COLONEL WEDGWOOD: I wish to make a personal explanation concerning the case settled yesterday in the Courts. In 1923 a Mrs. Madden wrote to me about a grievance. This I sent on to the Noble Lord the Under-Secretary for India, who wrote me an obviously private reply. I wrote the lady a non-committal answer. She wrote asking me to return some papers she had sent to me. I replied that, when I returned to town, I would look for them. Ultimately, I found a batch of her papers, and sent them off. I did not look through them again, and folded up amongst them must have been the Noble Lord's private letter to me. more than a year later did I learn from the Noble Lord that his letter had got into other hands. I can now only apologise publicly to the Noble Lord for the great trouble my carelessness has caused him.

Only

EARL WINTERTON: I would ask the indulgence of the House to express in a sentence my gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for the very generous apology he has just made. I assure him that at no time did I ever suppose for a moment that this incident occurred otherwise than through pure

inadvertence on his part, and I should like also to add that it has not in any way shaken the friendship which, despite political differences, has existed between him and myself for many years. June 23. The Criminal Appeal (Scotland) Bill was read a third time. June 28 June 29

The Coal Mines Bill was read a second time.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

PROBATION OF OFFENDERS.

MR. SHEPHERD asked the Home Secretary what steps had been taken, or would be taken, to carry out the provisions of Part I of the Criminal Justice Act, 1925, which would come into operation on July 1 next, with regard to the probation of offenders?

SIR W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I would refer the hon. Member to the Circular Letter which I sent to magistrates in April and to the Probation Rules recently issued. I will send him copies. June 24

EXECUTIONS OF MINORS.

SIR ROBERT NEWMAN asked the Home Secretary the number of persons under 21 years of age who had been executed in England and Wales during the last 30 years and the relative ages of each ?

SIR W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The number of persons is 22, of whom five were between 18 and 19, nine between 19 and 20, and eight between 20 and 21 years of age upon conviction. June 24

PRISON WARDERS' WEAPONS. MR. SHEPHERD asked the Home Secretary whether prison warders now use firearms or any other lethal weapon?

SIR W. JOYNSON-HICKS: At the convict prisons of Parkhurst and Dartmoor, and at the Camp Hill Preventive Detention Prison, at all of which parties of prisoners are employed outside the walls, some of the officers, when on duty outside the walls, are armed with carbines. Apart from these, prison officers carry no weapons except staves. June 24

INTERNATIONAL SHARE SWINDLERS. CAPTAIN FAIRFAX asked the Home Secretary whether, and how soon, he proposed to introduce legislation to restrict the operations of international share swindlers; and if it was practicable to exercise greater vigilance in preventing the entry into this country of these individuals?

SIR W. JOYNSON-HICKS: So far as the Company Law is concerned, I understand from my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that the amending legislation contemplated as the result of the report of the Company Law Amendment Committee will include provisions bearing on this question. So far as the law relating to the control of aliens is concerned, the existing provisions are adequate. Certain special instructions were given as as these activities came to my notice, and the result is being carefully watched.

soon

MR. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all company swindlers are not aliens ?

SIR W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sorry to say that is perfectly true, but in regard to those who are aliens I happen to have rather useful powers. June 24

INCOME TAX.

MR. H. WILLIAMS asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of persons entirely relieved from the payment of income tax through the increase in the earned income allowance provided in the Finance Act, 1925 ?

THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. RONALD MCNEILL): It is estimated that, as a result of the increase in the earned income allowance and the relief accorded to persons over 65 years of age whose total income does not exceed 500l. per annum, approximately 300,000 persons were entirely relieved from payment of income tax for 192526 who would otherwise have paid and borne tax for that year. It is not possible to divide this figure between the two reliefs, but much the greater part of it is attributable to the increase of the earned income allowance.

MR. H. WILLIAMS asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could state the number of persons over 65 years of age with unearned incomes of less than 500l. a year who had obtained reductions in their income tax assessments through the provisions of the Finance Act, 1925 ?

MR. MCNEILL: I regret that this information is not available.

SIR MARTIN CONWAY asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total sum levied as income tax, Schedule D, on the profits of universities and public schools in the

Army and Air Force (Annual)
Bankruptcy (Amendment)
Consolidated Fund (No. 1)
Criminal Justice (Amendment)
Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions)
Imperial War Graves Endowment
Law of Property (Amendment)
Local Authorities (Emergency Pro-
visions)

Public Works Loans
Trade Facilities

Unemployment Insurance

..

DATE IN FORCE.

April 29, 1926.

June 16, 1926. March 26, 1926. July 1, 1926. June 16, 1926. June 30, 1926. Jan. 1, 1926.

June 16, 1926. March 26, 1926. March 26, 1926. June 30, 1926.

March 26, 1926.

June 16, 1926.

*Secretaries of State

Seditious and Blasphemous Teach

ing to Children .

Shops (Hours of Employment) *Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland

Vinegar

Wild Bird Protection Workmen's Compensation

Awaiting 2nd Reading. Awaiting 2nd Reading.

Awaiting 2nd Reading. Awaiting Report Stage. In Committee. Awaiting 2nd Reading.

* Indicates a Government Bill.

§ Indicates a Bill introduced in the other House.

EVENTS, PERSONALIA,

MISCELLANY.

THE PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE.

on

The first public hearing of the present session of the Permanent Court of International Justice, took place at 3.30 p.m. June 28, in the Great Hall of Justice at the Peace Palace.

The case on the list for this session is an advisory opinion asked for by the Council of the League of Nations; it concerns the question of the competence of the International Labour Organisation in regard to the personal work of the employer. On Monday the Court will hear oral information on this subject which the International Labour Organisation, the International Organisation of Industrial Employers, the International Federation of Trades Unions and the International Confederation of Christian Trades Unions have been allowed, at their request, to furnish.

Inter alia, M. Albert Thomas will appear for the International Labour Organisation, Mr. Eugène Borel for the International Organisation of Industrial Employers, and Mr. Mendels for the International Federation of Trades Unions.

DIVORCES GRANTED IN UNITED STATES TO PERSONS MARRIED IN CANADA.

A FACT which throws considerable new light on the divorce situation in Canada is found in the Marriage and Divorce Bulletin of the United States Bureau of the Census. The statistics of this publication indicate the surprisingly large extent to which divorces are granted in that country to persons married in Canada. Thus, in 1922, no fewer than 1,368 divorce decrees were granted to couples married in Canada, a number more than two and a half times as large as the total number granted in Canada in the same year. This number also formed 36-2 per cent. of the number of divorces granted in United States during the year to couples married in foreign countries, while, at the same time, the percentage of the Canadianborn population to the total foreign-born amounted to only 8.1 per cent. The Bulletin goes on to say: "It is possible that many Canadians acquire a residence in the United States for the sole purpose of obtaining divorce, because, in general, divorce laws are more liberal in the United States than in Canada." Of the 1,368 divorces granted to couples who had been married in Canada, no fewer than 462 were granted by the Courts of the State of Michigan, while 135 were granted in the State of Washington and 128 in California.

DIVORCES IN CANADA, 1925.

STATISTICS of divorces, secured from the authorities of six provinces where divorces are granted by the courts and from the Dominion statutes for Ontario and Quebec, and compiled by the General Statistics Branch of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, show that a total of 551 divorces were granted during the calendar year 1925, as compared with 543 during the calendar year 1924an increase of 1.5 per cent. The 1925 total is 3 greater than the largest number previously recorded in any one year (1921).

The increase in divorces granted from 1916 to 1921 has been ascribed to the unsettling psychological effects of the war period and the long separations of men from their wives, combined with the new facilities for obtaining divorce, provided by a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which enabled the Courts of Alberta and Saskatchewan to grant divorces. Decreases in the totals in 1922 and 1923 appeared to indicate a decline in divorces which might be ascribed to the war-time conditions, but the comparatively large increase in 1924 and 1925, six years after the Armistice, must evidently be attributed to the greater ease with which decrees may now be obtained, and, possibly, to a more lenient view of such proceedings on the part of the community. It may be remarked, however, that any attempt to attribute increases or decreases throughout the Dominion to any particular cause must be very approximate, since the fluctuations in the various provinces are quite irregular.

The number of divorces granted during 1925 by provinces was 150 in British Columbia, 121 in Ontario, 101 in Alberta, 79 in Manitoba, 42 in Saskatchewan, 30 in Nova Scotia, 15 in New Brunswick, 13 in Quebec, and none in Prince Edward Island, where, indeed, only one divorce has been granted since Confederation.

The largest increases in divorces granted during the year were in British Columbia and Saskatchewan, in both of which the 1925 figures showed increases of 14 over 1924. Ontario and Manitoba showed respective increases of 7 and 2. In Quebec and New Brunswick the numbers of divorces granted in 1925 were the same as in the previous year, while Alberta nd Nova Scotia recorded decreases of 17 and 12 respectively.

AUCTIONEERS' INSTITUTE'S PETITION REJECTED.

THE Incorporated Society of Auctioneers and Landed Property Agents inform us that in October, 1925, the Auctioneers' and Estate Agents' Institute petitioned the Privy Council for the grant of a Royal Charter. This petition was followed up by a counter petition presented on behalf of the Incorporated Society of Auctioneers and Landed Property Agents, praying that such Charter should not be granted. The main ground for the opposition was that the Institute has unfairly excluded from membership those practitioners who were connected with commercial enterprises. The counter petition also pointed out that the effect of granting a Charter would be to give to the Institute's members an unjustifiably higher status, having regard to the fact that many F.A.I.'s, elected prior to the adoption of Article 92 of the Institute's Constitution (which excluded commercial men), continued to be connected with other businesses. We are informed that the Privy Council on June 1, 1926, humbly advised His Majesty not to grant the Royal Charter in question, and that His Majesty has been pleased to announce his acceptance of this recommendation.

RULES AND ORDERS.

THE GRAND JURIES (DISPENSATION AT QUARTER SESSIONS) DRAFT RULES, 1926. RULES MADE BY THE RULE COMMITTEE UNDER THE INDICTMENTS ACT, 1915, PURSUANT TO SECTION 19 (4) OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT, 1925.

We, the Rule Committee, established under section 2 of the Indictments Act, 1915, pursuant to the powers vested in us by section 19, sub-section (4), of the Criminal Justice Act, 1925, hereinafter referred to as the said enactment," do hereby make the following Rules :

66

1. A recognisance to prosecute or to give evidence entered into by any person shall not in any way be affected by reason of an indictment being presented to a Court of Quarter Sessions in pursuance of the said enactment without a true bill having first been found by a Grand Jury.

2. The provisions of section 3 of the Indictable Offences Act,

1848, shall apply to an indictment presented to a Court of Quarter Sessions in pursuance of the said enactment and to a person indicted therein as they respectively apply to an indictment found by a Grand Jury in such Court or to the person indicted therein.

3. The First Schedule to the Indictments Act, 1915, shall apply to all indictments presented to a Court of Quarter Sessions in pursuance of the said enactment, except that in its application (a) the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (5) in Rule 1:

66

"(5) There shall be endorsed upon every indictment presented under section 19 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1925, the name of every witness intended to be examined on behalf of the prosecution in support of the indictment."

(b) the words " presentment of the Grand Jury" required by Rule 2 shall be omitted, and

(c) Rule 13 shall apply to an indictment, notwithstanding that a true bill has not been found.

4. The forms in the Schedule to the Indictable Offences Act, 1848, or any forms substituted therefor, shall, for the purposes of the said enactment, be sufficient and all the necessary alterations therein shall be deemed to have been duly made.

5. An indictment presented to a Court of Quarter Sessions in pursuance of the said enactment shall be deemed to be presented at the sitting of the Court or at any later time by the leave of the Court.

6. These Rules may be cited as the Grand Juries (Dispensation at Quarter Sessions) Rules, 1926.

And we, the said Rule Committee, hereby certify that on account of urgency the said Rules should come into operation on the 1st July, 1926, and we hereby make the said Rules to come into operation on that day as Provisional Rules. Dated the 19th day of June, 1926.

Hewart, C.J.
Horace E. Avory.
Robert Wallace.
Travers Humphreys.

H. Stephen.
Herbert Austin.
W. B. Prosser.

THE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT (No. 2), 1926.] S.R. & O., 1926, No. 750/L.21.

We, the Rule Committee of the Supreme Court, hereby make the following Rules :

1. Rule 1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court (No. 1), 1926 (which relates to pleadings) shall cease to have effect on the first day of July, 1926, and shall be annulled as from that date:

Provided that nothing in this Rule shall invalidate any written or typewritten pleading delivered before the 1st day of July, 1926. 2. (1) Rules 2 to 5 inclusive of the Rules of the Supreme Court (No. 1), 1926 (which extend the time for appearance to writs of summons and originating summonses in certain cases), shall not apply to any writ of summons or originating summons issued on or after the 1st day of July, 1926, and shall be annulled as to any writ of summons or originating summons issued on or after that date:

Provided that nothing in this Rule shall prevent an appearance from being entered at any time before judgment in default of appearance has been signed.

3. These Rules may be cited as the Rules of the Supreme Court (No. 2), 1926.

Dated the 25th day of June, 1926.

Cave, C.
Hewart, C.J.

Hanworth, M.R.

Merrivale, P.

Charles H. Sargant, L.J.

John Sankey, J.

A. A. Roche, J.

P. Ogden Lawrence, J.

T. R. Hughes.

E. W. Hansell.
C. H. Morton.
Roger Gregory.

THE Law of Property Amendment Act does not yet seem to have been officially issued-though no doubt it may be expected any day, and very probably it will be issued before this number of THE LAW JOURNAL is published and since the greater part of it is supposed to have been in operation since the beginning of the year, it has been necessary to be acquainted with its contents. The text was given ante pp. 544-547, but this, of course, was a compilation from sources which were open to the profession, though it may not have been convenient for every practitioner to make use of them. There were the published copies of the Bill in its various stages in the House of Lords and in the House of Commons, and there was the printed list of amendments which was submitted to the House of Lords when the Bill was sent back there from the Commons. This included all the amendments made in the Standing Committee so far as adopted by the House of Commons, and the further amendments made on the Third Reading. The chief of these were the Clitheroe amendment, designed to prevent the lords of the manors in the Honor of Clitheroe from claiming a disproportionate amount of compensation for the extinguishment of manorial incidents, and the amendment as to registration in Yorkshire, designed to prevent duplicate searches in the Local Registry and the Land Registry.

The Act being thus in operation and the text available, many of our readers have, no doubt, already had to consider how it affects them in practice. It will be necessary to note its provisions carefully in the relevant parts of the Property Acts which are amended. The only Act which has escaped amendment is the Administration of Estates Act, 1925. The distribution of amendments between the text of the Act and the Schedule, those in the Schedule being described as minor amendments, is only a slight guide to their real importance. It would seem that whenever an amendment could be made by the mere change of words in an existing provision, that method has been adopted, whether the amendment was in fact an important one or not. The text of the Act contains the amendment in favour of purchasers of settled land subject to a family charge, and this is natural, because, while the amendment is limited in its scope, it was urgently required in order to cure an obvious error in the Settled Land Act, and was the real cause of the amending Bill being introduced.

The other amendments which are introduced as sections in the Act can also be accounted for on the ground, not altogether of their special importance, but because the need for them had become notorious. Thus s. 2 was required to save the rights of the tenant of agricultural land, where the reversion has been severed, and notice to quit a part has been given. S. 3 was required in order to place public and charitable authorities, who may have to receive purchase money, in as good a position as banks and insurance companies; that is, they are brought within the term "trust corporation," may be brought within that term by order of the Lord Chancellor.

or

Advantage has also been taken of s. 2 to include a correction as to trustees in bankruptcy and a trustee under a deed of arrangement. The general policy of the

AMENDMENT ACT.

new Acts is, as is well known, to require a receipt from two trustees when land is being sold under a trust for sale. It could hardly be supposed that this applied to a trustee in bankruptcy, for he realises the property of the bankrupt under his statutory powers and not under a trust for sale, but it might possibly have applied to a trustee under a deed of arrangement. As regards him, there were strong reasons for thinking that he was not within the Acts, but the point will not now arise, for under s. 2 both a trustee in bankruptcy and a trustee under a deed of arrangement become a trust corporation." This method of legislation is easy, though, perhaps, a little illogical. It may be anticipated that whenever it is desired to avoid the necessity for two trustees, the required result will be obtained by calling the sole trustee a trust corporation.

66

Perhaps the amendment of most general importance is that contained in s. 4. This is designed to obviate a difficulty that has arisen owing to the new rule that where a registrable charge on land is not registered, a purchaser will take free from it. This may, in general, be a sound rule, though in principle it ought not to prevail in favour of a purchaser who has actual notice. Still, there is no such exception in s. 13 of the Land Charges Act, 1925, which is the relevant enactment, and the result has been that a vendor of land, who has sold subject to a restrictive covenant, loses the benefit of the covenant if the purchaser resells before the vendor has had an opportunity of registering the restriction. It is to meet this position that the system of priority notices has been borrowed from land registration and applied to the registration of land charges.

In order to use the system effectively, there must be a pending transaction which will be completed after two days, but within 14 days. In the case of a vendor such as that just mentioned, he can give a priority notice for the intended restriction, and this will take effect as soon as the purchase is completed. The notice must be given two days before completion, and thereafter he has 14 days to arrange for completion. On completion he can present his application for registration in pursuance of the priority notice, and then the registration takes effect instantaneously upon completion. instantaneously upon completion. When there are contemporaneous transactions, it will have to be considered which is the principal transaction and which is the dependent transaction, and the registration under the principal transaction will have priority over the registration under the dependent transaction. Thus, in the case supposed, the conveyance on sale will be the principal transaction, and the resale will be the dependent transaction.

In the Schedule will be found the amendments which chiefly affect the practice of conveyancing. Taking those in the Settled Land Act, there are the amendments of ss. 1 and 3 which draw a definite distinction between settled land and land held on trust for sale. The most important result is that, when land becomes subject to a trust for sale, it will no longer continue to be settled land by reason of the existence of a family charge, such as a jointure rentcharge. Then there is the very convenient addition to s. 31 (1), under which, in the case of a compound settlement, it will no longer be necessary to go

back to the earliest settlement in the series and discover who are the trustees of that settlement. This may require much antiquarian research and the tracing of representatives of deceased trustees, so that a new appointment can be made. It will now be sufficient if there are trustees of any settlement in the series, and the earliest trustees who are available will be the trustees of the compound settlement.

66

In the Law of Property Act there is a redrafting of s. 2 (2) which seems to make it clear that a trust for sale will not override any equitable interest having priority to the trust for sale unless the trustees are appointed or approved by the Court, or are a trust corporation. With this we may take the new form of s. 27 (2) and the amendment of s. 14 (2) (a) of the Trustee Act, 1925, which are meant to fill up a gap pointed out in these pages, and to settle that, in all cases of a sale under a trust for sale, the purchase money shall be paid to not fewer than two trustees or to a trust corporation. The practical effect as regards conveyancing is, that in many cases of a trust for sale, it will be better to sell by virtue of the ownership of the beneficiaries than under the trust for sale. Take the case where the entirety of land was on January 1 last vested in a sole trustee for three beneficiaries as tenants in common. He became by virtue of Sched. I., Pt. IV., para. 1 (1), trustee for sale, and could by himself give a receipt for the purchase money, since there was no disposition" on trust for sale within s. 27 (1). This is now altered, so that there must be an appointment of a second trustee. To avoid that expense the proper course is for the beneficiaries to sell and convey, and for the trustee to concur to pass, the legal estate. Of course, the purchaser can object under s. 42 (1) to take this title, but there is no reason for his doing so. He does not improve his own title, nor will the abstract be any simpler on a future sale, for in any case the title of the beneficiaries will have to be deduced. Trusts for sale are an excellent means of making title in appropriate cases. The Law of Property Act has extended the list of these cases and has thereby made trusts for sale more useful. But that is not a reason for applying them to cases for which they are not appropriate and where they merely complicate conveyancing which without them is simple. The only express amelioration which the Amending Act has made in this position is in the addition to s. 36 (2) of the Law of Property Act, which enables the survivor of joint tenants, who is solely and beneficially interested, to deal with the legal estate as if there were no trust for sale. But since he could already do this by the simple expedient of putting an end to the statutory trust, the amendment was needless.

The proviso which is added to para. 3 of Sched. I., Pt. I., of the same Act with regard to automatic vesting will put an end to the practice which was to some extent being introduced of inquiring as to secret trusts existing on January 1. The appropriate answer to such a requisition was to refer the purchaser to the abstract which, if properly prepared, gave him all the information to which he was entitled. If there had been a conveyance to a trustee framed intentionally without disclosing a trust, there was no outstanding legal estate either before or after January 1. This form of conveyance is very useful and is sanctioned by long practice. It is now expressly recognised by the Amending Act, and provided the vendor is careful not to disclose the trust, the purchaser need not be troubled about any automatic vesting of the legal estate.

66

There are other points. There is, for instance, the new s.-s. (6) in s. 10 of the Land Charges Act, which for certain purposes substitutes, as already stated, registration in the Yorkshire Register for registration in the Land Charges Register. And there is a new s.-s. (7) to s. 15 of the same Act which allows Town Planning schemes to be registered though made before 1926, and which includes restrictive covenants with a local authority made since 1925. But, as observed above, the way to get seisin of the amendments is to note them up in the copy of the Acts in ordinary use.

[Except where otherwise stated, a reference to sections is a reference to sections of the Administration of Estates Act, 1925.]

THE Legislature having, in its wisdom, determined that the successor of a deceased tenant for life should, apart from an order of the Court, only be permitted to "make title " through the personal representative of the tenant for life, having the fee or term vested in him at the date of his death, was not slow to recognise that the general personal representative of a deceased tenant for life ought not, as a matter of course, to be the person expected to pass on the legal estate in settled land to the next successor in title. Such personal representative might, if an executor, have declined to take upon himself the responsibility of dealing with the settled land, which would have resulted in his renouncing probate in cases where, but for his Settled Land Act duties, he would have been willing to act as executor of the deceased tenant for life, for the administration of whose private estate he had been specially selected. Accordingly-and in order to prevent possible wholesale renunciations by executors, who would have been quite willing to act but for their duties in relation to estates in which their testator ceased to be interested at the moment of his death-the Legislature set up the special personal representative as the person normally to deal with settled land, and fixed upon the settlement trustees as the most suitable persons to become special personal representatives.

The combined effect of Statute Law and Probate Rules is as follows:

(1) A general personal representative (whether executor or administrator) can apply for and obtain a grant of representation "save and except settled land." This leaves the settled land" in the air." (2) If a general personal representative desires to take a grant without this limitation he must show either:

(i) That the deceased tenant for life (hereinafter described as A. B.) had no settled land vested in him at his death, or

(ii) That (A. B. having settled land vested in him at his death) there are no settlement trustees, or, if there are any, they are unwilling to take a grant in respect of the settled land. It seems that if a general personal representative were to ask for a full grant in case 2 (ii) it would be his duty Settled Land Act). to vest the settled land in the person next entitled (s. 7,

66