PROBATE OF WILLS AND GRANTS OF ADMINISTRATION BILL. (Hansard, 4 May 1853)

§ MR. HADFIELD
, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said, he was quite willing that the further consideration of it should be postponed until after the Bill announced by the hon. and learned Solicitor General should be before the House.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, that when, a month ago, he made a statement on this subject, he hoped that he should shortly be able to introduce a Bill. Considerable progress had since been made in the preparation of that Bill, and it was now nearly ready to be brought in; but, in 1077 consequence of communications ha had received, he had referred it to the Chancery Commissioners for their opinion as to the testamentary jurisdiction. Some little time must therefore he allowed to enable the Commissioners to make their Report, as he was anxious not to bring in a measure without the high sanction of their recommendation. He might here remind the House that the important measure of last Session, for the reform of the Court of Chancery, and of which every day showed the advantages, embodied the recommendations of that learned body. At the same time, he could assure the House, that he was most anxious to fulfil the promises he had made; and he also believed he had authority to state, that if the Report of the Commissioners were delayed longer than was expected, the Bill which had been prepared would be immediately laid on the table. With regard to the Bill of his hon. Friend, he was willing that it should be read a second time now, with the understanding that when the larger measure was brought in, the latter should have precedence of consideration. He (the Solicitor General) was excessively desirous that ecclesiastical jurisdiction, in which there was nothing of a spiritual nature, but which was purely temporal, should be absorbed into a temporal court, and there was no court so proper for the purpose as the Court of Chancery. Unless that were done, any partial measure for the reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts which still left them existing, would be a step in the wrong direction. With these observations he was willing that the Bill should be read a second time.

§ MR. R. PHILLIMORE
said, he could not permit the Bill to be read a second time, even pro formâ, without entering his protest against its provisions. He thought this Bill ought to be described as Bill to cause, and not to prevent, the necessity of several probates and grants of administration, and that if allowed to go to a Committee pro formâ, it ought to be with the clear understanding that it contained provisions of a very objectionable character. He hoped, however, that this much-vexed question would be settled during the present Session.

§ The LORD ADVOCATE
said, the Bill as it now stood did not provide for those reforms in Scotland which were desirable; but his hon. Friend (Mr. Hadfield) had agreed to take such clauses as he might propose in Committee for that purpose.

MR. BECKETT DENISON
hoped the Bill would be withdrawn, as the Government had already prepared a more comprehensive measure.

MR. J. D. FITZGERALD
said, he very much objected to this tinkering kind of legislation, which would not remove the evils which existed. The Bill extended to Ireland, but some of the provisions were very objectionable; and if he had not received the assurance of Her Majesty's Government that it was their intention to bring in a measure for regulating the Ecclesiastical Courts in that country, he should have felt it his duty to bring in such a Bill as a private Member.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, he thought the House ought not to read the Bill a second time. The Government had a Bill already prepared, and the hon. and learned Solicitor General said he would never consent to a measure which was only a partial reform of these Courts. This Bill would be an obstruction rather than an assistance to the prosecution of the more comprehensive reforms sketched by the hon. and learned Gentleman on a former occasion; and he should, therefore, move that it be read a second time that day six months.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, he saw no distinct reason for rejecting this Bill today. The House had not before it the plan of his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, which he was prepared to put in the form of a Bill, and that plan might be modified by the Report of the Commissioners appointed specially to consider this subject. On some future day the House might be called on to give their ultimate decision; and such being the case, they ought not to reject the present Bill, or refuse every information and suggestion which could be brought under their notice. He should object to going into Committee on this Bill, feeling that it only dealt with one part of the subject; but he thought it would be wrong, at this stage, to reject it. Whether it was now read a second time, or whether the second reading was postponed, was of very little consequence; but on the part of the Government, he should object to the House going into Committee on this Bill until all the propositions of the Solicitor General were laid on the table of the House.

§ MR. COLLIER
said, the Bill was, no 1079 doubt, imperfect, but, as far as it went, it was a good measure; and therefore it was unnecessary to stop its progress at the present stage. He agreed that the subject should be dealt with in a comprehensive manner; but he thought it would be better to refer the jurisdiction to the County Courts in non-contested cases, or up to a certain amount, and beyond that amount to the Courts of Common Law. He had given notice of a Bill upon the subject, not from any opposition to the Bill announced by the hon. and learned Solicitor General, nor from any hostility to the Government, and he should introduce it; but he would propose that it should be referred with the Bill of the Solicitor General to a Select Committee. The subject ought to be dealt with in the present Session, or the public would be greatly dissatisfied.