COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 9 March 1880)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR,
in moving that the House should go into Committee on this Bill, said, he only proposed that it should be committed pro formâ, in order that it might be placed before the House and the country in as complete a state as possible.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, he regretted that a slight indisposition prevented his being present in the House on the second reading of this Bill and the Conveyancing and Law of Property Bill. He had wished to make some remarks on what they contained and what they omitted. It would not be becoming in him to inflict a second reading speech upon the House on this formal stage of the Bill; but there were some questions which he should like to ask. The first arose from the announcement made the previous night. He should be glad to know whether Her Majesty's Govern- 670 ment intended to pass these Bills through the House of Lords before the Dissolution? He might ask with advantage for the public, who took great interest in this matter. He should be glad to know what answer there could be to the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord behind him (Lord Selborne) that existing and future settlements should be treated in the same way? The difference was considerable; but even if it were not, whichever was the best way ought surely to be applied to both. He found, also, that there was a difference of opinion even among the lawyers as to the powers given by the Bill to limited owners under future settlements. Could he, if stimulated only by the desire to increase his life income by the sale of land, investing the produce in certain securities giving a rather higher rate of interest, without the same deductions from gross income, do so? Or would the remainder-man be able under the Bill to bring him into Court to force him to apply the purchase-money to some of the other purposes mentioned in the Bill? There was one other point on which he should like an explanation. Why, if the life-tenant had power to sell the estate, should he be debarred from selling the mansion? He knew there was a sentiment on this point, and that the provision was not without precedent. But if a man sold his estate, or the greater part of it, without the house, it would in most cases diminish the value of the estate; while it left a positive white elephant on the hands of one who, on the hypothesis, had not money to spare. He was aware that power was given to the trustees and to the Courts; but there seemed to be no directions as to what principle was to be adopted by them when such an application was made.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, that it had been thought advisable to make the mansion house an exception. There would not be power to the limited owner to grant a long lease of the mansion house or to sell it without the leave of the Court: but as there were cases in which it might be desirable to even sell the mansion house, the Court would have a discretionary power in the matter. It would be for the Court to say whether, in its opinion, there were good reasons for either making a long lease of or selling the mansion house. 671 As regarded the investment of money derived from the sale of land, the proposal was that it should be employed for the various purposes enumerated in the Bill, or invested in any of those securities in which the Court of Chancery was authorized to invest the money under its control. The remainder-man would have no power to re-invest it in land during the lifetime of the tenant for life. The difference made in the Bill between existing settlements and future settlements was not very great. The tenant for life in existing settlements would have to apply to the Court for leave to sell, while the tenant for life in future settlements could sell by leave of the trustees. One strong reason for this difference was that in some existing settlements there might be no trustees to whom the tenant for life could apply for leave to sell; but in future settlements there would be such trustees. If they made no objection, the tenant for life would have the power to do what he proposed; but if they did, the Court of Chancery would decide whether the power should be exercised or not. He asked their Lordships to go into Committee on this and the Conveyancing and Law of Property Bill, in order that Amendments might be inserted in them which would make them more complete; but he did not do so with the idea that the Bill could become law in the present Parliament.