler's debt, or for raising childrens' portions, to which his noble friend had referred. Great care must be taken in amending the measure. It was proposed by the Bill to repeal Thellusson's Act, which permitted accumulation for 21 years only. Now if they were to begin by repealing that Act, and subsequently to say in general terms that accumulation would be allowed for certain specific purposes, they might be permitting accumulation for those purposes for an indefinite time. The Bill did not make it clear whether accumulation was to be forbidden unless there were some person who, if he were of full age, would be entitled to the income.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)
said, he could not help thinking that the Bill was based on an erroneous and bad principle. The noble and learned Earl had criticized some of the provisions of the Bill; but he thought that the principle of perpetually interfering with the disposition which people were allowed to make of their money was one which ought to receive no encouragement at the hands of their Lordships. Persons knew the circumstances of their own families best, and he did not believe that eases of mere wanton accumulation were frequent. The noble and learned Lord had pointed out that the Thellusson Act was a restraining Act. But there were exceptions to its operation, and accumulation was expressly allowed for the purpose, either of paying the debts of the testator or of raising fortunes for children. There were no such exceptions in the present Bill, and he hoped the House would not read it a second time.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
rose to reply, but—

§ LORD HALSBURY
pointed out that as there was no Amendment the noble and learned Lord according to the Standing Order had no right of reply.

§ LORD HALSBURY
said, that for the purpose of enabling his noble and learned Friend to address the House, he would move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
said, he could see that alterations might be made with advantage to the Bill. He held that cases of accumulation for mere accumulation's sake were more numerous than the Lord Chancellor supposed. If he did not know of such cases he would not have brought forward this Bill. His noble and learned Friend (the Earl of Selborne) had pointed out that in some respects the Bill went too far; if that were so, he would be happy to consider those points in Committee. In the other House the Bill met with no opposition, and was actually supported by the Attorney General. It was not treating the House fairly for the Government to oppose a Bill of this character which was unanimously approved by the other House, especially as it could be easily amended in Committee.

§ VISCOUNT CRANBROOK
said, he must protest against the idea that the Government were to be debarred from criticizing and opposing the Bill of a private Member, simply because the Attorney General had spoken in its favour, and it had received the unanimous approval of the House of Commons. The noble and learned Lord himself had admitted the desirability of Amendments such as would entirely alter the Bill. In these circumstances the taunt thrown out was quite undeserved.