§ Order for Committee read.
§ House in Committee.
§ On the Motion that Clause 40, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he wished to bespeak the attention of the Committee while he stated the course that the Government intended to, take with regard to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Westhead) and adopted by the Committee, and with respect to which he could not but think there was some misunderstanding on the part of the Committee, and after all he was willing to admit that some portion of the blame was attributable to himself. Hon. Members who supported that Amendment no doubt did so in the desire to secure to farmers and small proprietors the supposed advantage of being able to prove wills in local districts without the necessity of coming to town. The property of farmers generally consisted of farming-stock and agricultural produce, all of which might be described as property locally situate, and with regard to which it did not seem easy to commit a fraud through the me- 1289 dium of proving a forged will, or a will irregularly executed, or that had been subject to improper tampering and fraudulent alteration. Such having been the views and intentions of the hon. Member and of the Committee, he desired to meet the wishes of the Committee, and should not object to alter the limits given by the clause, so as to extend it, with the view of including every case that the Committee desired to embrace by the Amendment. He felt confident, on the other hand, and many hon. Members had confirmed him in this view, that the view present to his own mind was that which the great majority of the Committee would be disposed to adopt. His view was that great facilities for fraud would be afforded in dealing with funded property and stock in public companies if wills relating to this description of property were permitted to be proved in country districts. Let him put before the Committee an example of what it would be easy to do under the law if it remained in the state in which the Amendment made in Clause 40 left it. These district registries would be very numerous. They would be presided over by a registrar, who was not likely to be a person of the highest class of qualification, though he might be sufficiently qualified to carry on the ordinary business of his office, with perhaps one clerk under that registrar. The emoluments and business of many of these courts would probably not be sufficient to maintain a greater staff than that. Suppose, then, a gentleman died in Paris or in a distant part of the country, and that an individual presented himself at the office of the district in which the deceased was usually resident, and produced a will of the deceased. According to the present state of the law, all that would be required would be that the person named as executor should bring the will, with the ordinary affidavit as to the place where the will was found and of its due execution, and then he was entitled to obtain probate. Well, suppose an individual went to the district office with a will purporting to be the will of the deceased? He would perhaps find there a clerk in the receipt of a salary of 25s. or 30s. a week. The integrity of a clerk who stood in that situation could hardly be expected to be proof against a very moderate amount of pecuniary solicitation; and thus a forged or irregularly executed instrument might be admitted to probate. That might be performed next day, and after the instru- 1290 ment had been deposited for 24 hours with the Bank of England, the individual obtaining probate would be as much the master of all the stock and properly as the deceased himself would be if he had remained alive. That would be a state of things fraught with danger. But take the case of a will fraudulently altered, either by interlining or obliterating a legacy, or the appointment of an executor. By the law, as it stood before the Amendment was adopted, such wills would be tested in London by the experience of men well versed in such matters, competent to judge, and responsible to the court for the individuals whom they undertook to represent being the persons they were described to be. They stood in a similar situation to the broker who went with a person to make a transfer of stock in the Bank of England, the Broker in that case being responsible that the man whom he brought to make a transfer was the person whose name appeared in the books as the owner of the stock. But in the office of the district registrar they could not expect to find that the persons performing these duties should possess the skill and experience requisite to apply a law which was highly technical so as to detect what parts had been altered, what ought to be admittted to probate, and what ought not to be received without further testimony. These were the difficulties which presented themselves to his mind when the Vote of the other day was taken; and feeling that it was of no use to undertake such an important subject without entertaining a sincere desire to carry it out completely, he saw that the Vote was calculated to destroy its beneficial effect, and it was natural, perhaps, that it should have produced at the moment a feeling of vexation. He trusted, however, that no difference of opinion upon such a point would be fatal to a beneficial measure which had been solicited and desired for thirty years. He therefore desired to give the House an opportunity that day of reconsidering the matter, and to do so in a manner which he trusted would be acceptable to the House. He wished to meet the subject in a way which would insure the object of hon. Members who held different opinions to his own in reference to it, and at the same time to save a measure which he believed would be one of great benefit to the country from being an instrument of danger and mischief. With that view he would undertake to frame and bring up on the Report a 1291 clause which should give the district court the power of receiving wills in cases where the property locally situated within the district did not exceed £3,000 in personalty, exclusive of funded property and the stock or shares of any public company. With regard to funded property any error or fraud committed in the granting of probate might be irretrievable, for the party to the fraud might obtain possession of the money, and make away with it in less than forty-eight hours after its commission. So with regard to the stock or shares in a public company, the party to whom probate was granted, wrongfully or otherwise, was at once entitled to the shares on the faith of the probate, and immediately put in a position to transfer them. He had, therefore, only to transfer to some person—who might be an agent acting in collusion with him in the transaction—for an apparently valuable consideration, and in that way the property would be altogether taken away from the true representatives of the deceased, and the company might, have eventually to pay the loss to the real executor or the real legatee. He was, therefore, about to propose, when the question was put, "that this Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," that it be negatived, on the understanding, on his part, that a clause having the object which he had indicated, and worded in the manner he had described, should be brought up on the Report. He did not mean to say that the Government stood pledged not to go beyond the £3,000, but what he meant was that from a variety of considerations they believed that was the amount beyond which it would not be desirable to go. That, however, was a point which would be open to discussion when the clause was brought up. He regretted to state that he did not think it possible for him to recommend the Government to accede to the clause as it now stood, apprehending, as he did, that if it were left in that way the Bill might be converted into a great instrument of fraud; and he could not but hope that this great measure would not pass into a law unless the Committee could meet on this subject on some such terms of arrangement and compromise as he had taken the liberty to suggest.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, if he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman right, he meant property not in one district, but in any district, of the amount of £3,000. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: In any district.] He should, therefore, offer no op- 1292 position to the proposed arrangement, on the understanding, however, that as the clause involved two distinct questions—one, the question of amount; the other, whether any and what description of property, as funded property, for instance, should be excluded—it should be brought up for discussion in Committee, and not on the Report.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALconsidered the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman an improvement, and he would willingly adopt it.
§ MR. WESTHEADsaid, as he was the mover of the Amendment which was carried against the Government the other night, he wished to occupy the attention of the Committee for a few moments. He had heard the way in which the Attorney General proposed to meet the difficulty arising out of the clause as it stood at present. He (Mr. Westhead) acted for a class of gentlemen—mercantile men and solicitors of eminence in this country—who were well acquainted with all the bearings of this question, and he should be holding out false expectations if he led the Attorney General to conclude that they would be satisfied with any such limit as £3,000. He had heard a general disposition to concede all that he thought could be reasonably required—namely, that such property as had heretofore been proved in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury should continue to be proved there; but as regarded the proposed transfer of business to London from such dioceses as those of Chester and York, he thought when he had stated a few figures which had been laid before the Commissioners on this subject, the Committee would see at once that the sum of £3,000 was a limit which it was utterly preposterous to propose under the circumstances. In the five years from 1851 to 1855 inclusive, wills to the following amount in personalty were proved in the Consistory Court of Chester and the Prerogative Court of York—
| 1 | will under | £350,000 | and above | £300,000 |
| 1 | will under | 300,000 | and above | 250,000 |
| 3 | will under | 250,000 | and above | 200,000 |
| 2 | will under | 200,000 | and above | 180,000 |
| 3 | will under | 180,000 | and above | 160,000 |
| 3 | will under | 160,000 | and above | 140,000 |
| 29 | will under | 140,000 | and above | 80,000 |
| 94 | will under | 80,000 | and above | 40,000 |
| 200 | will under | 40,000 | and above | 20,000 |
| 458 | will under | 20.000 | and above | 10,000 |
| 3709 | will under | 10,000 | and above | 1,500 |
§ The total number of wills proved in the Courts of Chester and York alone, exclusive of the Consistory Courts of Lancaster, Nottingham, and Durham, in the five 1293 years he had mentioned was 4,503 where the personalty amounted to upwards of £1,500. He certainly thought that persons having such weighty interests in those courts would never consent to the proposition of the hon. and learned Attorney General that this amount of wills should all be brought to London. With regard to funded property and railway shares, he had no very strong objection to the proposition of the Attorney General, although he thought the measure would be more complete if it passed with the clause as it now stood. Under this Bill there would be forty-two district courts in lieu of 400 diocesan courts, and therefore they could afford to pay sufficient remuneration to the officers employed. But with the present 400 courts, and all that was said against the system, where was the evidence of frauds? The registrar of the Archdeaconry of Nottinghamshire said in his evidence that "he had been registrar twenty-eight years; 8,400 wills had passed through his hands; not one had been repudiated or revoked, and only two contentious cases had arisen out of the whole. The principal deputy registrar in the London Courts, who had filled the office since 1829, only recollected one case—that of a forged will, and in that instance the parties were transported. He did not think there was any reason to fear that there would be more fraud—there could hardly be less—than at present, if the district courts were properly officered. It was no doubt very important that there should be a proper index. Mr. Trevor stated that if the name were given he could find the will of any person in five minutes, and in ten minutes who was residuary legatee, and that in the same time he could find out any legatee. There would be no difficulty, judging from Mr. Trevor's evidence, in having a correct index of wills. The clause with reference to the deposit of wills, provided that all wills proved in the district courts should be deposited in those courts. The Bill, as first drawn, provided that four-fifths of the wills which were under £1,500 should be proved in these district courts, and he saw no reason why the whole should not be included. He did not think it safe that wills probably drawn up by schoolmasters should be left in the care of persons who had but a salary of 25s. a week, when there was a probate tax of £90,000, which would enable them to pay sufficient salaries, and thus induce those who transacted the bu- 1294 siness to perform their duties in a satisfactory and creditable manner. He could not therefore, with any degree of consistency, assent to the alterations proposed.
§ SIR JOHN TROLLOPEsaid, he hoped the House would not revoke the deliberate Vote already come to on two separate occasions. The clause of the hon. and learned Attorney General would simply alter the amount, but on Monday night the Committee had deliberately decided upon a principle, and not upon any detail. They had decided that persons in the country should be allowed to transact business with those in whom they had confidence, and that it was not for the interest of the public that all the business should be concentrated in the new court in London. He believed notice of an Amendment had been given to make the salary of the Judge of the new court the same as the salaries of the puisne Judges, and the proposition to compensate the proctors would also tend to make the Bill very expensive. With regard to the objection to the business being done by a clerk at 25s. a week, it seemed to be forgotten that no probate passed without the signature of the registrar, and there was every reason to suppose that the Lord Chancellor would take care to appoint proper persons for those offices. It would be far better, in his opinion, to allow executors to go to the office of the registrar in the country, where they could do the business in an hour, than require them to come to the London court, probably with the solicitor who made the will, with the solicitor's town agents, find with a proctor it attendance. He was most anxious that the Bill should pass, but he was desirous it should pass in a shape acceptable to the public. He should, in common with the hon. Member for York (Mr. Westhead), make a stand upon the question of limitation, and, should the Committee divide, he should vote in favour of retaining the amended clause.
§ MR. AYRTONthought, that as all the other clauses of the Bill depended on this, it would be impossible to go on with the Bill until the clause suggested by the Attorney General was before the Committee.
§ MR. WIGRAMsaid, he wished to ask whether, in every case, it was intended that the probate of a will of property consisting of shares or stock should be taken out in the central office in London, and not in the local courts?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, 1295 that was the intention, and it would undoubtedly be the effect. He felt it essential to the security of the Bank of England, and to the great offices of London, that their stock should not be transferred without the probate being taken out, or counter-sealed in the central court in London.
§ COLONEL SMYTHremarked, that he believed that the expression of opinion by the Committee the other night, that there should be no limit whatever in the amount of wills registered in the district courts, was in accordance with the general feeling of the country. He should vote for the amended clause.
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, that with respect to the inquiry of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge University, he might state that he had given notice of a clause, the effect of which would be that, under probate granted by the registrars of the district courts, no stock in the Bank of England and East India Company should be transferred until the probate was counter-sealed by the central office in London. Of course, he could have no objection to that provision being extended to the shares of railway companies.
§ MR. HUDSONsaid, he believed that the Vote at which the House had arrived on Monday last did not in the least refer to the limit of £1,500. It appeared to him to have indicated the opinion of the House to be, that the jurisdiction of the district courts should extend to any amount of property which did not include funded or railway property; and he thought that, with the assistance of the Amendment proposed by his hon. and learned Friend, they might proceed to discuss the clause. He, for his own part, should not be sorry if the persistence of the learned Attorney General in his views led to the loss of the Bill, for he could not but look upon it as a device to bring the practice of the country up to London, while it was most unpopular throughout the country.
§ MR. COLLINSsaid, he thought the Attorney General could not be serious in his argument that fraud and forgeries would be encouraged by giving the district courts unlimited jurisdiction. There were a very large number of local courts having unlimited jurisdiction, in which wills to a large amount had been proved without any cause for complaint having arisen, and the danger—if danger there were—must be less when they were re- 1296 duced to forty. He thought that, in pressing the view which it was now sought to press upon the House, there must be some object in the background, such as making business for London practitioners. Now, he, for one, would enter his protest against persons being dragged up to London from distant parts of the country—Devonshire or Cumberland, for instance—in order that a source of maintenance might be provided for the proctors in London.
§ MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the Attorney General had raised two questions—first, whether any limit should be placed as to the amount for which probate might be granted by district courts; and, secondly, whether they should have power to grant probate when the property was funded property. Now, in order to decide the first of these questions, there was no necessity to negative the clause, though it would be necessary to have a new provision brought up, in order to come to a conclusion on the second. Again, with regard to the first question, the House had already arrived at a decision upon the subject. He did not himself take any part in the discussion upon that occasion, but he had read the arguments which had been advanced on either side, and he could see no reason for reversing that decision; and with regard to the second question, it might be more advantageously considered at a subsequent period. He himself could not conceive on what ground the learned Attorney General would be able to maintain the principle of limiting the amount, because all the arguments which applied to granting probate in a district court in cases where the property exceeded £3,000 applied with equal force to all cases where the property was under that amount. An observation of an hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Westhead) appeared to him to be entitled to great attention. That hon. Gentleman had informed the House that, in five years, in Cheshire and Yorkshire no less than 2,000 wills had been proved, each of which related to property amounting to £10,000. Now, that was sufficient, to show that to limit the jurisdiction of district courts to £3,000 would be without precedent, either in principle or practice. What he would suggest to the Committee was, that the clause should be maintained as the House had settled it on a former occasion, and he would also suggest to the Government that, as the Attorney General had stated that he did not pledge himself to £3,000 1297 as a limit, it would be a better course for them to accede to the principle which the House had sanctioned, that there should be no limit at all, and at a future period the Committee could consider the question as to whether the jurisdiction of the district courts should extend to funded property.
MR. ELLICE (Coventry)remarked, that he had not been present at the former discussion, upon the question. He could not convey to the House, the extreme regret he felt at differing from his learned Friend the Attorney General, but he had heard with regret from his learned Friend that, if the clause were maintained as it at present stood, it would be a question with the Government whether they would proceed with the Bill. The country would view with deep regret the failure of this attempt to reform one branch of the law. For his own part, if the limit of £3,000 were agreed to, he could not, after a long experience of the administration of the courts of probate, determine whether it would not be better for the public to continue to submit to the inconvenience of the law as it at present stood. He could bear his testimony that the business of those courts had been conducted better than that of almost any other courts in the country, and there was not the slightest reason why their jurisdiction should be limited to £3,000. The great complaint against those courts was their ecclesiastical character, and that their number was too great. To remedy those complaints, an attempt had been made to transfer their jurisdiction to the Court of Chancery, but that proposal had been met with universal dissatisfaction. If the ecclesiastical character of those courts was taken away, the number of them reduced, and the expense of proceedings in them placed upon a reasonable footing, that was all the reform which was required. As regarded granting an indemnity to the gentlemen who now conducted the business of those courts, it would be better to give them a certain tenure of their business before admitting the general practitioners. As regarded the Bill itself, it was one of great importance, and he should deeply regret it if the Government, in a moment of disappointment, should abandon a measure of a most useful and salutary nature.
§ MR. MALINSsaid, that he had voted for the Government when this matter was last before the House, but that he could not support them now. No doubt the Go- 1298 vernment were placed in a difficulty, and it would be impossible to surmount that difficulty with consistency and honour by abandoning the principle which they had avowed. His hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had, after mature consideration, said that the principle of the Bill was involved in the country probates being limited to £1,500. What, then, must be the surprise of the Committee when they heard him say that evening "not £1,500, but £3,000 should be the limit." Was not that an abandonment of the principle of the Bill? [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: No!] He would make good his assertion. The principle of the Bill was, that there should be but one probate, and that it should cover every description of property. But the hon. and learned Attorney General came down to the House that evening, and under pressure said, "I will make an exception; the country probate shall be limited to £3,000; but, although I will give authority to a country district to prove a will for £3,000, which may consist of money in the hands of bankers in a neighbouring town, or of money lent on mortgage to the neighbouring squire, it shall not cover £100 Three per Cents, in the Bank of England, nor a single share in a railway, nor in any joint-stock bank whatever." He wanted to know why. Were these district probate courts fit to exist or not? If they were fit to administer, regulate, and control property of one description to the extent of £3,000, why were they not equally fit with respect to property to that amount of another description? The Government had professed throughout, that one great object in bringing forward this Bill was to get rid of the monstrous evil of bona notabilia, and that it was their desire that personal property, wherever situate, should be regarded as of equal quality. Now, that principle of the Bill had been abandoned, and because the Government had been placed in a difficulty by the vote of the Committee the other night, the hon. and learned Attorney General proposed to get out of it by making a distinction between properties of a different description, and rendering money in the funds, railway and joint-stock shares of a more sacred character than any other kind of property. His hon. and learned Friend said it was very important that there should be no frauds, that the Bank of England and the great railway and joint-stock companies should not be imposed upon. Did he, then, 1299 avow that the country district courts to be established under his Bill were to be so little trusted—that the property of the country was to be upon such fragile tenure, if entrusted to them, that they ought not to be permitted to prove a will which might give authority to the Bank of England to transfer £100 Three per Cent. stock. The Committee ought not to forget how numerous were the small fund-holders. Returns presented to Parliament showed that where there was one man who had £1,000 stock, there were he knew not how many who held £100 stock. The hon. and learned Attorney General, on introducing the Bill, said that it would, among other things, save the country a great deal of expense, because it would permit a will to be proved within the district in which it was made; but, as the hon. Baronet the Member for Lincolnshire had pointed out, all that had been abandoned with regard to property of a particular description, because for that nothing but a London probate would do. He (Mr. Malins) supported the Government the other night, because their Bill was founded upon the Report of the Commissioners, and because it proceeded on the principle that the country probates should be limited in amount only: but, although he was prepared to enter into a sort of compromise on a matter in which no great principle was involved, yet he could not agree to the proposed distinction between bank-stock, railway, and joint-stock shares, and other descriptions of property. He could understand that wills ought to be subject to a careful revision, and that they should come to London for final settlement. But, when he was told that money in the Bank of England was to be protected beyond every other property, he could not understand why such a distinction should be made. He believed that the law was this—that if a man obtained probate of forged will, and by means of it obtained, as executor, payment of stock in the Bank of England, the property of the person whose name had been forged, that payment was absolutely good. There was the less reason, then, for the proposed distinction between Bank of England stock and other kinds of property. His hon. and learned Friend behind him, the counsel for the Bank of England, would agree will him that, so long as the probate was valid, the Bank would be quite justified in transferring to the pretended executor stock purporting to be bequeathed by the will: 1300 therefore, while he supported the principle in which this Bill was originally brought in, he should be obliged to vote against the Government, because, on two essential points, they had abandoned that principle.
§ MR. HENLEYI believe I have been misunderstood in what I stated. I carefully avoided giving any opinion as to whether there should be a limit at all, or whether probates in the country should be limited to £3,000. All that I said was that I was willing to postpone the consideration of that question. I did not at all enter into its merits, though every hon. Member must have known that all through the debate he had been opposed to any limit whatever.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALAmong the amusing incidents of this debate, if there had been any amusement in it, was the contrast between the speech just made by the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) and the hearty support which he gave to the Bill on two divisions on a previous night. To what wonderful influence that conversion was to be attributed he could not say. [Mr. MALINS: No conversion whatever.] Well, then, the delightful inconsistency between the speech and the votes of the hon. and learned Member was a mystery perfectly unintelligible to every one who had marked his conduct. The Government had not been guilty of any inconsistency, nor did he (the Attorney General) admit that they were in a difficulty. If there were any difficulty at all about this measure, it was the people of England who were in that difficulty. The course taken by the Government was this—in order to accomplish what had been represented to be a great good—namely, the giving local opportunities and benefits to persons in the country in humble circumstances, they departed from the true principle of requiring that all wills should be subjected to that perfect examination which could only be given in the principal registry in London. And, accordingly, £1,500 was put in the Bill as the extent to which that departure was to be permitted. He trusted that they might hear no more of the ordinary puerile declamation about the rights of the poor as contrasted with the rights of the rich. It was, undoubtedly, a beneficial thing to the poor that a Bill should be brought forward in which, for the sake of consulting their interests, a right principle was, to a limited extent, departed from. But he 1301 understood that his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire, to whose mature judgment on these questions he desired to pay every possible respect, suggested an enlargement of that compromise, to which the Government acceded; and in order to meet that concession on the one side a further concession had been made on the other, that the country probate should be limited with regard to property of a particular description—namely, funded or share property. [Mr. HENLEY: Funded only; not share property.] There was therefore to be a departure from the principle on which £1,500 was inserted in the Bill. That was so obvious that everybody perceived the reason for that departure but the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford. And hence his thunder. If £1,500 had remained in the Bill it would have comprehended all funded and share property within that limit. The hon. and learned Member for Wallingford did not perceive that it would be very difficult for a man to run away with a rick of corn or a flock of sheep, but that it would be very easy for him to run away with £1,000 Consols. Again, he (the Attorney General) maintained that the Government were not in a difficulty, for the present was merely a case of concession on the one side, and on the other. If he were to express his own individual opinion—but which he gave up in deference to that of others—he should at once frankly say, with regard to property locally situate in the country, such as agricultural stock, machinery, stock in trade, &c., let there be no difference. But then he was expressing his own individual opinion. All he could say was that, with this expression of his own individual feeling on the point (which might furnish some sort of assurance to the Committee as to the decision of the Government upon further consideration), he must unquestionably persevere in the course he had indicated—namely, to negative the question that this clause as amended stand part of the Bill. While pursuing this course, however, he would follow out to the letter the undertaking he had given to bring up a new clause in Committee, and as far as he was concerned, if his opinion had any weight, he should not be obstinate with regard to the limitation of the amount of property.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he agreed with his hon. and learned Friend 1302 in regard to the first question, which had been very distinctly put by the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole)—namely, the question of limitation. He confessed that at first it appeared that some limitation of the amount of property locally—that was, anywhere— situated might be desirable. But the general sense of the House was against such a limitation, which, moreover, was not essential to the principle of the Bill. This measure was one which the Government considered it of great importance to pass; indeed, he thought it so important in its general provisions that it would be a great evil if, in consequence of the differences of opinion upon what he must say were subordinate details, a measure of such unquestionable value should even be delayed for another year. If, then, they were prepared by mutual concession to agree that there should be no limitation in the amount of property locally situated, exclusive of stock and funded property, and subject to future consideration as to whether it should be exclusive of shares in railways and other companies, he thought it was hardly worth while to put the House to the trouble of a division upon this clause. The clause did not prejudge those other questions; it left the matter open for discussion, when his hon. and learned Friend brought up (in Committee, and not on the Report) the clause of which he had given notice; and therefore he thought they had better waive the Motion for disagreeing to this clause. The clause would stand as it was, and then his hon. and learned Friend would have an opportunity, before the Committee terminated, of bringing up his clause, which would settle the point respecting share and funded property.
§ Motion agreed to; Clause, as amended, to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clauses 41 to 50 inclusive were then agreed to.
§ Clause 51 (Appeal from the County Court).
§ MR. MALINSsaid, this clause gave the appeal from the County Courts to any Court of Common Law. He thought it would be better to give the appeal to the Court of Probate; it would be more consonant to the principle of the measure. He should, therefore, move to insert the words, "Court of Probate, whose decision shall be final." In properties of small amount one appeal would be sufficient.
§ MR. AYRTONsuggested, that as the 1303 Common Law Courts sat only in term, if the appeal was to them, the probate might often be delayed most inconveniently.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was quite prepared to agree to the Amendment, but he wished to consider how it had best be carried into effect. In the Act referred to in the clause, the mode of appeal from the County Courts was extremely simple, and he would wish to preserve the same mode.
The Amendment was then withdrawn, on the understanding that the Attorney General would bring up a clause to carry it into effect.
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he could not permit this opportunity to pass without urging upon the Government the claims of the County Court Judges to something like an equalization of salaries and emoluments. It was well known that when the business of the County Court Judges was nothing in comparison with that which was now committed to them the salaries were fixed at £1,200 a year. Since then a distinction had been made in favour of a few individuals whose salaries had been raised to £1,500 a year; but the duties of all of them had been largely increased. They were about to have confided to them under this Bill contentious jurisdiction over a class of causes embracing sometimes very difficult questions of law, and always very perplexing questions of fact. He thought, therefore, that this was a fitting opportunity for reminding the Government that the County Court Judges were very hardly and unfairly dealt with in respect to their remuneration, and for expressing a hope that the claims of all of them to the increased allowance would be fairly considered.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that last year a Bill was passed which did accomplish prospectively an equalization of the salaries of the County Court Judges, but it did it by reducing all in future to the rate of £1,200 a year. Those who now had £1,500 a year—not in consequence of their greater qualifications, but owing to the larger amount of work which they were supposed to perform—would continue to receive that salary during their lives, but their successors would only have £1,200 per annum. No doubt, it would be very agreeable to the Government to concur in a measure which should raise the salaries of all to £1,500, but the Committee must remember that such a 1304 change would add greatly to the public expenditure. Last year a change was made with respect to fees, which imposed on the national exchequer an additional charge of about £100,000; and he thought that, under these circumstances, they had better pause before making so large an addition to the public outlay as would result from increasing all these salaries from £1,200 to £1,500 a year.
§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsuggested funds might be got by abolishing the office of high bailiff.
§ Clause agreed to, as was also Clause 52.
§ Clause 53 struck out.
§ Clause 54.
§ MR. MALINSsaid, he had certain proposals on the subject of compensation to submit to the Committee, but as his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had not yet made up his mind with respect to the distribution of testamentary business, he would postpone those proposals till some future occasion.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 55 to 84 were also agreed to.
§ Clause 85.
§ MR. ADAMSsaid, he wished to know whether the Government meant to afford any additional remuneration to the registrars of the County Courts, on whom new duties would be imposed under the provisions of the measure.
§ SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, that in reference to this matter he felt it his duty to remind the Attorney General that great doubts had been entertained last year that the salaries of the registrars of the County Courts had at the time been raised extravagantly high, regard being had to the work done, and the salaries of the Judges of those courts. The Government would not, he hoped, without careful consideration, resolve on increasing the allowances of those officers.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the impression left on his mind last year was that the servant was in that case better paid than the master. But that circumstance only afforded a proof of the singular power of the country attorneys over certain hon. Members of that House, and a similar testimony, he might observe, was furnished by their proceedings that evening in reference to the present Bill.
§ MR. CAYLEYobserved, that he thought the remark of the Attorney General, with regard to the influence of country attor- 1305 neys upon hon. Members was scarcely justifiable. What was it but the influence of the London attorneys and the proctors that had prevented such a Bill as that now under consideration from being carried many years ago?
§ MR. SPOONERsaid, he believed that the influence of country attorneys was not so excessive with hon. Members on his side of the House as the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to suppose.
§ MR. G. CLIVEsaid, that no class of men could be less injured than the country attorneys by the loss of the description of business transacted in the County Courts; and therefore it was a matter of indifference to them.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it was the intention to give the Lord Chancellor power to issue a table of fees, but in order to determine the scale, it would be desirable to wait and see what additional business would under the present Bill be thrown upon the County Courts. The House would then be in a situation to consider what additional compensation ought to be given to the County Court Judges and other officers.
§ MR. MALINSsaid, he thought that the additional business would be so inconsiderable that it would be unworthy of notice.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 86, Taxation of Costs.
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYobserved that this clause involved the whole question of compensation, and required explanation.
§ MR. HADFIELDsaid, as regarded the expenses of these courts, he should be glad to know out of what fund they would come, and whether there would be an ad valorem duty, or a charge for the work done, or a tax similar to the succession duty.
§ MR. SALISBURY rose to order. The clause related to the transaction of business, as between solicitor and client, and not to the business of the court, and therefore the hon. Member was not in order.
§ MR. HADFIELDcontended he was in order, and would advise the hon. Member for Chester not to be so zealous on behalf of the Chancellor of Chester. He would again ask out of what fund it was proposed to take the sum which would be required for compensation? He considered it the duty of the House to make probates and administrations as cheap as possible. If, in addition to the probate duties, the succession duties, and the legacy duties 1306 which brought a revenue of £3,000,000, and would shortly bring more, estates were to be taxed for the benefit of proctors, registrars, the rev. H. Moore, or any other person to be compensated out of this fund, an act of great injustice would be committed, and the law would be evaded as much as possible. At present the House was literally besieged for compensation by proctors from all parts of the country. They were the only professional class in the community that had ever claimed compensation from the revenues of the Crown. It was in another view of the case an important thing in a political sense to induce parties to bring their wills and administrations freely into court, and he objected to the payment of proctors by an ad valorem rate, instead of according to the amount of work done. They ought, therefore, to have a clear understanding as to the scale of fees, on what principle they were to be charged, and out of what fund they were to be paid.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the speech of the hon. Gentleman, so far as it related to the question of compensation, was out of place; for the Committee was then many hours from the clause relating to that subject. As to the source whence the compensation was to be derived, it would be taken, whatever might be the amount which the Committee might be pleased to give, out of the fund to be created by the costs and charges imposed upon the suitors.
§ MR. W. N. HODGSONasked the Attorney General if he was prepared to lay on the table a scale of the fees to be taken on probates and administrations in future.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the scale of fees would require a good deal of attention to be given to it by the Lord Chancellor, and he could not undertake, at that moment, to lay it on the table; and if it were on the table, hon. Members not conversant with the minutiae of business to which it related would be unable to form correct opinions with regard to it. He had stated over and over again that the fees to be charged must depend upon the money required to pay the compensation that might be awarded.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 87 (Treasury to provide Buildings).
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that he understood, that a portion of the money at least would come out of the 1307 Treasury. It would be most satisfactory if the hon. and learned Attorney General could state that no portion of the sum would be chargeable on the Consolidated Fund.
§ MR. MALINSsaid, that in his proposals, he certainly did not contemplate throwing a single farthing on the Consolidated Fund, and he believed the hon. and learned Attorney General entertained the same view. He understood the object would be attained, not by imposing an additional charge upon the public, but by continuing the existing charges for a limited period.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the amount of compensation would be provided for by fees; but with regard to the other charges for the due administration of justice in these courts, although they would primarily come out of the fees, yet if any deficiency arose, the Consolidated Fund would be called in, though only in the last resort.
§ MR. BARROWsaid, he wished to remind the Attorney General, in reference to the question put by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. W. N. Hodgson) that when the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Oxford, brought this subject before the House he stated the percentage at which he proposed to charge the foes payable on granting probates and letters of administration. He thought, moreover, that as the Treasury would provide the necessary officers for carrying on the business of the courts, that portion of the charge would, as in all other cases, properly fall upon the fund set aside for the general administration of justice in this country.
§ MR. ROLTasked whether, as the business of the College of Advocates, which was an incorporated body, would be at an end, there should not be a clause empowering them to sell their property, which at present they were incapacitated from doing.
§ SIR JOHN TROLLOPEobserved, that it was very desirable that a secure place should be had for depositing wills, and as the public were accustomed to the present place, he knew of no better than the building in Doctors' Commons. There was nothing in the Bill which would enable them to retain that building, although power was given to hire or build a place for that purpose.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, on a former occasion, when he introduced the measure, he stated in great detail the 1308 opportunities which were presented for the deposit of wills in the fire-proof chambers at Somerset House, which were at present unoccupied, and where they could be placed in the most convenient form for reference and inspection. The Registrar General had devoted a great deal of attention to the subject, and had furnished him with plans which showed at how little expense all the wills in London and the country might be stored and arranged at Somerset House where they would be in immediate connection with that great store-office of statistical information, the office for the registration of births, deaths, and marriages, and with the Legacy-duty Office. It was his earnest hope that he should see all the wills in the country so arranged at Somerset House that they might be at all times inspected. With regard to the court itself, it was no doubt Very desirable, if not absolutely essential, that it should have its local habitation in immediate vicinity to the Superior Courts of Westminster Hall, and one result would no doubt be that the advocates would follow the court. A great part of Doctors' Commons belonged to the Faculty of Advocates, and he had on several occasions expressed it as his opinion that they had a right to dispose of it; and if his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rolt) would propose clauses with a view to the attainment of that object, they should have his best consideration.
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he took it for granted that when his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General expressed a hope that all wills would be deposited in Somerset House, he meant only copies, so far as country wills were concerned, it being an essential provision of the Bill that all wills should be so deposited that persons interested would be able to gain immediate access to them.
§ MR. CAYLEYsaid, nothing would be more objected to in the country than the idea of removing original wills to London.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, no such idea had been entertained. The subject was one on which the feelings of the inhabitants of the country must of course be consulted. He regretted very much that country wills must remain in the country, because he thought the retention of them there prevented the collection of a great body of valuable information. The building of suitable depositaries in the country was, in fact, contemplated in the Bill.
§ MR. WESTHEADobserved, that he had given notice of an Amendment which he intended to move on the bringing up of the Report, to the effect that wills proved in any district court should be deposited in the registry of that court.
§ Clause 87 agreed to; as was also clause 88.
§ The Committee then proceeded to the consideration of the additional clauses.
§ On the clause fixing £4,000 a year as the salary of the Judge,
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he had given notice to move as additional clauses 1. To enable the Judge, if a Privy Councillor, to sit as a Member of the Judicial Committee. 2. The salary of the Judge to be £5,000 a year. 3. To enable the court to summon and empanel juries in like manner as the Superior Courts of common law, and to try issues and hear and determine motions for new trials in the court itself, and to direct issues to be tried at the assizes. 4. To require grants of probate or administration, where the estate comprises stock at the Bank of England or East India House, to be sealed at the principal registry in London, as well as in the district registry. In conformity with this notice, he should first move to insert £5,000 as the salary, instead of £4,000. This Judge would be precisely in the same position as the Vice Chancellors and the common law puisne Judges. He thought, therefore, that a permanent salary of £5,000 a year should be granted, as the adoption of any other course would stamp the office with an inferiority which might have the effect of throwing difficulties in the way of the Crown in its endeavour to secure the services of the most eminently qualified person to preside over the new court.
§ MR. AYRTONobjected to the proposal of the hon. and learned Member. The Government must have considered the matter, and upon that consideration come to the determination that £4,000 was a fitting salary. For his own part, he concurred in that view, and thought the Amendment ought not to be pressed.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGobserved that he thought that the Committee ought to hear from the Government what were their views upon the subject, as it was well known that there was never a salary that some one did not propose an increase of it.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid that if there had been a general feeling expressed by the Committee in favour of 1310 the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend he would have been prepared to accede to it, but such did not appear to be the case; and he would remind the Committee that there was a provision in the Bill to increase the salary to £5,000 when the labours of the judge became more arduous. In that event the salary would be equal to that received by the other Judges. As the hon. Member had supposed, the Government had gravely considered the question, and he trusted therefore that the Committee would pass the clause as it stood.
§ Amendment by leave withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause (providing an additional salary in case of the Judge of the Court of Probate filling the office of Judge of the Admiralty Court) agreed to.
§ Clause (Crown to grant a retiring pension of £2,000 in case the salary of the Judge stood at £4,000, and a pension of £3,500 in case it stood at £5,000.)
§ MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he rose to move to reduce the latter pension to £2,500, considering that it was disproportionate as it stood.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALtrusted that the Committee would allow the clause to stand as it was. The additional pension was given only in the event of the salary of the Judge being £5,000. This amount was the amount which a long course of usage had sanctioned in the case of all the other Judges. When the Committee considered the duties which the Judge of this court would have to fulfil, duties demanding great learning, occupying considerable time, and requiring most patient investigation, he thought they would agree with him that the amount was not too large. The Committee had, in negativing an Amendment to increase the salary from £4,000, given the Government credit for having carefully weighed this matter; he hoped they would still extend that credit to them.
§ MR. MALINSobserved that he quite concurred in what had fallen from the Attorney General; he considered, however, that the retiring pension of £2,000, which was to be the sum if the salary remained at £4,000, was too small.
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he wished to point out that as the Bill stood it made no provision for the learned Judge of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, supposing he should decline the office of Judge of the new Court. In such an event, the 1311 learned Judge would find his office abolished and himself left without one shilling of compensation. He trusted that the Government would consider this matter. If the present opportunity were allowed to pass by, Government would be under the necessity of passing a special Act of Parliament to provide an allowance for him.
§ MR. HUDSONsaid, he also thought that the retiring pension of £3,500 was not too large. The Committee should remember that it was only payable after fifteen years' service. He hoped that the Amendment would be withdrawn.
§ Amendment by leave withdrawn.
§ On the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill,
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that it was impossible for the Government to state what steps they would take in the event of a contingency occurring which it was not in their power to foresee. If the learned Judge of the Prerogative Court declined to accept the new office, the House, he had no doubt, would deal with him in that liberal spirit which had animated them in the arrangement made with respect to the Masters in Chancery. If the duties of the Court of Admiralty devolved upon the new Judge, the salary attached to the office would be £5,000 a year.
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, if the Bill passed, the Government could not confer on Sir J. Dodson a retiring pension of even one shilling. He thought that some provision should be inserted in the Bill against the contingency of that learned Judge deciding against accepting office under it.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, that it was perfectly well understood that Government would offer the appointment to the learned Judge of the Prerogative Court, and he agreed with the Attorney General that it would be useless to legislate for a contingency which had not yet arisen, and which, to judge by the learned Judge's high antecedents, was not likely to occur.
§ MR. MALINSsaid, he hoped that if Sir J. Dodson should decide on not accepting the new judgship to be created under this Bill, the House would deal as liberally towards him as they had a few weeks ago towards Mr. Hatchell, the Judge of the Irish Insolvent Debtors' Court, to whom a retiring pension equal to his full salary was to be paid during the remainder of his life, because a Bill was passed whereby he was removed from his office. This principle ought to be applied to the Judge of 1312 the Prerogative Court. His office was abolished for public convenience, and it would be contrary to all principle if the same act which abolished the office did not secure him proper compensation. The point was one which ought to be left in no doubt.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, his hon. and learned Friends could have no doubt as to what were his own views on the question. All he could say, however, was that he would press the matter upon the attention of the Government, and if they took the view which had been just expressed he would bring up a clause in accordance with that view.
§ Clause added to the Bill.
§ Clause brought up, (Judge to fix a table of fees to be taken by officers of the Court and by officers of County Courts).
§ MR. ROLTsaid he thought there would be very little for the London proctors to do, and that the court might be thrown open to solicitors generally. If so, the table of fees paid to proctors must be altered.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he proposed to postpone for the present the question of compensation until they knew the amount of business likely to be transacted in the new court; so that the clauses proposed to be inserted by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Malins) respecting the case of the London proctors, and the clause proposed by the noble Lord (Lord Goderich) as to the proctors of York and Chester, would be considered at the same time. With regard to the remark of the hon. and learned Member for Gloucestershire, it would be easy to make the proposed alteration, if the event he anticipated should occur.
§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to remark upon the large amount of compensation which seemed to be contemplated under this Bill. He feared it would cost the country at least a quarter of a million of money. The Attorney General ought to produce a schedule stating the number of officers who were to be compensated and the amount of compensation; and he thought it most unwise to raise the money to be applied to this purpose through, the medium of fees, the future amount of which would be totally unknown, and which would inflict a most serious tax on the community.
§ MR. HUDSONsaid, that at present the Committee had no means of information as to what amount of taxation would 1313 be fair and just. He thought it would be a great evil to throw the court open to the solicitors. The limited number of persons engaged in the duty of proving wills was a great security for its being properly performed.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the hon. Baronet had rather misunderstood what he had stated. This Bill merely provided for the full compensation of those who were in office before the statute of Will. IV.; and but on a limited scale for those who have been appointed since that period. No additional fees would be created for that purpose, the fees at present taken being sufficient to provide both for the remuneration of the practitioners and for all the compensation that could be required. The whole amount of compensation provided for under the Bill could not, according to his apprehension, exceed £30,000 or £40,000 a year—an insignificant sum compared with the advantage to be gained from the reduction of the fees.
§ Clause added to the Bill.
§ Clause proposed, providing for the transfer of offices from Mr. Moore to the registrar of the new court.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the buildings occupied by the Prerogative Office at Doctors' Commons were held by Mr. Moore under a lease, which expired on Lady-day last. Mr. Moore applied to the Government to say that the lease would come to an end on Lady-day, and he wished to know whether the Government desired that the lease should be renewed. He was told that some short renewal would be required, but the actual terms of the renewal he did not know. Mr. Moore had, however, acted at the request of the Government, and had no interest in the term of renewal, which would not, therefore, be a subject of compensation to him. The interest in the lease or occupation would be transferred to the new registrar, and might be the subject of a small compensation to the parties.
§ MR. HADFIELDsaid, he would take occasion to remark that he and hon. Members around him could not hear one word of these explanations of the Attorney General. He believed that Mr. Moore, the present possessor of the office, had received £8,000 a year for fifty or sixty years. His successor in reversion was Lord Canterbury, and the present Archbishop of Canterbury had done what Archbishop Howley had refused to do, and had appointed his own son, a young gentleman 1314 of twenty-five years of age, to succeed Lord Canterbury. So that there was a registrar in possession while there were two in reversion. Were all these gentlemen to be compensated out of the fees raised from widows and orphans? Had the arch-bishop's son any interest in this office, and had he a claim to compensation?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the hon. Member for Sheffield ought to give notice to repeal a former Act of Parliament. He regretted that the hon. Member was not a Member of the Parliament which passed the 2 & 3 of Will. IV., c. 109, which was a millstone round the necks of the House in this matter, but which they were obliged to obey. The appointment of one of the relatives of the present Archbishop of Canterbury, as a reversioner in expectancy in succession to Lord Canterbury, was not recognised by the present Bill as entitling him to compensation.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, he should be glad to know whether it was not obligatory on Mr. Moore to find a building for the safe custody of wills. If so, that would be a deduction out of the great leviathan sinecure, which would be an element in reducing his claim to compensation. He thought that the clause had better be postponed.
§ MR. COLLIERobserved that he believed that Mr. Moore was bound to furnish a proper place for the custody of wills, but it was clear that he had neglected to do so. The building in which the wills were deposited was insufficient, it was not fireproof, and it was near a carpenter's shop, and liable to be burnt on the ignition of the shavings. He also would recommend the postponement of the clause, in order that the matter might be inquired into.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALagreed that the clause had better be deferred and come up with the other compensation clauses.
§ Clause postponed.
§ Clauses 32 and 33, which had been postponed, struck out, the ATTORNEY GENERAL stating that he would bring up another clause on the subject.
§ Clause brought up (Judge of the Court to make rules and regulations for the proceedings of the Court).
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYsuggested the addition of the word "pleadings."
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he feared the word would carry with it all the meaning attached to it in Westminster 1315 Hall. It was desirable that the proceedings of the new court should be as simple as possible. In the majority of cases, he hoped that the pleadings would hardly extend beyond this: "I, A B, propound the will of C D, for proof;" while the other party would say, "I oppose it."
§ Clause agreed to.
§ MR. WESTHEADthen moved a clause instead of Clause 81.
§ Motion withdrawn,
§ The Schedules were then taken.
§ Schedule A.
§ MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he would move, as an Amendment, that Durham be the place of registry for the counties of Northumberland and Durham, instead of Newcastle for Northumberland, and Durham for Durham.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR JOHN JOHNSTONEsaid, he should propose that York should be the place for the district registry of the whole of Yorkshire, instead of York for the West Riding (excepting the Leeds district), Richmond for the North Riding, and Hull for the East Riding. He supported his Amendment upon the ground of economy, because a registry existed at York, and upon the ground of convenience, because York was the nucleus of a number of railways.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "West Riding of the county of York, except Leeds District, North Riding Ditto, East Riding Ditto, Parish or County Court District of Leeds," and to insert the word "Yorkshire," instead thereof.
§ VISCOUNT GODERICHsaid, that the East Riding, for which the hon. Baronet was interested, had only a population of 400,000, while the population of the West Riding was 1,300,000, sufficient to entitle it to be made a separate district. The proposition of his hon. Friend, if carried, would prove singularly inconvenient to the great mass of the inhabitants of the West Riding. The city of York was not within the West Riding at all. He would hope that the Government and the Committee would not inflict so great an injustice upon the people of the West Riding as to make York—which was situated upon the extreme border of the riding—the place of registration. He was surprised to find that 1316 it was proposed to make Leeds a place of registration for a small district, while the great bulk of the inhabitants would have to pass through it on their way to York.
COLONEL SMITHsaid, that he considered that the city of York had a prior claim on the Committee, inasmuch as there was at present there a staff of persons accustomed to these duties, and all the machinery was prepared for carrying into operation the provisions of the Bill. Besides, York was nearly in the centre of the county. He believed that the feeling of the inhabitants of the West Riding themselves was in favour of York, it being the place most convenient for those who had business to transact.
§ GENERAL THOMPSONsaid, the question was, whether convenience should be meted out by counties or by tithings. And as it had been found convenient to divide the county into three for the purpose of representation, the same reasons pointed to its being convenient to do the same for the purpose of registry; and what was central for one was central for the other. On this ground, Wakefield, the town in which electoral proceedings were carried on, would be the proper place to establish a registry.
§ MR. CROSSLEYsaid, he also would contend that Wakefield should be selected as the place of registration.
§ MR. COLLINSremarked, that he thought that the wishes of a population amounting to a million and a half should be attended to. The question would not bear further argument.
§ SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, the great object was to select the place which would be most convenient for all purposes of business. Now, at York there was already an office for the registration of deeds, and it would be well to bring the general business of the West Riding to one place; and no other place, all things considered, Would be so convenient for the inhabitants of the West Riding generally as York.
MR. BECKETT DENISONsaid, every hon. Member appeared to be anxious to make the place which he represented the place of registry. He was quite conscious that in proposing that York should be the place of registry for Yorkshire he was making a proposition which would be very unpopular as regarded himself. York had for almost time out of mind been a place of 1317 registry, and it was as accessible to the people of Yorkshire as any other place that could be mentioned. The business of the diocese had been conducted there in a most creditable manner, and he could not understand the reason of the exception which the Bill proposed to make in favour of a small part of Yorkshire. If you were separating the county into three divisions for the purpose of selecting three places of registry, undoubtedly Wakefield, Beverley, and Northallerton ought to be selected, but for public convenience and safe deposit of wills no place could be so adapted as the city of York; it was as accessible as any place in the county.
§ LORD HOTHAMsaid, he had received no instructions from his constituents in respect to the matter, but agreed with the hon. Member for the West Riding that York was the most eligible place.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he could not understand why York should be all in all in the matter, and would undertake by a detail of statistics to show both with regard to population and of distance, that Leeds, for the West Riding, was likely to be more convenient as a place of registry than that city. The principal reason which had induced Government to assign the districts in question was, that they had thought it desirable wherever they found a registry established to retain it as a place to which persons had been accustomed to resort. Under all the circumstances, he could not concur in the proposition of the hon. Member.
§ MR. CAYLEYobserved, that no inhabitant of the West Riding had, until now, thought of objecting to York as the place of registry.
§ MR. HILDYARDthought that no practical inconvenience could result from continuing the registry at York, and in an economical point of view such an arrangement would be far better than that proposed, for if the county were separated into three districts, no doubt the York proctors would have to be compensated.
§ MR. HUDSONremarked, that the whole tendency of the Bill was towards a system of centralisation, and upon that principle he would support the proposition for retaining the proctorial business at York.
§ VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, that if it were a question between Leeds and Wake-field he should vote in favour of the latter place, but as the office in York seemed to have given satisfaction to the whole county 1318 he could see no reason to remove it from that city.
§ MR. RICHsaid, that the small county of Sussex had two separate Probate Courts, and yet it was proposed that the enormous district comprised within the county of York, with a population in round numbers of 2,000,000, should have but one place in which wills could be proved. He trusted the Attorney General would adhere to his schedule.
§ Question put, "That the words 'West Riding of the county of York' stand part of the schedule."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 177; Noes 67: Majority 110.
§ MR. CHARLESWORTHproposed to leave out from Schedule A the words "except Leeds District."
§ Motion agreed to.
§ MR. CHARLESWORTHalso proposed to substitute. Wakefield for York as the place of district registry for the West Riding.
§ MR. BEECROFTsubmitted, that between Leeds and Wakefield there was no sort of comparison. He trusted the Committee would allow Leeds to be the register district of, the West Riding of Yorkshire, as it was the centre of a large populous and commercial district.
MR. TATTON EGERTONsaid, he wished, before the Committee came to a decision on this point, to know what amount of compensation the public would be expected to pay to the proctors and different officers connected with York, which at present was the place where all the business of the province was transacted.
§ MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that as the schedule at present stood, the whole of the West, Riding was to be one district except Leeds, which was to be a separate district. The question now to be determined was, whether Leeds was to be a separate district. He could not see that Leeds had any permanent claim to be a separate district. He should vote for making the West Riding one district, and for omitting Leeds as a separate district.
MR. BECKETT DENISONsaid, that there was no pretence for putting Leeds into a separate district. Wakefield ought to be the sole place for the West Riding. He never saw a more absurd schedule 1319 drawn up than tills was, so far as it regarded Yorkshire.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it was impossible to state with anything approaching to accuracy what might be the just claim to compensation on the part of the country proctors, because that must wholly depend on the arrangements that might be made on bringing up the new clauses. His idea was, that they would be only entitled to compensation in respect of the contentious business which would be taken from them and transferred to London.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ COLONEL SMYTH moved that York be the district for the North and East Riding of Yorkshire, instead of Richmond and Hull.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ On the Motion of Mr. ROEBUCK the words "parish or County Court district of Leeds," were struck out.
§ EARL JERMYNsaid, that a numerously signed requisition of inhabitants of Bury St. Edmund's, including a large number of persons of small property, had been presented to him for the purpose of inducing him to move that town, which had been a place of registry for centuries, might continue so under the Bill. He should accordingly move, that Bury St. Edmund's should be the place of registry for the western division of the county of Suffolk, and Ipswich that for the eastern division of the county of Suffolk and northern division of the county of Essex. He would remind the Committee that Bury St. Edmund's was not only the chief town in the western division of the county, but the chief town of an ancient jurisdiction, called the Liberty of Bury St. Edmund's, extending over more than a third of the county of Suffolk.
§ Amendment proposed before the word "county of Suffolk" to insert the words "Eastern division of the."
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid that Bury St. Edmund's appeared to come within the principle which had been as far as possible adopted in the assignment of those places of registry, and he should therefore consent to the Amendment.
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he should oppose the Amendment, on the ground that it went to multiply district registries and officers unnecessarily, and consequently compensation, and he should therefore take the sense of the Committee 1320 upon it. The Commission of 1854 had recommended that Ipswich should be the only place of registry for the county. The Commissioners recommended that there should not be more than thirty districts, but in consequence of there being so many large towns in the north of England the Government had increased the number to forty; but if the principle of his noble Friend were agreed to, they would have 120 districts.
§ MR. BENNETsaid, he should support the Amendment.
§ MR. HENLEYwished to know what principle was to be adopted in determining the districts. The Committee had refused to constitute Leeds, with 170,000 inhabitants, into a district. That now proposed had not near so large a population.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he had acceded to the Amendment, because it appeared that if he did not, many persons in Suffolk would be obliged to come to London because of the great distance at which they resided from Ipswich.
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, the district created by the Amendment would, he believed, be the smallest in England. This was an entire departure from the principle of the Bill.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 151; Noes 53; Majority 98.
§ MR. REBOWexpressed a hope that the inhabitants of the northern division of Essex would not have the necessity imposed upon them of going to the district registry at Ipswich; but that a district registry would be established in the large and important town of Colchester. He begged to move as an Amendment, on Schedule A, that the northern division of Essex be separated from the county of Suffolk, and stand as a district by itself, and that Colchester be appointed the place of district registry.
§ MR. DU CANEsaid, he should support the Amendment.
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he should oppose the Amendment, as there was no machinery at Colchester for establishing a registry. It was exceedingly inconvenient to increase the number of districts.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALremarked that he saw no reason for making any further alteration in the schedule. If it were inconvenient for the people of Colchester to go to Ipswich, the remedy was very simple—namely, for them to come to London.
MR. MILLERsaid, he would support the Amendment on the ground that it would bring cheap law to the doors of the people.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. DILLWYN moved the appointment of separate places of registry for Glamorganshire and Monmouth.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it was impossible to discuss these local questions when no notice had been given. The proposed place of registry, Llandaff, was an ancient town, with the requisite buildings and machinery, and as these did not exist elsewhere, he could not accede to the Amendment.
§ MR. H. H. VIVIANsaid, the population of Glamorganshire and Monmouth was not less than 500,000 souls. The population of Llandaff was very small, while there were two towns in Glamorganshire and Monmouth with a population of 30,000 each, and those towns would form suitable places of registry.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. COLLIERproposed that Exeter should remain the place of registry for North Devon, and that Plymouth should be the place for South Devon.
§ SIR JOHN BULLERthought that the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, while it might meet the views of some parties, would not be generally convenient to the inhabitants of Devonshire. Besides, a better town for the purpose than Exeter could easily be found. He thought it wisest to retain the schedule as it stood, as both Exeter and Plymouth were at the bottom of their respective divisions in the county.
§ MR. COLLIERhad no objection to substitute South Molton for Exeter; but he maintained that the population of Plymouth, Devonport, and Stonehouse ought to have a registry.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the circumstances of the case did not permit him to accede to the proposition of the hon. and learned Member.
§ MR. J. WHITEsaid, he regretted much to hear the statement which the learned Attorney General had made, as he considered that Plymouth had great claims to 1322 be a place of registration, especially as Totness was about to be abolished.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Schedules A and B agreed to.
§ House resumed, Committee report progress; to sit again on Friday next,