(NO. 93.) SECOND READING. (Hansard, 2 July 1874)

§ LORD CHELMSFORD
, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the object of the measure, which had come up from the Commons, was to remove restrictions in the way of the exercise of a very useful jurisdiction conferred on the Court of Chancery by the Act of 1856. Before the passing of that Act, persons in possession of settled estates were obliged to come to Parliament for a Private Act before they could deal with them. The Act conferred power on the Court of Chancery to authorize leases and sales of such estates under certain conditions. But there was this great drawback on the utility of that statute, that it required that the consent of "all parties" interested under the settlement should be obtained before the required powers should be granted. The result had been great inconvenience in many cases, owing to the factious opposition raised by some parties whose consent was requisite. This Bill proposed to authorize the Court of Chancery to dispense with the concurrence or consent of any such persons as were by the Act of 1856 required to concur in, or consent to, any application for the exercise of the powers of the Act.

THE MARQUESS OF BATH
said, it seemed to him that the Bill was simply 856 a solicitor's Bill altering the general law of the country and attacking the sanctity of settlements for the convenience of a very few individuals who found themselves inconvenienced by some special circumstances. He would therefore move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, he had no difficulty in approving the object of the Bill so far as it confined itself to the repeal of those clauses of the Bill of 1856 which related to consents. That Act simply conferred on the Court of Chancery jurisdiction to introduce a power which ought to be contained in every well-drawn settlement—namely, the power of sale and exchange and granting leases. So far, therefore, there was no invasion of the sanctity of settlement. But what had happened under the provisions of the Act which required the consent of all parties? Why, every one having any interest under the settlement, whether that interest was large or small, distant or proximate, certain or doubtful, had the right to step in and prevent the action of the Court. Accordingly, persons whose interests were minute and fragmentary, and to whom no injury could by possibility be done by the lease or sale, being armed with the power given them by that Act, used it for the purpose of preventing the action of the Court where it would have been beneficial, their object being to make bargains and extort money—he did not think the working of a useful Act of Parliament should be impeded in that way, and therefore he regarded the object of this Bill as a beneficial one. He thought, however, that the Bill as drawn was too sweeping in its terms. He would point out in Committee some Amendments which he thought necessary. He would suggest, for instance, that a clause should be introduced to require the Court not only to serve notice upon every one interested, but also to require of each of them a statement as to whether he assented or dissented, or whether he submitted his rights to the Court. A clause might also be introduced providing that the Court, in considering whether it should act, should have regard to the number of assents 857 and dissents respectively, and to the amount of the interests of those persons who did not consent. But he would not place any impediment in the way of the Bill.

§ LORD CHELMSFORD
said, he had laid the Bill on their Lordships' Table in the same shape as that in which it had come up from the other House; but he partly concurred with his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, and would introduce the Amendment his noble and learned Friend had suggested.