HOUSE OF LORDS. (Hansard, 3 September 1835)

§ The Attorney-General
brought up the Report of the Select Committee appointed to search the Journals of the House of Lords, to see what had become of two Bills, the Execution of Wills' Bill, and Administrator's Bill. He was sure that at all times he should be found exceedingly unwilling to give offence to that House, much more at this moment. He would, therefore, content himself with saying that it appeared that these two Bills had been read a second time on the 22nd of June, and referred to a Select Committee, and no further trace of them could be found.

Dr. Lushington
The proceedings that had been adopted elsewhere respecting those two measures required that they should be brought under the notice of that House, and he trusted that lie would not be thought impertinent, if he stated briefly the circumstances under which they were introduced, and the manner in which they had been treated elsewhere. They had been founded on the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, of whom two were Lord Chief Justices—the late Chief Justice, and the Chief Baron, and they had been produced with their unanimous assent. The propositions also underwent the discussion of the Commissioners of Real Property, and received their approbation. The Bills were then introduced by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, and debated in that House and referred to a Select Committee up stairs; and as they were of great importance to the welfare of the community, as tending to remedy some of the greatest grievances the present state of the law inflicted upon his Majesty's subjects, the Bills were passed after great consideration. The Bills were then sent up to the House of Lords in the course of June; they were 1322 read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee; and though this was now the third day of September, the Journals of the Lords had been searched, and no further notice was taken of measures which so deeply affected the interests of the people. It was his duty, as the Representative of a large portion of that people, to see what had become of important legislative measures, involving no political consideration—exciting no strife between adverse parties—and that House would not do its duty to the public whom they represented if, upon similar conduct being adopted by the other House, they did not take all constitutional means in their power to carry into effect those measures which they deemed essential to the welfare of the people. Had this been an isolated case, he might be content to pass it by, after saying that it might accidentally have escaped notice; but it was only one of a great series of measures which had been neglected or rejected, and he thought that it was his duty to call the attention of the House to it.

§ Sir Edward Knatchbull
did not rise to underrate the importance of those measures; on the contrary, he felt, and admitted, they were measures of great importance, and deserved serious consideration. But he was not prepared to admit, that upon the footing of neglect of the interests of the people these measures had not progressed in the other House to the extent which the hon. Member anticipated. That delay was owing to the absence on the Circuit of certain learned Lords, whose legal experience was necessary to enable the House of Lords to come to a proper consideration of those Bills. If that was not sufficient, how, he would ask, did it happen that a noble individual in the other House, who was so forward to advocate the interests of the people, had not forced forward these Bills, if he thought them necessary? He believed it was generally understood that both those measures were to be brought forward at an early period of the next Session.