§ LORD BEAUMONTpresented a petition from Lady Jervis White Jervis, complaining that an estate belonging to her husband (from whom she is separated), worth 3,470l. per annum at present, and likely to be improved considerably, was about to be sold by the Encumbered Estates Commissioners upon the petition of the junior creditor, whose judgment was only for 1,000l., the entire mortgage debts amounting to no more than 20,000l., and the judgments to only 9,000l. She had appealed to the Commissioners to prevent the sale, but they decided that she had no locus standi; and her husband (Sir Henry Jervis White Jervis) not choosing to appeal against the sale, the rule would be made absolute within twenty-eight days if cause were not shown to the contrary before the expiration of that period.
LORD BROUGHAMasked, if Lady Jervis's separate maintenance were or were not charged upon the estate, and if it were in the hands of trustees under the deed for securing the separate maintenance?
§ LORD BEAUMONTsaid, the separate maintenance was not a charge upon the estate. He had been instructed that there were no trustees under the deed of separation; having no separate interest in the estate, the petitioner could not be heard against the sale.
LORD BROUGHAMThen the petitioner has no locus standi whatever. She has no interest in the estate, and the Commissioners could not listen to her.
§ LORD BEAUMONTwas aware of that, and that the Commissioners could not have acted otherwise than they did. He knew, also, that Parliament could not interfere in this particular case. But their Lordships should see to the amendment of the Act as soon as possible, in order to prevent its being made an instrument of oppression, which it certainly never was the intention of their Lordships it should be. It was never passed for cases like this, where estates were encumbered to no more than half their value. It was only intended to apply to hopelessly encumbered estates. The present case was an instance of the Act being used as a means of oppression. The steward of the petitioner lends 4 1,000l. to the estate, and obtains a judgment to secure payment; he is subsequently a defaulter to the amount of 500l. in his account with his employer, and is dismissed in consequence. Henry White Jervis, who has the management of her husband's estate, endeavours to set off the 500l. against the 1,000l., and to pay the difference, when the defaulting steward transfers the judgment to a solicitor in London, who, under the new Act, puts the estate into the court, and forces a sale. But his noble Friend seemed to have a passion for being an auctioneer. He wished to see the whole land of Ireland sold up, and the country entirely revolutionised.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the petitioner had no locus standi in the court, and the Commissioners were not at all involved in the complaint made.
The EARL of GLENGALLsaid, he did not understand the noble Lord to have made any charge against the Commissioners. There were some of the "General Rules" issued by the Commissioners that he thought very ill-advised. He thought they should allow at least three months' notice, instead of twenty-eight days, before proceeding to a sale. He also objected to the rule they had adopted of declaring the purchaser forthwith. In the Court of Chancery, fourteen days were allowed after a bidding before the purchaser was declared, and during that period any party might send in a fresh bidding, so that a sale might be thus continued for a considerable period, and this rule ought, he thought, to have been still more strictly adhered to under the Encumbered Estates Commission, considering that the puisne creditors were likely to be left without a single penny in payment of their debts. In the recent sale under the commission, when these three auctioneers announced their determination to declare the purchaser at once, the purchase money amounted to only 8½ years on the rent formerly paid for the farm, though it was somewhere about twenty years' purchase at the depreciated rent now paid.
LORD CAMPBELLmust protest against any encouragement being given to petitions such as that now before the House, as it was clear that their Lordships had no power whatever to interfere in the matter. The Act of Parliament declared the decision of the Commissioners to be final, and gave no power of appeal from it. But the noble Earl who had just sat down ap- 5 peared to be determined to bring every act of the Commissioners night after night in review before their Lordships' House, and yet the noble Earl must know very well that the House had no power of interfering. If the petitioner had a locus standi before the Commissioners, they would, no doubt, have heard her; but it appeared that, in point of fact, she had no interest whatever in the estate that was the subject of the proceedings. The Act declared that in every case where the encumbrances were more than half the actual value of the estate, the Commissioners should be authorised to sell, but they were not bound to proceed to a sale unless they saw it was for the interest of the parties that they should do so, and that the state of the market rendered the step advisable. The noble Earl had not only assailed the Commissioners, and called them auctioneers, but he had attacked the Privy Council in Ireland by attacking the general rules that had been modified by them. These rules had been moulded and remoulded by the Commissioners, and the Privy Council, and were, he would maintain, most admirably suited for facilitating the proceedings of the commission. With regard to the particular rule of closing the sale forthwith, to which the noble Earl objected, he thought it was a most excellent one, and that the system of the Court of Chancery, instead of being preferable, had the effect of keeping away bidders.
The EARL of GLENGALLsaid, he did not care for any objection that might be felt to his bringing the acts of these Commissioners before the House, as he was determined to persevere until he saw complete justice done to the landed interests of Ireland. He regarded the Act as most arbitrary, unconstitutional, and unjust, and one that would not be borne with in this country for a single day. It was an Act, the object of which was to destroy the gentry of Ireland; and as 99 out of every 100 of these gentry were Conservatives, he felt justified in regarding it as a blow aimed against the Conservative party in Ireland.
The EARL of MOUNTCASHELLsaid, as an Irish Peer, he felt called upon to express his opinion that it was very improper for an English Peer to get up in his place and nullify a statement made by an Irish nobleman with regard to that country. He believed that a more arbitrary Act never passed through that House than the Act in question. It had been forced on Ireland against the wishes of Ireland, and against 6 the wishes of the majority of both Houses of Parliament. The noble Lord was entitled to present this petition by the Bill of Rights; and he was sorry that that Bill should have been called in question in their Lordships' House. A more oppressed body than the Irish landowners never existed; but when the oppression came home to landowners in this country, they would view the subject in a different light from what they saw it in at present.
§ LORD BEAUMONTexplained that he did not mean to make any charge against the Commissioners, as he was quite aware beforehand that the petitioner had not any locus standi in their court. He could not join in all the charges that had been urged against both the Act and the Commissioners; but he certainly felt that the present case was one of those in which the Legislature did not intend that a sale should take place. He trusted, however, that the estate would not be sold.
The EARL of GLENGALLbegged to explain that he did not mean to cast any slur on the Commissioners by calling them auctioneers.
§ Petition to lie on the table.