The Lord Chancellorsaid, he rose, pursuant to the notice he had given, to move the second reading of three Bills, the object and nature of which he would endeavour to explain very shortly to their Lordships. The first was entitled "a Bill for altering and amending the law regarding Commitments by Courts of Equity for Contempts, and the taking bills pro confesso." This Bill had been brought into the other House of Parliament by the Solicitor General, who had bestowed great pains and much time upon the subject, and who was entitled to the thanks and the praise of the country for the zeal and spirit which had characterized his exertions. The effect of this Bill he would shortly explain to their Lordships. If a party refused to appear, the Court of Chancery, under the present system, could 614 only order that the party should be committed to prison. From prison the party was brought up to the Bar of the Court, and ordered to cuter an appearance; but if the party still refused, then the Court would enter the appearance for him. It was proposed by this Bill, that if the party did not appear within the usual lime, the Court should, upon such default, enter an appearance for him at once, instead of waiting for the commitment of the party to prison and his being brought up to the Bar of the Court. Again, if a party refused to put in an answer, all the Court could do, under the present system, was to commit the party to prison. But in the case of persons having privilege of Parliament, and refusing to answer, the bill was taken against them pro confesso. This could not be done against persons who had not the privilege of Parliament, and it was proposed therefore by this Bill, to place all persons, whether having privilege of Parliament or not, in the same situation in this respect. Henceforth, therefore, in the event of any person refusing to answer, the bill would be taken against him pro confesso, and such bill might be read in evidence against him in any other proceeding, which was the case now when the person refusing to answer had privilege of Parliament. It had not unfrequently happened that persons committed to prison by the Court of Chancery for contempt had remained in confinement for many years; not, in all cases because they were obstinate, but in too many merely because they were ignorant. Some had been known to remain in confinement for fifteen years, some for twenty, some for twenty-five, and some even for as long a time as thirty years. This had happened because no one had troubled themselves about the prisoners, it being no one's duty to look after them, and they had been ignorant of the mode by which they might obtain their release. To guard against the recurrence of such cases, this Bill required that there should be a regular and established visitation of persons imprisoned by order of the Court of Chancery, by officers regularly appointed for that purpose, who would inquire into the cases of the prisoners, examine the prisoners themselves, and make a report thereupon to the Court, in order that the necessary steps might be taken for the discharge of the prisoners from confinement. Their Lordships would see the necessity of this when they were 615 informed that the Solicitor General, in the prosecution of his inquiry, found many prisoners of the Court in a state of complete ignorance of the cause of their confinement. In some cases, however, it was the obstinacy of the prisoner that caused and prolonged his confinement. The Court of Chancery frequently ordered an act to be clone, such as a deed to be signed, a fine to be levied, a recovery to be suffered, and so forth. If obedience to such orders were refused, the Court could do no more than commit the party to prison. If the party still refused obedience, and remained obstinate, the Court could only retain him in prison; but, in the mean time, the act still remained undone. The Chancery Commission had taken such cases into consideration, and had recommended that acts thus ordered to be done should be considered as done notwithstanding the refusal of the party. This Bill, therefore, contained a clause which carried this recommendation into effect in such cases. The Chancery Commission had also recommended a mode by which the process now followed in such cases might be shortened. At present, the process would be this: a party would be committed to prison for refusing to obey the order of the Court. Then, in the first place, he would be brought into Court by writ of habeas corpus, where he would be told what he was to do, and if he refused, he would be remanded to prison. The second time he would be brought up by an alias habeas corpus, and the same scene would be performed if he persisted in his refusal. The third time he would be brought up by a writ which was called a pluries alias habeas corpus; and, after the same forms had been gone through, he would be again remanded to prison if he continued obstinate. The last time he would be brought up by a writ which was called an alias pluries alias habeas corpus; and then that which was required would be taken against him pro confesso, though he might still persist in his refusal. Now, though the Court of Chancery had made several orders with a view of amending the practice of the Court, yet it was generally understood, that the Court had not the power, by means of issuing orders, to shorten this process, or to carry into effect several other improvements. He had, therefore, intended to effect, these objects by means of a legislative enactment; but their Lordships would recollect, that circumstances had 616 occurred which rendered it necessary that that measure should be laid aside. One of the provisions of the Bill he held in his hand curtailed the process to which he alluded; and the Bill also contained other clauses which it was hoped would be found beneficial to suitors in equity. The Bill had been drawn with great care by the Solicitor General, and he had no doubt that their Lordships would approve of its provisions when they came to be examined in committee. He would not then detain their Lordships with any farther observations on this first Bill. The second Bill to which he had to call their attention was entitled "A Bill for consolidating and amending the laws relating to Property belonging to Infants, femmes couvertes, Idiots, Lunatics, and persons of unsound mind." It had been considered wise to bring together in one Act all the laws relating to property belonging to these several classes, which were now scattered throughout the Statute-book, having been made at various times, and as cases occurred, which manifested that the law required to be altered, to be amended, or to be modified. This Bill, therefore, consolidated all the former statutes on the subject; but, at the same time, it contained some new suggestions, which their Lordships, he thought, would agree had not been improperly termed amendments. Among these was a clause which enabled lunatics to be admitted to copyholds. As the law now stood, infants and femmes couvertes might be admitted to copyholds, but lunatics might not. Another amendment of the law effected by the Bill was this:—At present, there was no power by which an infant could surrender or grant leases, though manifestly for the improvement of the infant's property. When the infant happened to be a ward of the Court, it was extremely necessary that this power should not be wanting. By this Bill the power was conferred; but at the same time, it was provided that the exercise of that power should not be injurious to the infant. Thus it was provided that no fines should be taken, and that the whole rent should be reserved. Again, with respect to the completion of conveyances, in eases where a person had agreed to convey, and became lunatic before he had performed this contract, the law was amended by this Bill. Under the present law, the Court would compel the vendee to pay the purchase-money into Court, but it had no power to order 617 the conveyance to be made, and the estate, therefore, still remained in the lunatic. In such a case, the Court was empowered by this Bill to enable the committee of the lunatic to make the conveyance. So also the Bill conferred on the Lord Chancellor the power which he did not at present possess, of compelling the transfer of stock by the committee of a lunatic. As there were some statutes relating to these matters which did not apply to Ireland, though they did to England; and others, again, which were in force in Ireland, but not in this country; it was proposed by this Bill to assimilate the law in the two countries. The third and last Bill upon which he had to trouble their Lordships with any observations was entitled "A Bill for amending the laws respecting Conveyances and Transfers of Estates and Funds vested in Trustees and Mortgagees, and for enabling Courts of Equity to give effect to their Decrees and Orders in certain cases." Under the present law, if a person were to sell an estate, and die before he had made the conveyance of it to the purchaser, the heir of the deceased, if of lull age, was bound to complete the conveyance; but if the heir happened to be an infant, the Court had no power to order the conveyance to be made until the heir came to be of age. It had been thought proper, therefore, by his predecessor in office, that the law should be amended in this respect, and that noble and learned Lord had suggested to the Solicitor General that a measure should be submitted to Parliament for that purpose. The Bill he held in his hand gave the Court the power of ordering a conveyance from an infant heir in the same way as it now compelled the heir of full age to convey. At present, too, if the trustees of estates were to die, or if it became necessary, for other reasons, to appoint new trustees, recourse must be had to a Bill in Chancery. Now every noble Lord who knew what a Bill in Chancery was, would agree that it was rather an alarming affair. At least, people generally thought it was. By the present practice of the Court, many measures might be performed by petition, instead of by bill, and it was proposed by the Bill he held in his hand, that trustees might be changed, and new ones appointed, upon application to the Court by petition. With respect to the trustees of charitable estates, there was frequently the greatest possible difficulty in discovering them, 618 because the heir at law of the last surviving trustee represented the estate. Now, as trustees of charitable estates were merely formal persons appointed by the Court, it had been thought advisable, that if the heir at law of the last surviving trustee could not be discovered, the Court should appoint new trustees. Under this Bill the appointment of new trustees would take place if the heir at law of the last surviving trustee did not appear within a certain period after he had been called upon by public advertisement. Such were the principal provisions of the third Bill. Their Lordships would observe that many of the provisions of the second and third Bills related to the same subject, and might, therefore, have been included in one Act; but it was thought, by many learned persons, that it would be more convenient to divide them, as the Solicitor General had, into two separate statutes. He would not detain their Lordships any longer at present. He thought that he had sufficiently explained the general outline, scope, and object of these measures: and if any noble Lord wished for information respecting the details of the Bills, that would be more conveniently obtained in the committee, when the details would come regularly under discussion. He had then only to move, that the Bills be read a second time.
The Earl of Malmesburythanked the noble and learned Lord for the very lucid illustration he had given them of the subjects comprehended in these Bills, which he must be allowed to observe came from a most respectable and satisfactory quarter. He thought that legal amendments could be in no safer hands. He now rose merely to ask a question of the noble and learned Lord. A clause in the second Bill enabled the trustees and guardians of an infant to grant leases: and he begged to know if this clause would extend so far as to enable them to grant a lease of the family mansion, and of the domain belonging to it, for twenty-one years. If it would, such a lease might be made when the infant was nineteen years old, and so a man might be forty years of age before he could inhabit his own mansion.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the general terms of the clause would include such a case; but the noble Earl would recollect, that no lease could be made by a guardian or trustee, without application to the Court of Chancery; and it would be supposing the height of indiscretion in 619 that Court to imagine that it would ever sanction any lease of the family mansion for a term beyond the coming of age of the heir. The object of the clause was to allow the estate to be improved during the minority of the heir, and it had the benefit of the heir and of no one else in view.
The Earl of Malmesburywas fully sensible of the advantages of the clause; but as the noble and learned Lord seemed to think that the extreme case he had supposed might be included in it, he thought there would be no harm in. specially excepting the family mansion and the domain belonging to it. He would move, therefore, in the Committee, that no lease, for a longer time than that at which the heir would be of age, should be granted of the family mansion and the domain belonging to it.
§ Bills read a second time.