§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)My Lords, in moving the Motion that stands in my name I will venture to remind your Lordships of what took place at the last stage of the Bill in Committee. My noble and learned Friend (Lord Herschell) took an objection to the Bill which was not disposed of by taking a Division; but he suggested that the Bill was one that ought to be referred to the Standing Committee, and it was so referred in due course. The effect, however, of so referring it would be to negative the Bill, and I propose therefore upon the Third Reading to strike out the objectionable clause, Clause 2, which was the subject of debate, and to meet the noble and learned Lord's just criticisms of the first clause; and with these Amendments I hope your Lordships will pass the Bill. I have to move accordingly that Standing Order XLV. be dispensed with, so that the Bill may be considered in Committee.
§ Moved, "That Standing Order XLV. be dispensed with."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ LORD HERSCHELLMy Lords, I desire to call your Lordships' attention to the circumstances under which this Motion is made. This Accumulations Bill was brought up from the other House at a very late period of the Session; it belongs to a class of what may be denominated Law Bills, and it was introduced, when it came up from the other House, by my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack. I should like to say first that it is a Bill of such a character that it seems to me that it would have been much better brought in by my noble and learned Friend in this House at an earlier period of the Session, or, in 1890 fact, during any part of the Session except just now, when we should have had ample time to consider it and put it into shape. It is just one of those Bills upon which I should have thought your Lordships might have been usefully employed, and to which your Lordships could have paid that attention which could not be, and was not, given to it in the other House. My Lords, when the Bill came on, on the Motion to go into Committee, Lord Selborne, like myself, took exception to it, and he said—these are his very wrords—
If ever there was a Bill in this House that ought to go to a Standing Committee and have its details carefully considered, this is the Bill.Upon that my noble and learned Friend agreed that the Bill should go to the Standing Committee. That was some days ago; and now to day, on practically the last day of the Session, my noble and learned Friend moves to rescind the Order of this House that the Bill should go to the Standing Committee; and on the Third Reading, having been practically deprived of the opportunity of amending the Bill in Committee, by the course taken by my noble and learned Friend, we are asked to consider the provisions of the Bill. My Lords, if there were any urgency in the matter I should not stand in the way; if it could be shown that to delay this Bill would work the slightest possible mischief I should not seek to interpose delay; but my noble and learned Friend proposes to strike out Clause 2, which gives the Bill a retrospective operation, and, therefore, the Bill will only have a prospective operation. Can there be any public advantage in passing the first clause of this Bill, which will only deal with future dispositions in such a shape that, as Lord Selborne pointed out the other day, the object you have in view, if it is a good object, can be entirely defeated and evaded? Will it be creditable to the Legislature to pass the Bill in that form? My Lords, what the reason for insisting, at this last moment, upon dealing with a measure in this fashion can be I am at a loss to understand. If my noble and learned Friend had come to the conclusion that the Bill must pass this Session the Standing Committee might have been summoned 1891 for the next day. Certainly, when my noble and learned Friend agreed to that, I understood that he thought the Bill was one that ought to be considered by the Standing Committee, and that, unless that could be done in the ordinary way, it could wait until next Session. It does not seem to me that it is a desirable way of dealing with such a Bill as this when, on the representation of so experienced a Member of your Lordships' House as Lord Selborne upon such a question as this that the Bill ought not to pass in its present shape, and ought not to pass until it had been carefully considered by the Standing Committee, the House referred it to the Standing Committee, and then to-day the House rescinds that Order and proceeds, on the Third Reading, for the first time, to consider its details.
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)My Lords, I think the principle on which the noble and learned Lord is going is one which has produced more obstruction to legislation than any other, though it seems reasonable; it is the principle of objecting to piecemeal legislation, and insisting that you should not deal with the core of a subject unless you deal with the whole of it. The noble and learned Lord did not say that, but it lies at the base of his argument. It is impossible to deal with subjects in that entire fashion, though I quite agree that the principle, which I think the noble and learned Lord practically recommended, is a counsel of perfection, and that it would be much better if we never touched any bits of subjects, but always took them up in a large form. But, as the noble and learned Lord knows very well, directly a subject assumes a large form and you go deep into it, you are exposed to so many difficulties that it is only one or two strongly-pushed questions that can pass through Parliament in one Session. I think this is a case where the French proverb is true that: "The better is the enemy of the good." This is a small proposal—I know very little about it; but it seems to me so far as it goes (that is to say, Clause 1) a reasonable proposal, and I think it would be a mistake to put it 1892 off to next Session, simply because we might do the thing in a more abundant and wide-reaching fashion next year. I do not think any advantage would be gained by that process. With reference to the Standing Committee, it was a mistake no doubt to refer the Bill to the Standing Committee, when there was not any prospect of the Standing Committee being got together. We are in the unfortunate position that, while we have been belaboured without mercy in the Lower House for going too slowly, we are being belaboured in this House for going too fast. I regret very much that the Standing Committee could not be summoned; but, that being now essentially impossible to arrange, it appears to me a reasonable course to cut out the clause on which all the controversy would arise—for I understand nobody to object to Clause 1—and to pass Clause 1 as it stands. If the noble and learned Lord appeals to a Division I do not know whether we should not run foul of a Standing Order; that is for the noble and learned Lord to consider; but, without professing any exaggerated enthusiasm for the Bill, I think the wiser course would be to pass the first clause.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYMy Lords, I do not think the ingenious remarks of the noble Marquess have touched the point that my noble and learned Friend insisted upon, namely, that the House is not being fairly dealt with in the manner that this Bill comes before it. My noble and learned Friend pointed out that Lord Selborne, who is one of the highest authorities in matters of this kind—upon which I am no authority—said that this was a Bill that ought not to pass without being considered by the Standing Committee. That was a weighty objection of course, and, after he had made it, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack appeared to entirely concur with that view, and moved that the Bill should be referred to the Standing Committee. And now, on the very last day of the Session, it is proposed to rescind that which was understood by us to be a matter already decided, in order to pass a Bill for which there can be no possible urgency. And as to the outcry, if you like, that has been made 1893 against this House for not proceeding sufficiently fast with Bills, that may be a perfectly just accusation, in the case of Bills that must be, passed; but here is a Bill for which there is no necessity. And, my Lords, it does not seem to me to be consistent with a due respect for this House that we should be forced on the very last day of the Session to push a Bill for which there, is no necessity, which so great an authority as Lord Selborne says is a most imperfect Bill, and which an authority which is very considerable, my noble and learned Friend behind me, also says, unless amended, would be a most unsatisfactory piece of legislation. If my noble and learned Friend divides the House I shall vote with him as a protest against what I consider an exceedingly wrong proceeding.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, as the Motion is mine I have a right to reply. I think two things might be somewhat obscured by the speeches that have been made. In the first place, when it is said that there was a specific Motion that the Bill should be referred to the Standing Committee, that is a mistake. That was simply to follow the ordinary course, as it would automatically have been referred to the Standing Committee if no Motion had been made. And in the second place there was no discussion—
§ LORD HERSCHELLThere was a discussion on the subject, because my noble and learned Friend said that the Standing Committee ought not to be negatived.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy noble and learned Friend has interrupted me, and has not heard me finish my sentence. I said that there was no discussion of there being a Standing Committee which could meet; but, at the end of the Session, I think rather the meaning was that those interested in having a Standing Committee were desirous of having an indirect mode of putting an end to the Bill altogether. My Lords, I recognise the force of the objection that has been made, as I think is clear by the fact that I have moved to omit Clause 2 altogether, upon the substance of which, in truth, the whole discussion proceeded; the objection made by my noble and learned Friend had reference simply to the drafting, which showed that unless 1894 the Bill was amended it would effect nothing; and I think he showed very effectively that, if the word "wholly" was left in, the Bill would not operate at all, because it might be evaded. My Lords, I felt that that was very true, and, accordingly, I have moved myself that the word "wholly" be omitted, and the words inserted "either in whole or in part," which seems to me to leave the Bill entirely free from objection to a degree that my noble and learned Friend himself recognised on the First Reading of the Bill; because he said it did not go far enough, and he, wished it went further, but that he welcomed it as an instalment (these were his own words). Accordingly I have stripped the Bill of everything that seems to me to be controversial; and, in asking your Lordships now to pass the Bill, I am doing what is quite possible because I gave notice last night; and therefore I hope your Lordships will proceed to consider the Bill.
§ LORD HERSCHELLI may say that if I thought I could defeat the Bill in the way hinted at by the noble Marquess, by reason of lack of numbers, I would do so; but I am afraid I have ascertained that that is impossible.
§ Motion agreed to; Standing Order XLV. suspended.
§ House in Committee: Amendments made, and Bill read 3a.
§ Moved, "That the Bill do pass."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ LORD HERSCHELLMy Lords, upon the Motion that the Bill do pass I should like to say that my objection to it was not merely that it ought to go further, but that, for the purpose for which it professes to deal with the subject, it would be ineffectual. You have, no doubt said that no person should direct that his money should be accumulated for the purpose of being laid out in land; but there is nothing to prevent his leaving it to trustees with full power to do so; and the trustees may lay it out in land just as if he had directed it; and, further, if he had expressed any wish—I am not speaking of any wish in his will, but any desire that they should do so they would no doubt comply with that desire; and therefore, as Lord Selborne pointed out, they can 1895 do everything that they can do now, notwithstanding that the Bill is passed. That was the objection to Clause 1, and that objection still remains. And, as my noble and learned Friend has struck out Clause 2, I do not know quite what the effect now will be, because you do not make the transaction void; all you say is that no person shall so dispose of his property. In Clause 2 you made the transaction void, and said what should become of the property so disposed of, as is always done in Bills of this kind. Probably now the person would be indictable for a misdemeanour, but, inasmuch as these things are generally done by will and he would be dead, I do not think that much matters.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe objection with which the noble and learned Lord began was an objection of a much further reaching kind than, I think, he seems to remember. It is an objection to all the Mortmain Acts. You are always confronted with the possibility of a secret trust; but no one has ever thought that the Mortmain Acts were inexpedient because of the possibility of a secret trust. And a secret trust is possible here, but that does not make the Bill an undesirable Bill.
§ Motion agreed to; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.