COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) (AMENDMENT) (No. 2.) BILL. (Hansard, 31 May 1916)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BUCKMASTER)

My Lord, I think I ought 270 to say a few words in introducing this Bill to your Lordships' notice. It, in fact, represents certain clauses in the Bill introduced in your Lordships' House some time in April. These clauses were then omitted in deference to the request of one or two noble Lords who said they required further time for the consideration of the matter, and as it was impossible to proceed with the Committee stage before the recess the clauses, as I have said, were dropped out of that Bill. They have now been introduced in a new Bill which has been passed through another place and has now come up to your Lordships' House.

The real question and the only point of consequence relates to the rights of a mortgagee in possession of real property. Under the original Act a mortgagee who was in possession of real estate before the passing of the Act was not hindered by the restrictions which appertained to a mortgagee's power of sale. It was considered that the grave liability which the mortgagee was under was sufficient to justify him to sell if he could get the right without having the necessity of applying to the Court. The whole of the position with regard to a mortgagee in possession of stocks and shares was affected. As your Lordships know, there are large blocks of stocks and shares held by banks from time to time on behalf of their customers; at the present moment the opportunity for the sale of these large blocks of shares is almost destroyed, and in certain cases if they were put on the market suddenly the man whose security was so dealt with might be ruined. No doubt in many cases the banks have met the matter with their own good sense, and have not attempted to realise them; but people connected with the Stock Exchange are very apprehensive about allowing the power which is now vested in the banks to be exercised without application to the Court. The consequence is that there is introduced into this Bill an omission of personal property from property the possession of which entitles a mortgagee to sell if he is in possession. That is the sub-stance of the Bill.

There is one other clause to which I ought to refer. At the present moment it is very undesirable that any building operation should be undertaken on a large scale. It uses up labour which can be better employed for other purposes, and it is wise that it should be discouraged in 271 every way. But there are persons who had begun to construct buildings and then discontinued their construction, and rights of light may thereby be acquired against them which will permanently prevent them from building further. Consequently a clause has been introduced into this Bill enabling a person who has arrested his building under circumstances connected with the war to apply to the Court, and, if he proves the fact to the satisfaction of the Court, the Court may in terms provide that the period during which he ceased to build shall be omitted from the time during which the prescribed period runs enabling another 272 to acquire rights of light against him. Those are the main points of the Bill.