HL Deb 11 June 1855 vol 138 cc1774-5

House in Committee (according to Order).

LORD ST. LEONARDS

objected to the power given to parties to the settlement to sell the estate, which he considered would be a very dangerous innovation in the law, and a power that might be used by insolvent life-tenants to the prejudice of the estate. He also objected to throwing new business of this kind into the Court of Chancery, and complained generally of the course taken by his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, in the various Bills he had introduced, of extending the business and the number of officials of that Court.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, the Court of Chancery was only empowered to do what their Lordships wore in the habit of doing, when private Bills were introduced to effect the objects contemplated by this measure.

On Clause 11,

THE EARL OF DERBY

objected to the extensive powers given to the Court of Chancery to sell the whole of an estate, and suggested that the powers should be limited to such outlying portions of an estate as it might be necessary to dispose of for the purposes contemplated by the Bill.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, the noble Earl had taken an extreme view of the case. A general power was given to sell, but, except in some very extraordinary cases, only outlying portions of an estate would be so disposed of in order to insure the improvement of the remainder.

THE EARL OF DERBY

would not object to the sale of an outlying portion of an estate for the improvement of the rest; but power was here given by which the Court of Chancery might alienate a person's entire inheritance.

THE EARL OF WICKLOW

thought the noble Earl had forgotten the real object of the Bill, which was to prevent the necessity of coming to that House at great expense, for an Act of Parliament to empower a sale. This being the great object of the Bill, the Court of Chancery ought to have the fullest powers. Without the power here given, the Bill would be comparatively a failure.

THE EARL OF DERBY

said, the object he had in view would be secured, if the words "the whole or" were left out of the clause, and he accordingly moved, as an Amendment, that these words be omitted.

On Question to omit the words from the clause, their Lordships divided:—Content 6; Not Content 10: Majority 4.

Clause agreed to.

Other clauses agreed to, with Amendments: the Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday next.

House adjourned till To-morrow.