TESTAMENTARY JURISDICTION BILL. (Hansard, 7 April 1854)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, he should not have proposed to give this Bill a third reading in the present state of the House, if he did not regard the attendance of so few of their Lordships as only indicating that their minds had been made up on the subject of this Bill. Objections had been made to the transfer of testamentary jurisdiction to the Court of Chancery, but he thought the arguments upon that subject had been satisfactorily answered. What was the use of constructing another court, if the Court of Chancery could discharge the functions? The Court of Chancery never was a slow court in giving a decision; when a petition took place, and there were accounts and inquiries to be gone into, delays had occurred. But the adjudication of a right had always been obtained quietly, and could now be obtained from the Court of Chancery more quickly than from any court in the country. The noble and learned Lord concluded by—

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY
said he could hardly suppose that a Bill of this kind could be delayed by any remarks of his; but he must take this opportunity of expressing the strong feelings with which he regarded the probable operation of this Bill on a large body of professional men with whom he was officially connected, and who would suffer grievous loss by the provisions of the Bill. The proctors of the ecclesiastical courts had been from time immemorial appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Lord Chancellor had justly said, upon a former occasion, that there could not now be supposed to be any necessary connexion between the see of Canterbury and the jurisdiction with regard to wills. But he thought the object in view might have been obtained without depriving a body of men of their means of existence as professional men, which he feared after a short period would be the effect of this Bill. He had not taken a part in the discussions on this Bill, because it might be thought he was personally interested in the matter. He could not deny that all the judicial authority in their Lordships' House seemed to be in favour of the reform, but he could not allow the Bill to pass a third reading without expressing his sympathy with a body 671 of men with whom he was officially connected.

LORD WYNFORD
, after presenting petitions against the Bill, said he doubted very much whether the public believed that this Bill would be for their advantage. He had presented various petitions against the Bill, signed by bankers, merchants, and other influential persons. The Bill was opposed by several of the Judges of the Court of Chancery, and he had proposed in the Committee upstairs to call these learned persons before them, and ask them to state upon what grounds they had come to the conclusion that testamentary jurisdiction had better be given to a Court of Probate and not to the Court of Chancery. He moved that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said that the objection to examine these learned personages before the Committee was made by Lord St. Leonards. Eight of the thirteen Commissioners were in favour of transferring testamentary jurisdiction to the Court of Chancery; four were favourable to the course proposed to be taken by this Bill, and four wished to preserve a Probate Court as a distinct branch. No one had a greater respect for the learned personages who expressed the last-cited opinion than himself; but if they had been called before the Committee they would have said that the evidence upon which the opinions of the Commissioners was founded was printed, and that their Lordships could form their own opinions upon it. No one could sympathise more than he did with the sufferings that any reform might cause among any class of persons affected by it; but these sufferings were in the present instance absolutely irremediable, because it never could be pretended that the practitioners under an unimproved system had a claim to be compensated when that system came to be improved because their profits were not so great as they had been. Who was to estimate such an injury? By continuing their monopoly for a long period of time, which ten years undoubtedly was, these practitioners would have ample opportunities in the interval to form other connexions, which would make the shock less felt. With exertion on their part during the interval, the change, he did not doubt, would turn out less injurious than these parties supposed.