§ 48. Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that legislation is being undertaken in the case of 23 pictures specified in a schedule signed by Lord Iveagh, but not properly attested as a will owing to there being only one witness instead of two to enable the intention of the testator to be carried out and these pictures given to the nation; and, in view of exactly similar circumstances with regard to the bequest of the Lane pictures and the fact that there was only one witness instead of two to the codicil, he will introduce legislation to enable the trustees of the National Gallery to hand these pictures over to Dublin and thereby carry out equally the testator's wishes?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI am not, prepared to accept the view that the circumstances in the two cases referred to in my hon. and gallant Friend's question are exactly similar, and as at present advised I see no ground for any modification of the decision conveyed in my reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) on the 5th July, 1926, regarding, the Lane pictures.
§ Colonel HOWARD-BURYIs not the Prime Minister aware that it has always been said that if legislation were passed it would be establishing a bad precedent to alter a will; but, seeing that in the one case it is being done by a Private Bill, will he not withdraw his objection and have it done in the other case, and so establish the testator's intention?
§ The PRIME MINISTERAs I have said in my answer, the two cases are really not on all fours. In the case of the Guinness Request, the legislation is not for the purpose of overcoming a dispute between two rival potential beneficiaries. That is the first and the great difference between the two cases.