SECOND READING. (Hansard, 14 June 1892)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBUBY)
My Lords, the Accumulations Bill has been sent to me with a request that I should move the Second Reading in your Lordships' House. The circumstances are somewhat peculiar. An Accumulations Bill came up to this House on a former occasion to which I objected very much, and it was negatived, but I said at the time that if certain parts of the Bill had been by themselves I should have had no objection to raise to the Second Reading. That course has been adopted apparently by the other House, and the Bill is sent up here retaining only very limited enactments, to which, certainly, I have no objection; and I suppose it is in consequence of what I said on that occasion that it has been expected that I should move the Second Reading. I have no objection to doing so, and under these circumstances I ask your Lordships to let the Bill be now read a second time.

§ *THE EARL OF SELBORNE
My Lords, as the Bill stands it seems to aim at an improvement, though only a very small improvement, in the law. And this leads me to say, that I hope those who in any future Session may have the conduct of business in your Lordships' House may consider the propriety of reviewing in a larger spirit the whole law, I do not say of accumulations so much, as of the kindred subject of perpetuities, with a view to putting it into a better form than at present. I will take the liberty of suggesting that the present power of accumulating might well be confined, not to any abstract number of lives arbitrarily selected and twenty years afterwards, but to lives interested under the settlement; that accumulations should only have relation to persons entitled under the settlement, and should not be allowed to go on any arbitrary footing. And another point 1024 which I think worth considering is whether the present law of remoteness is not unnecessarily severe by destroying, as against persons who come into existence within due limits of time, all provisions which might comprehend, as members of the same class, other persons, who either actually or possibly come into existence at a time beyond those limits. I have no doubt the law on that general subject does deserve revision, and that it might be usefully revised in those directions.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
My Lords, when I invited your Lordships to read a second time a Bill dealing with this, same subject some time ago now, my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack induced your Lordships to refuse to give it a Second Reading, and the Bill was lost. I cannot help thinking that, if the Bill had been allowed to be read a second time, and had been put into a better shape, the legislation which is admitted now to be necessary, and which has now some three years afterwards been brought before your Lordships' House, might have passed into law in a better shape than is at present proposed. My Lords, I am not going to oppose this Bill—I take an instalment, whenever I can get it, and look for better things hereafter; but I cannot, profess to be satisfied with a provision which forbids the accumulation of money to be laid out in land; that is to say, that you may not direct the money to accumulate for so many years in order that it may be laid out in that particular way, but, may allow of its accumulation in another form. I think these accumulations with a view of piling up huge fortunes, leaving the persons, whose children may hereafter be entitled to them, in the meantime in a very unsatisfactory position, are bad things in themselves; they are bad whether it applies to money to be laid out in land or in any other way. But, my Lords, I accept this Bill, of course, as it now stands and shall not attempt to extend its scope, with this exception, that, as it stands, it seems to me it is so drawn as to admit of the whole object of the Bill being very easily, and satisfactorily, defeated by anybody who wants to defeat it. The words are these in Clause 1:— 1025 No person shall, after the passing of this Act, settle or dispose of any property in such manner that the rents, issues, profits, or income thereof shall be wholly accumulated for the purchase of land only. In order to come within the Act it must be "wholly accumulated for the purchase of land only." Therefore if you except from the accumulation any sum however small—if from an estate that brings in £50,000 a year you except £5 a year, and direct it to be applied to something else than land, the clause is not applicable, and therefore you have allowed the accumulation of all the rest. I cannot think that that was the intention with which the Bill was framed; but, if it is not the intention, it seems obvious that some amendment is needed. Then, with regard to the second clause, I do not know whether I rightly understand its effect. I am not sure whether that is intended which seems to result from the language used; but is it intended, I would ask my noble and learned Friend, that this clause should be retrospective? The first clause says, it is true— No person shall after the passing of this Act, settle or dispose of any property"; but then the second clause says this— In every case where any accumulation for any longer period shall have been directed, such direction shall, as from the passing of this Act, be null and void, and the rents, issues, profits, or income so directed to be accumulated shall go to and be received by such person as would have been entitled thereto if such accumulation had not been directed. Your Lordships may alter the law so as to forbid accumulations in future; but where it has been legal to direct an accumulation of this description, and a person has made his provisions accordingly—it may be not wishing the person who would become entitled under this clause to come into possession of it—it seems to me rather a strong thing to make such a provision as this retrospective, and to say that from the passing of this Act all this provision, lawfully and well made, shall not be allowed, but shall cease, and that the property shall no longer go as disposed, but shall go to such persons "as would have been entitled thereto if such accumulation had not been directed."

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
With regard to the first of my noble and learned Friend's criticisms, I am disposed to agree with him that the word "wholly" ought to be omitted. With regard to the second, I confess I entertain no doubt that the clause is intended to be retrospective in this respect: that all that is done under it—all that has been accumulated under it I presume would not be touched by the Act, but that all accumulations that are to be prevented by the Act, such as accumulation of land, would be unlawful after the passage of the Act; and in that sense, although the step had been taken many years ago,, it would be unlawful. It is the intention of the framers of the Act that it should be in that sense retrospective, and I agree with my noble and learned Friend that it is so. Whether it ought to be so or not is a question for your Lordships to determine. For myself, I am bound to state candidly what my impression of the effect of it may be, and I think that is what would be the effect. The House of Commons, I think, passed this Bill without any objection at all, and I believe it is not one of those Bills that were passed absolutely in silence; I rather think it has been discussed. But whatever Amendments may do in Committee in this matter your Lordships will, of course, consider the arguments on both sides of the subject. I should be very reluctant for your Lordships to reject the Bill on the Second Reading, because it might be considered that I had not practically advanced the interests of this Bill by anything that I said in its favour.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
With regard to the discussion on this Bill, my Lords, I received a communication, from a Member of the other House who takes a great interest in the subject, and who put down certain Amendments, especially with regard to the retrospective effect of Clause 2, and he informs me that the Bill came on suddenly and unexpectedly in his absence, so that he was not able to bring them forward.

§ THE EARL OF SELBORNE
I certainly understand the clause not to be retrospective.