[BILL 8.] SECOND READING. (Hansard, 20 May 1874)

§ MR. GREGORY
, in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the object of it was to remove certain restrictions which had hampered the operations of an Act of Parliament which had been of great utility—the 19 and 20 Vic. c. 60. That Act was passed to enable the Court of Chancery to exercise powers in reference to the leasing and selling of settled estates, which had hitherto been exercised by the Legislature alone. Tenants for life, trustees, and others having limited interests in estates might apply by petition to the Court for power to grant leases or effect sales where they would be beneficial to the property. Many applications had been made to the Court under the Act, and had been acceded to with great benefit, both to those interested in estates and to the public generally; but the Act was hampered by a clause which required the Court to have the consents of all parties interested under the settlement, down to the tenant in tail inclusive, before the application could be granted, and the simple object of the Bill was to enable the Court of Chancery, where it thought fit, to suspend the operation of that part of the Act, and allow of sales, without the assent of parties and others having remote or contingent interests. The practice of Parliament formerly was to require the consent of all such persons, and in handing its powers over to the Court of Chancery, Parliament required it to obtain such consents. It did not, however, occur to Parliament that the Court had not, like Parliament, the inherent power of dispensing 543 with such consent by legislation—a power which had been exercised against persons who proved unreasonably obstructive. In many cases there were a number of persons between the tenant for life, and the tenant in tail, to whom life estates were given which were never likely to take effect; or the tenant in tail, might be liable to be dispersed at any time by a previous tenant for life having a child; but the existence of the present restriction enabled a manto say—"It is true my substantial interest is worth little or nothing, but my concurrence is worth something. What will you give me for it?" In this spirit a man might capriciously withhold his consent, and say he would take his chance, and such refusals operated very injuriously in many instances. It prevented a tenant for life granting building leases; or, if an estate was encumbered, it prevented him selling a portion of it to enable him to improve the remainder. He had the pleasure of speaking to many members of the Chancery Bar, and they had all of them expressed their hearty concurrence in the object of the Bill, as one very much calculated to facilitate sales without injury to individuals and in the interest of the public. Many cases had been mentioned to him that had come before Court that would be met by the passing of this Bill. In fact, it was only within a day or two that the secretary of one of the Judges of the Court of Chancery told him that he had to stop an application under the Act because one of the parties whose consent was required was an imbecile, and such consent could only be given by a Committee appointed under a Commission of Lunacy to which the family naturally objected. It was not likely the Court of Chancery would exercise the power proposed to be conferred by the Bill without due consideration, and all the usual safeguards in reference to notices and advertisements, and so forth, had been retained in the Bill. For those reasons he hoped he should have the support of the House in moving the second reading.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that having had some considerable experience in these matters, he knew of the difficulties 544 which needlessly obstructed and complicated the sales of settled estates. He thought the Bill was so drawn, and would be so beneficial in its operation, that it would prove to be of considerable utility, and he, therefore, would give it his hearty support. The consents could not be dispensed with except by direction of the Judges before whom the matter was brought, and after full and sufficient notice to all the parties concerned. Under these circumstances, he had great pleasure in supporting the second reading.

§ SIR JOHN KENNAWAY
said, he had great pleasure in supporting the Bill, which formed part of a much larger measure introduced by his hon. Friend last Session, which dealt with the transfer of land. It now came before them in a simple and unpretending form, but which gave relief where relief was much needed, and he thought the time had come when Parliament might, with great advantage, proceed in the direction indicated. The two hon. and learned Gentlemen who had preceded him made it unnecessary to say anything, so far as the professional point of view was concerned; but, connected as he was with land, he approached that subject as a practical man, who desired to make the land more productive. That could only be done by the larger application of capital to the land for the purpose of its full development. The Report of the Commission on the employment of females and children in agricultural labour gave a description of over-crowded, miserable cottages, and under-cultivated land, which were directly attributable to the want of capital and enterprize. To free those stagnant settled estates would be a public benefit. He might go still further, and point to the Report of a Committee of the House of Lords, which dealt with the interests of owners of limited holdings, leaving the remainder more guarded by very careful restrictions. It was admitted that, much as had been done, much more might be done if facilities were given for sales and re-settlements. If the land was held in fee simple, no such legislation would be required. But the larger portion was held under settlement. The Act of 1856, on which this Bill proposed to make some amendments, was in itself a useful Act. It insisted upon one principal point—namely, that the intention of the 545 settlors should be attended to before all other matters. The Bill of the hon. Member maintained that provision in all its integrity. But the Act further provided that the consent of the trustees of those who might have distant interests in the estates should be necessary. Trustees who had no beneficial interest in the estate were extremely loath to become parties to such suits, and Mr. Parkins, a solicitor, giving evidence before the Lords' Committee said—"we never consent on the part of trustees; we do not object if the Court sees fit to grant." The Bill enabled the Court of Chancery, where they saw fit, to dispense with the assent of such parties. Such a power was much needed, and they all knew that it would be judiciously and equitably exercised by the Court. It was infinitely more to the advantage of the successor to have a small estate in good order than a large one in a dilapidated condition.

MR. LOPES
heartily approved of the objects of the measure, and felt highly gratified at the reception it had met on that occasion. He believed it would be a valuable contribution to the legislation of the Session.

§ SIR EDWARD WATKIN
said, the Bill would strike off another shackle on the transfer of land in the public interest. He was sorry it had not been made a little wider, so that the Court should have power to order the cutting down of old and unnecessary trees on settled estates.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)
said, it would be desirable in Committee to make the words in the Bill "Court of Chancery" include also the Court of Chancery in Ireland. He had known of cases of settlements in which the limitations were of the mostcurious character, and which this Bill would enable the Court of Chancery to dispense with, while at the same time, sufficient protection would be given to all parties interested under such settlements.