COURT OF CHANCERY.

HC Deb 10 July 1832 vol 14 cc219-21

Mr. Spence

rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill relative to the practice of the Court of Chancery. He observed that the promised bill of the Lord Chancellor would apply to some part of the proceedings in that Court, but not to that part to which he now wished to direct the attention of the House. The object of his Bill was, to prevent expense and delay in the administration of the estate of a deceased testator or intestate. At present, if a creditor of a deceased's estate claimed payment of his demand, he had to file a bill, at a considerable expense, and to that bill an answer was put in, also at a great expense, and both bill and answer were drawn up in a common form, and required no skill to prepare them; but their enormous length rendered them very costly. It was the object of this Bill to propose, that, instead of this process of bill and answer, as now adopted, where it was sought to administer the estate of a testator or an intestate, there should be employed a short form, comprising but a few lines, and which should in substance amount to a citation of the opposite party before the Court. This citation should state, that the party at whose suit it was issued was a creditor on the estate of the testator or intestate who had died indebted to him, that the defendant was the executor or administrator of the deceased party, and should call on him to show cause why the estate of the deceased should not be administered in payment of his debts; or if the suit was brought by a residuary legatee, why, after payment of the debts and legacies, the residue should not be applied in the manner stated in the will itself. Unless the defendant could show some real cause why this should not be done, he should not be allowed to put in any answer at all, and the estate should then be administered in the same manner as it would be now, after the Master's report and the other proceedings. This would enable a party to interpose to prevent waste on the part of an executor; would compel him instantly, after he had satisfied the debts and legacies, to pay the balance into Court for the benefit of the residuary legatee; and, in a summary manner, would enable an executor or administrator to restrain creditors from proceeding at law, without the expense of that course which was now unnecessary to be adopted to secure the same end. In this manner the expenses of proceedings at law, and the expenses incurred in preventing those proceedings would both be saved, and suits, which now sometimes swallowed up the profits of an estate, would be prevented. There would, besides, be this advantage attending this Bill; it would enable the legatee or the executor at once to obtain, by a short mode of proceeding, the opinion of the Court on the construction of the will, without compelling the Court to take on itself the administration of the estate; and this would be highly advantageous, when all that was wanted was the opinion of the Court, in order to enable an executor or administrator to administer the estate. Connected with the bill which the Lord Chancellor was himself to bring in, a creditor or an executor would be enabled to conduct a suit at one-third of the expense which was now necessarily incurred. In short, it would save all the expense prior to going into the Master's office. On referring back, it would be found, that the abuses of the Court of Chancery had been complained of, from the time of Elizabeth down to the present day; and though Commissions had been appointed for the purpose of inquiring into those abuses, no effectual remedy had as yet been devised. He begged to move for leave to bring in a bill to diminish the expense and delay of proceedings in the High Court of Chancery in certain cases.

Sir Edward Sugden

said, that he should reserve what he had to say for the future stages of the Bill, as they would afford a fitter opportunity for discussion. He must, however, take the liberty of expressing his regret that this Bill had been delayed to the very last moment; more especially as the present Ministers, when in opposition, had pledged themselves to a Reform in the Court of Chancery, and yet, after accepting office, had allowed two whole years to elapse without making any progress in redeeming that pledge.

Mr. Spence

had pledged himself to the House, that after last Christmas he would introduce a Bill to regulate the Master's Office; and that bill was actually prepared, and would have been brought in; but that, after being submitted to the Lord Chancellor, it was thought that it would be better to bring in a more general bill, for correcting the abuses in all the offices; and when it was considered how many offices there were, he trusted that the House would agree with him, that from Christmas to the present time was not too long a period for the preparation of such a measure.

Leave given.