§ *LORD DAVEY, In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said that it was to simplify the titles to real estate, and also, in order to achieve that end, to assimilate the settlement of real estate to the settlement of personal estate. One of the chief causes of complexity of title, and of the consequent expense of purchasing real estate, was the great number of interests capable of being created as legal interests, and involving proof of births and deaths. All these questions had to be inquired into by any one purchasing real estate; and no purchaser could be advised to complete until it was certain that all the interests had been disposed of. In personal estate the case was different. If a man wished to settle stocks and shares, all he did was to vest them in trustees, who were registered, and the legal title then passed from hand to hand without any inquiry as to the equitable interests attached to the legal ownership of the trustees. The Bill proposed to make all the interests which could be at present created in real estate by settlement equitable interests, so that there would always be a succession of legal owners; and purchasers would not be bound to see to the disposition of the equitable ownership, and would be concerned only with the legal owner who had power to deal with the estate. In that way much of the complexity and expense would be done away with. It was not intended to interfere at all with the present power of settling estates; but the Bill provided that settlements should take effect only by way of equitable interest, capable of being enforced against the trustee, but having no effect on the purchaser who had obtained his title from the legal owner. The way 326 in which this was done was by an adaptation of the machinery of the Settled Land Acts, known as Lord Cairns' Act. Under that Act the tenant for life had power to dispose of the fee simple of an estate, subject to the consent of certain trustees who were appointed trustees for the purposes of the settlement. He was under no restrictions, except that he must sell the fee simple for the best price that could reasonably be obtained, and no person entitled in remainder had any right to interfere with his disposition of the estate. There had now been some years' experience of that procedure, and it could be said to have worked well and with safety to those who were interested in real estate, while, on the other hand, it had been a great boon to many persons by enabling real estate to be disposed of in a way that was not before possible. What the Bill proposed was to convert the legal tenant for life, who had the power of disposition over the fee, into an owner in fee—to make the legal tenant for life own the fee over which he already had the power of disposition, but in trust for himself and the others persons entitled. The Bill was drawn so as to he applicable to existing settlements and to those which might be made hereafter. By the ownership of the fee being given to the tenant for life the trouble of obtaining trustees and the difficulty of dual ownership through trustees would be done away with. Upon the death of the tenant for life it was proposed that the estate should vest in his real representative. The Bill contained provisions for the appointment of a real representative, who would normally be the executor or administrator. In that way a succession of legal ownership would be secured, and the purchaser need no more trouble himself about any of the complicated interests involved than need the purchaser of railway stock. There was one clause of the Bill which it was probable their Lordships in Committee might consider one that ought not to be sanctioned by the House. That was the clause providing that Succession Duty and Estate Duty should be a charge on the estate owner, and not on the estate. But he was informed that there was nothing that created greater trouble and difficulty in dealing with the purchase of estates than the charges in respect of Estate Duty and Succession Duty being 327 placed on the estate. The scheme of the Bill was not inconsistent with the Registration of the Title Bill of the present Session. Indeed, it would facilitate the work of registration contemplated by that Measure. The Bill had the support of the representative body of the solicitors, the Incorporated Law Society. It introduced no novelty in principle, while on the other hand it rendered much technical and complicated law obsolete as regarded both purchasers and mortgages. He was quite conscious that the Bill would require careful consideration in Committee, when, no doubt, improvements would be suggested in its machinery which would greatly facilitate its working.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said the Bill was something in the nature of a new departure. He did not think the House ought to refuse to accept the Second Reading; but, at the same time, the Bill would, as the noble Lord who introduced it had frankly admitted, require careful consideration. He would, therefore, support the Second Reading, without expressing any absolute concurrence with this new scheme, subject to the arrangement that it should be referred for consideration to a Select Committee.
§ *LORD DAVEYsaid he had no objection to that course being taken.
§ Read 2a (according to Order), and referred to a Select Committee.