Lords Sitting of 11 May 1855

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Leases and Sales of Settled Estates; Ecclesiastical Property (Ireland).

LEGAL MEASURES—TESTAMENTARY JURISDICTION BILL—TENANTS' COM PENSATION BILL.
LORD ST. LEONARDSrose to put some questions to his noble and learned

385
Friend on the woolsack relative to certain legal measures now before Parliament; and his first question would have reference to the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill. Their Lordships were aware that the subject involved in that Bill, having been very fully considered before a Select Committee of that House, a measure was prepared last Session, which, after receiving the sanction of their Lordships, was sent down to the other House of Parliament. The House of Commons, however, did not pass the measure into law; it had, however, been introduced into that House in the present Session. It appeared to him that the proper course to have pursued this Session would have been to have reintroduced the Bill in their Lordships' House; but that not having been done, it became necessary to call upon his noble and learned Friend to state what were the intentions of the Government with respect to the other branches of the Ecclesiastical Courts. He wanted to know what was to become of the Arches' Court; and he hoped the noble Lord would be able to hold out to them an assurance that they would not be called upon to offer any opinion upon individual features in the proposed plan of legal reform until the whole plan had been submitted to them. A promise had been made that a general plan for reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts would be brought forward. Up to this time, however, that promise had not been fulfilled. Now, what he feared would take place was this, that the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill would pass in some shape or other, without their having had an opportunity of considering the general scheme, unaffected by the decision of the other House of Parliament upon a most important part of it. No one could form a satisfactory opinion as to whether a measure was applicable to the whole jurisdiction without a knowledge of all its features. In reference to the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill there was some reason to complain that no information had been given by Her Majesty's Government as to the amount of compensation to be paid under it. He had heard it, however, estimated at from 140.000 l. to 150.000 l. Now, that was a very large sum of money, and would have to be paid by the suitors from estimated savings in other directions. At the same time he could not help thinking that it required a great deal of sound argument to show how such a burden could be properly placed upon the suitors at all.
386
He also wished to make a few remarks upon the subject of fees paid to solicitors to the Court of Chancery. When he had the honour of holding the seals of office, he had approved of a certain scale of fees for the solicitors practising in his Court. His noble and learned Friend behind him (Lord Lyndhurst) had, however, disapproved of that scale, and its revision was contemplated by the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack. Now, speaking generally on the subject, he would say that it was much easier to increase a scale of charges than to reduce one after it had subsisted for a certain period. The complaint—and no doubt the just complaint—of the solicitors, was, that while there was a great deal of unimportant and easily executed business for which they were too well remunerated, there was, on the other hand, a great deal of business well executed for which they were not adequately paid. The next question to which he wished to direct their Lordships' attention was the Tenants' Compensation (Ireland) Bill, which had been brought into the other House of Parliament, and which contained a retrospective clause, giving compensation for improvements effected within a certain period. A measure on that subject also had been before their Lordships, and referred to a Select Committee. Now, it had always been pointed at the Government of his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) that they had introduced a measure embodying a retrospective clause. It certainly was impossible to deny the fact; and therefore in that respect the Government of that day and of this stood upon precisely the same footing. For himself, however, he might say, that he had been always opposed to the principle of such a clause, and that his opinion had never for a moment undergone any variation; still when he found that the Government of which he was a Member had adopted such a clause circumscribed and defined within certain narrow limits, he did not consider himself at liberty to stand in the way of that Bill being passed into law. That Bill, however, did not pass through the other House of Parliament. A Bill on the same subject and containing a retrospective clause had been during the present Session introduced into the other House of Parliament; and he hoped it would be explained whether the Government had come to any definite conclusion with reference to that Bill, and if they had, he hoped they would abide by them. He thought it might have been

387
reasonably expected, holding the views which they did, that the Government itself would have come forward with a measure, and endeavoured to have carried it through. Instead of that they had left the matter in the hands of a private individual—an hon. and learned Gentleman—who was known to hold very strong opinions in favour of a retrospective allowance for the improvements of tenants in Ireland. The consequence was, that a measure had been introduced, which was now travelling up to their Lordships, and which, in all likelihood, would lead to a difference of opinion between the two Houses. At the same time, he was bound to add, that should the measure come up to their Lordships in the same form as that which had previously received their sanction, and limited and circumscribed as it was before, he could not feel justified in opposing, although he could not regard it even then with favour. But in the shape in which the Bill obtained a second reading from the House of Commons, he would state at once that it was one which he never could approve of, nor could any one that had retained the slightest regard for the rights of property. He would pledge himself to show, when the measure came before their Lordships, that there was not the slightest foundation for the assumption that any rule of equity had ever been propounded, or that there was any case in equity producible, sanctioning the principle contained in the clause in the Bill granting compensation for retrospective improvements. As for the subject of the Irish Court of Chancery, which had been taken up by an hon. and learned Friend of his, whose talents were very great, and for whom he entertained a great respect, he must say he could not at all agree with the Bills which had been introduced by him; and he most earnestly hoped that any measure to be introduced by Her Majesty's Government, altering the constitution of the Irish Court of Chancery, would not be based upon a supposed analogy of the Irish and English courts. He understood that it was proposed to create in Ireland three Vice Chancellors and to abolish the offices of the Masters. Now there could be no doubt that the creation of three Vice Chancellors was not called for by the state of business in Ireland. In England they were of necessity appointed, but not in lieu of the Masters, in whose place, and for the fulfilment of whose duties, it had only been deemed requisite to
388
appoint a number of chief clerks. He had had some experience of equity business in Ireland—and there was no reason for believing that since then it was on the increase, except, perhaps, by the business of the Incumbered Estates Court; but when he was there he would venture to say that the judicial power was fully adequate to discharge all the business that came before it. He ventured to say that the Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls were quite competent to transact the whole judicial business of Ireland. He trusted, therefore, that any measure which the Government might have in contemplation to afford increased facilities for the transaction of equity business in Ireland, would not be incumbered by the appointment of judges who were not required. With regard to the Incumbered Estates Court, he would observe, that it was very unwise to make Ireland the subject either of experimental or exceptional legislation. Let her be governed by the law which was common to both countries. If the rule with regard to incumbered estates which was adopted in Ireland were a good one, let it be applied to England also; but whether such a court should be established for either country at all, involved, in his opinion, considerations relative to property the most momentous ever raised before Parliament; but he trusted that the Government would act with great caution in adopting the Incumbered Estates Court, with its present provisions, as a part of the Court of Chancery. Looking at all the measures to which he had referred, he contended that it was the duty of the Government to take them up, and to persevere with them until they became law.
LORD LYNDHURSTwished to explain that his objections to the present scale of fees in the Court of Chancery was based upon this principle: that costs were taxed according to the length of the proceedings; so that a bounty was thus held out to solicitors to lengthen proceedings as much as possible, and their interests and the interests of the suitors became consequently opposed. What he desired to see brought about was, that the scale of remuneration should have regard not for the length of proceedings, but for the value of work done.
LORD ST. LEONARDSwas very much afraid that result could not be brought about. It was easy to estimate quantity, but it was much more difficult to estimate
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had no right or inclination to complain of the questions which his noble and learned Friend had put to him, and he would endeavour to answer him with the same frankness with which he had asked them. The first question related to the Bill now pending in the other House, for the improvement of the Testamentary Courts. His noble and learned Friend had complained, as he understood, that the Bill ought to have been introduced in that House this Session as it had been last. The reason for the Government adopting their present course was, that the Bill having been passed by their Lordships last Session, and thrown out by the other House, it was thought more desirable it should be approved by that House before it was introduced for their Lordships' consideration. He had every reason to believe that in the form in which it now stood it would receive the sanction of the other House, and it could then be discussed by their Lordships with greater facility, inasmuch as its material points had been already fully considered in the last Session. The noble and learned Lord had inquired what was the amount of compensation. He (the Lord Chancellor) was not prepared to answer as to the exact amount. He certainly did not think it was so much as 140,000 l.—he thought it was not more than 100,000 l.—but, be it what it might, no additional charge upon the suitors would be imposed to meet it; because the fee, called the "proctor's fee," now paid upon every probate, would be continued until the compensation had been defrayed, and it was calculated—though calculations were sometimes deceptive—that they would be sufficient for that purpose. The only hardship on the suitors would be, that, instead of the fee being removed at once, it would be continued for a few years longer. A similar Bill to the present had been prepared for Ireland, with some slight modifications, but it had been thought advisable to postpone the introduction of that Bill until the other had been disposed of. He agreed, to a certain extent, that reforms in the other branches of the Ecclesiastical Courts, having reference to divorce and clergy discipline, ought, in order to make the reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts complete, to be dealt with at the same time; but still they were subjects which stood upon their own footing, irrespective of the other branches of reform. He had had the
390
honour to introduce a Bill last Session upon the subject of divorces; but it was not considered expedient to carry it further at that time. The Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill not having passed the House of Commons, that Bill would be introduced in the present Session without any alterations. He next came to the Clergy Discipline Bill. In the first place, he contended that there was no necessary connection between that and the other two subjects. It was a subject of a purely ecclesiastical nature. It might be perfectly right to dispose of the two former, although the latter remained untouched; but that had not been the course followed by the Government. It had prepared a new Clergy Discipline Bill, which had been submitted to some of the Bishops, a portion of whom had approved of it, while others, he was bound to say, bad expressed disapproval. Within the last few days ho had been engaged—and should be engaged for the next few days—with the English Bishops to know the exact points of which they disapproved. The Bill would, no doubt, receive material modification from their suggestions, but it was in a state of forwardness which enabled him to state that it would be ready, when such modifications were made, to be laid upon the table of the House. The next question of his hon. and learned Friend related to the Irish Tenants' Compensation Bill. He quite agreed with his noble and learned Friend that the question was a most important one. He could assure him that neither himself, nor, he believed, any of his colleagues, had any greater sympathy with the doctrine, abstractedly considered, of retrospective compensation, than his noble and learned Friend had. If it were erroneously supposed that that was a principle that might be acted upon in the abstract, according to the ordinary rules of equity in this country, he (the Lord Chancellor) could not agree to such a principle, nor did he believe that such a principle had ever been enunciated by an hon. and learned Friend of his in the other House, to whom reference had been made. He (the Lord Chancellor) had never communicated with his hon. and learned Friend on the subject; but be was sure that what his hon. and learned Friend had said was, that analogies for retrospective compensation might be drawn from decisions of Lord Eldon and Sir William Grant, in the case of a person standing by and seeing

391
another building upon, and making improvements upon land belonging to him, without taking means to prevent it. This analogy, very imperfect, was merely alluded to in the course of the debate. He (the Lord Chancellor) had quite as little sympathy as his noble and learned Friend with the doctrine of retrospective compensation; but he was of opinion that the case of the Irish tenant was an exceptional case, which, for the peace of society, it might be important to deal with in an exceptional manner. That being the case, what had taken place? An hon. and learned Gentleman in the other House had introduced a Bill framed upon that principle, and going further than he trusted the Government would be disposed to go. A debate ensued, and the Government had undertaken to take the Bill upon themselves, provided the hon. and learned Gentleman who introduced it would be satisfied with limiting the retrospective compensation to an extent below that which was fixed upon when the Bill passed that House two years ago. They proposed to confine it to houses built by the tenant, and to roads and external fences made by the tenant. They also proposed to limit it to a certain defined period, the exact extent of which he did not recollect; but it was necessary that the work should have been done within a certain limited time. It was also proposed to extend it to certain cases in which the landlord should turn the tenant out of possession. However contrary to abstract principle it might be, and always protesting that it was a most difficult doctrine to justify, even when carried only to that limited extent, as a matter of compromise, the Government were willing to accede to it. His noble and learned Friend had objected to the Court of Chancery being quoted as an authority on this subject; but he (the Lord Chancellor) did not think it was intended to be said that the Court of Chancery had done precisely the same thing, but merely, as he had already explained, that it afforded a sort of analogy for doing so. The doctrine was not the doctrine of the Court of Chancery only, but of the civil law and of common sense; because, if he stood by while a man was making improvements on his property, under circumstances which he knew must amount to a tacit encouragement on his part, that was held to be equivalent to an actual declaration that the person making the improvement might
392
go on with them. He would not say that was the case of the Irish tenant, but it furnished an analogy that in the course of argument it was very reasonable to use. The next question of his noble and learned Friend had reference to six Bills which had been introduced into the other House by an hon. and learned Gentleman who had been the Irish Solicitor General under the Government of Lord Derby. Her Majesty's Government were sorry to see those Bills introduced by the hon. and learned Gentleman, not that they disapproved of the principles on which they were framed, but because they had issued a Commission to inquire into the state, impliedly, of the Court of Chancery in Ireland and of the Incumbered Estates Court, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the functions of that Court could be advantageously transferred to the Irish Court of Chancery. The Commission was directed to very learned persons in Ireland and England, and they had made very elaborate inquiries on the subject. Such of their Lordships as were connected with Ireland must know that the subject of their inquiry interested, in a vast degree, all the community in Ireland; for, unpopular as that Court, to some extent, had been in its inception, there was nothing to which a greater portion of the community would listen with more sorrow than to a proposal that the powers exercised by that Court should be abruptly brought to an end. That Commission, the members of which were very eminent men, and who were well acquainted with the subject, had made a very full inquiry, and had issued a report containing various recommendations; and he trusted that he should be soon able to lay a Bill on the table of the House to carry into effect a great portion, if not the whole, of those recommendations, and he could say that such Bill was in preparation. His noble and learned Friend asked if the Bill would extend to England, and he begged to inform him that it would not extend to England; but they ought not to stop short of a great reform because, in the first instance, it had happened accidentally to be forced upon their attention in Ireland. He was not able to say that they would be prepared to introduce such a Bill for England, neither would he say that they would not, but would only observe that a great deal of care and consideration was necessary before such & measure was introduced. Difficulties might present themselves with

393
respect to England, requiring consideration; and, therefore, he could not undertake to make any pledge on the subject. He had thus disposed of all the questions asked by his noble and learned Friend, except the question of costs in the Court of Chancery. His noble and learned Friend was wrong in supposing that the object of the Commission was to increase fees already settled—the question of fees in the Court of Chancery had yet to be inquired into, and it was now under consideration.
LORD CAMPBELLthought that these desultory discussions, without any Motion being before the House, respecting measures that were pending, was very inconvenient. During the time he was connected with the Government the practice pursued was, before any important question was brought forward, to subject it to discussion by the leading Members of the Government who were likely to take a part in the debates for carrying that measure through. He did not think that that course had been pursued by the present Government, although he had no doubt of their sincerity in seeking to attain a sound and an enlightened measure of law reform. He bad no doubt that the affairs of the country would be safe in their hands, and he was prepared to give them his sincere and disinterested support; but he questioned whether they could successfully carry out any great measure of law reform, unless there was full concert between all the Members of the Government before that measure was brought under discussion in Parliament. He would, therefore, advise the Government that, before any measure of law reform was proposed, they should be certain that all the Members of the Government were prepared to support the whole measure.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that not being acquainted with the merits of the legal measures generally, he would not express any opinion upon them; but with respect to the measures that related to Ireland, he wished to make a few observations. He had heard with great satisfaction that the Government were determined to act upon the Report presented, though not published, and to do away with the anomalous state of the law which now prevailed in Ireland in reference to the Incumbered Estates Court, and to transfer the business of that Court to the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery. The grievance arising from the operations of the Incum-
394
bered Estates Court was very great indeed, not to those under its operation, but to all those outside of its operation. The value of real property throughout Ireland was affected by those operations, because the forced sales in that Court led to the depreciation of the whole rental and property of Ireland, and because by a sale under that Court a better title could be obtained from a person in debt than from a person who was perfectly solvent. It was a state of things that ought to be put an end to, and in altering the law no principle should be adopted with respect to Ireland that would not be equally applicable to real property in every other part of Her Majesty's dominions; because it was not fair or wise to say that property in Ireland should be treated in an exceptional manner. He wished he could feel confident that that principle would also be adopted with respect to the Tenants' Compensation Bill. He denied that Ireland now presented an exceptional case; and they should not apply a law to that country that was not applicable to England or any other part of Her Majesty's dominions. It had been said that extraordinary circumstances justified the application to Ireland of an exceptional principle. He did not admit that extraordinary circumstances would justify the adoption of such a principle for permanent legislation; but even if they did, the extraordinary circumstances that had been urged as a justification had totally disappeared in Ireland. He had given notice of a Motion for certain returns with regard to the relations of landlords and tenants in Ireland; and he was sure it would appear from those returns that there were no more disputes there than in any place else, that there was no litigation between landlord and tenant of any consequence in that country, and that there was the utmost confidence under the present state of the law on the part of the tenant who took land from a landlord. But there was not confidence amongst persons who wished to invest money in. real property in Ireland in what might be the course of legislation. There was great doubt and apprehension entertained by persons who were going to purchase property in the Incumbered Estates Court in Ireland, or who desired to invest their money in property in Ireland, in consequence of the Bills that had been introduced into the House of Commons. He hoped the Government would be unanimous in adhering to sound principle, and that no principle

395
would be entertained by them except one that could be thoroughly maintained. If there was any doubt entertained with respect to the condition of Ireland, the fair way was to appoint a Committee to inquire into the state of Ireland at the present moment; but he asked of their Lordships not to legislate now for Ireland as for an exceptional case.

THE MILITIA.
LORD BERNERS moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for a Return of Regiments of Militia embodied in each month to the present time, stating the effective Force of each when embodied and at the present time; the Number who have volunteered from each Regiment previous to and since their last training; the Number re-attested within the month stated in circular, distinguishing those retained for future training; and Number of those discharged in consequence of their wives and families becoming chargeable to their parishes. The noble Lord said he was informed that those returns could be made out in a few hours. He thought it was only right that their Lordships should know not only the present effective force of the militia, but also the progress that had been made in the embodiment of that force since May last. He did not make the Motion in any hostile spirit to the Government, but only for the purpose of obtaining information. He found by the papers that from May to September there were eighteen regiments embodied, and from September to December, thirty-seven regiments, and since that time 20,000 men. He wished to call the attention of the noble Lord the Secretary of War to one or two measures that were prejudicial to enlistment. Since the order of the Minister of War had issued—the order that each private re-attested should receive a bounty of 1l., a circular had been issued which limited the payment of the bounty to one month. It came within his knowledge that the privates considered that order a great grievance. The promulgation of that circular had virtually stopped the enlistment, and he hoped the noble Lord would be induced to extend the limit to four or six months, or remove the restriction altogether. The bounty, under the original Act, was to be given to the men after they had completed their twenty-eight or fifty-six days' training. That was looked upon as a nominal but not a real bounty. He was informed that 11 s. of
396
that bounty in some instances was held back until the men rejoined their regiments. Large deductions, too, were made for their kit and shell-jackets which was also a source of great dissatisfaction. A great many of the men offered their services in last January to go to any part of the world; but since then great discontent had been manifested at the deductions that were made from their pay. He hoped therefore the government would consider how far these causes of discontent could be removed.
LORD PANMUREhad no objection whatever to the returns being made, but did not promise that it could be completed within the time the noble Lord anticipated. He was sorry to find that the noble Lord had thought it necessary to revive a subject that had been already submitted to the House, and by the introduction of which the ranks of the militia regiments had been to a certain extent depopulated. The period of a month had been fixed upon in the circular in consequence of a statement made to him by several officers of militia, that after a month's absence amongst their friends, many of the men, having spent their money, would voluntarily return, therefore he had fixed in the circular one month as the period during which, if they rejoined the force, the 1l. should be paid to them. In all arrangements of that kind some definite period must be fixed, but a circular of that kind was not to be considered as unalterable. In many instances the colonels of regiments had asked for a prolongation of the time, stating that it would be of great service in getting back a number of men, and he had at once consented to prolong the period for a fortnight. He had not been asked to grant a longer period than six weeks, though, if a longer period were necessary to get back men to the ranks of the militia, he should be very glad to give it, but that must depend upon the representations of officers commanding the regiments of militia. With regard to the deductions referred to, the same practice prevailed without complaint in the regular army, and as of course they could not alter the arrangement with regard to the militia without altering it also in regard to the army, he could hold out no prospect of any change being made, and it was not deemed desirable to make a change in the practice with respect to the militia.
Motion agreed to.

ESTATE BILLS.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he wished to call the attention of their Lordships to the subject of Estate Bills, and would conclude by laying on the table a Bill to provide for the cheaper and more expeditious granting of powers hitherto obtainable only through special Acts of Parliament. The noble and learned Lord said the necessity for the legislation he proposed arose from the fact—notorious to every one—that the greatest proportion of the landed estates in the country was held by persons who were not the absolute owners in fee simple, but who had only limited interests under marriage and other settlements;—the consequence of the general use of settlements being that the present possessors of property had only life interests in it. He would not stop to inquire whether it was a beneficial state of things, but he would take the facts as they stood; merely observing that he thought that, on the whole, the limitation of property by marriage and other settlements had been conducive to the welfare of individuals and beneficial to the community. Their Lordships need not, however, speculate on the policy of settlements of property; but he desired them to contemplate what had been the evil results from them. In consequence of the owner not being the absolute owner, he was not able to deal with his property in the most beneficial manner, sometimes for himself or his family, and in other instances for the community at large. It was usual in settlements to give a power to grant agricultural leases, but something more was wanted; settlements frequently omitted to provide for leases for the working of mines, &c.; sometimes the power of granting long building leases was wanting, and in other cases powers were required for exchanging or for selling a portion of the estate and investing the proceeds in land more advantageously situated. In well-drawn settlements these matters were generally provided for by anticipation, but it often happened, especially in small estates, that they were overlooked. How was this want at present remedied? By a very objectionable and expensive course—by the very objectionable mode of obtaining the required powers by private and special Acts of Parliament—by privilegia granted to meet each case. Although these Acts of special legislation were managed very ably by his noble Friend (Lord Redesdale) the Chairman of
398
Committees, yet even he would admit that they were attended with great difficulties. Before such a Bill was allowed to pass, it was referred to two Judges by a standing order of their Lordships' House; that, he thought, involved the inconvenient course of mixing up judicial and legislative matters, and it was incumbent on their Lordships to make some better provision in regard to this class of Bills. Again, these private bills were attended with great expense. He had a list of sixteen cases of private bills taken at haphazard within the last five years, and he found that the average cost of each of these sixteen bills, which were for leasing, for sales in exchange, or for mining, was 1,270 l. There were fourteen or fifteen of these bills every year brought in; so that from 17,000 l. to 20,000 l. a year was spent on this species of private legislation to enable parties to do what they ought to have the power of doing without an Act of Parliament. But that was not all; for though 1,200 l. was the average cost, persons having small properties were absolutely debarred from obtaining the required powers, except at a ruinous cost, yet it was as important to the owner of a settled property of 200 l. or 300 l. a year to make the most of it, as to the owner of a property of 100,000 l. a year. The expense was, in fact, a bar to such applications, and it was a mockery to tell the owner of a small property that he could get relief. That being the state of the case, what was the remedy to be found? He saw no difficulty in recommending one which experience had already approved in analogous cases, by enabling similar things to be done without the interference of the Legislature. By the Ecclesiastical Leases Bill, ecclesiastical persons requiring the power of leasing were enabled to do so. A similar power was given in the Charities Act of two years ago, and the Charity Commissioners had reported that these clauses had been exercised with great benefit. The Municipal Corporations Act gave similar powers. It might, of course, be said that these cases were not those of tenants for life, but they stood in the same category as the cases to which he now referred, and afforded an illustration of the kind of provision which those who had limited interests in property demanded. It was a rule with his noble friend the Chairman of Committees that, if an application for an Estate Bill came before him recommended by the Court of Chancery, it was adopted. [Lord REDESDALE: That

399
was not an absolute rule.] No, but that was the ordinary rule. He proposed that any person whose necessities required that powers should be given of leasing either agricultural or mining property, of granting building leases, or the sale or exchange of property, should apply at once in a summary manner in the Court of Chancery to one of the Judges at chambers. The Judge, if he approved, could give the requisite authority at once, and his authority would be just as good as if an Act of Parliament were passed. The result of this change would be a saving of some 20,000 l. a year, besides the facilities which would be afforded for the advantage of property as well as the present possessors. The Bill which he proposed to lay on the table had one further object. He thought that a tenant for life should have the power of leasing without applying to the Court of Chancery. This was not new legislation, for it was so old as the time of Henry VIII., at which period tenants for life were empowered to grant leases for 21 years. He proposed by this Bill to enable tenants for life, unless where the settlement forbade such a power, to grant agricultural leases for a term, not of 21 years, as was done by the Act of Henry VIII., but for a term not exceeding 14 years. In the case of mining leases, he proposed that a certain portion of the rent should be retained for the benefit of the inheritance. The noble and learned Lord then presented, A Bill to facilitate leases and Sales of Settled Estates.
LORD LYNDHURSTthought the country would be very much indebted to his noble and learned Friend for the introduction of this Bill. The expense of obtaining Acts of this kind, as stated by his noble Friend, was hardly credible, though he new of his own knowledge that in the case of a noble Lord in that House, who found it necessary to apply to Parliament for certain Acts granting him leasing and other powers, which he considered necessary, the cost of obtaining them exceeded, he believed, the sum of 5,000 l.; while in another case the cost of passing the requisite Acts of Parliament amounted to something more than 6,000 l. The observation of his noble and learned Friend was exceedingly just when he declared that the expense of these Bills was such that the owners of small estates, who might be equally entitled to obtain powers from Parliament, were excluded from privileges which the owners of larger estates ob-
400
tained, so that the present system operated with the utmost injustice. His noble and learned Friend had also stated with great propriety that there could be no objection to give this power to the Court of Chancery instead of vesting it in the Legislature, because everybody knew that if a case was recommended by the Court of Chancery to this House it passed the Legislature almost as a matter of course. He thought, therefore, that giving the Court of Chancery the power of dealing with these applications instead of recommending proceedings to that and the other House, was a proper provision. The principle involved in the Bill had been over and over again recognized by Parliament, and he thought that their Lordships could have no objection to adopt it. As to the particular clauses, of course they had as yet no opportunity of judging of these, but he highly approved of the principle and objects of the Bill, and believed it would be hailed with the greatest satisfaction by the whole country.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, he did not think the whole expense of obtaining these Acts would be saved by the new scheme proposed. One great object which they would have to keep in view was that persons should retain the security they now had that the intentions expressed in their wills would be fairly and reasonably carried out. Under the present mode of procedure they certainly had that security, and no doubt the noble and learned Lord had taken care to provide that except where special and strong reasons existed for a different course, the arrangements contemplated by a testator should not be interfered with. As to the expense of obtaining these Acts it was unquestionably heavy in many instances, though he did not think, if the whole number were gone through, it would amount to anything like what the noble and learned Lord had stated. The heavy costs mentioned by the noble and learned Lord behind him (Lord Lyndhurst) must have been occasioned by many more than one Bill.
LORD LYNDHURST: Yes; in the one case there were five, and in the other six Bills; but in each instance they were applicable to one property.
LORD REDESDALE: That explanation set the matter in rather a different light. Many of these Acts were got for not more than 500 l., and, unless under special circumstances, he did not see why

401
they should necessarily amount to so high a sum as had been alluded to.
LORD CAMPBELLrose to express his entire concurrence in the principle of this Bill. The object in view was a most laudable one, and he earnestly desired that that object should be gained:—it would tend to the better cultivation of the soil, and add to the general prosperity of the community. No doubt the measure was framed with great caution, so as to guard against an improper interference with settlements, and against the conferring of powers not contemplated by testators: has an example, he would refer to the Bill of Sir Thomas Wilson, as to which Parliament, by repeated decisions, had expressed its belief that Sir Thomas Wilson, by granting powers of leasing with respect to certain estates, and witholding them in other cases (although he did not expressly forbid them), really indicated his wish that they should not be granted. Would the powers of enclosure sought for by the heir of Sir Thomas Wilson be granted under this Bill? He hoped not. He hoped that the repeated decisions of the two Houses of Parliament upon the construction of the will would not be reversed, and that they should not unhappily live to see Hampstead-heath covered with houses, streets, and squares. He viewed with satisfaction the introduction of the Bill and trusted it would meet with the approbation of all their Lordships and the support of the Government in the other House of Parliament.
Bill read 1a.
House adjourned till Monday next.