EGMONT ESTATES. (Hansard, 28 May 1930)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SANKEY)

My Lords, I beg to move, That leave be given to the Lord Chancellor to produce, pursuant to the request of the Honourable Mr. Justice Bennett, declarations made respectively by the Right Honourable Margaret Walpole on the 21st January, 1842, by the Right Honourable Spencer Horatio Walpole on the 24th August, 1874, and Miss Helena Honora Perceval on the 28th March, 1911, which have been deposited with the Lord Chancellor for and on behalf of the House of Lords in connection with claims to sit and vote in this House made by successive Barons of Lovel and Holland, for the assistance of the said Honourable Mr. Justice Bennett sitting as a Judge of the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) in a matter entitled "In the matter of the Earl of Egmont's Estate and in the matter of the Settled Land Act, 1925."

As this is a technical legal question of considerable importance, great accuracy of statement is not only desirable but is necessary. I have therefore prepared a short considered opinion which, with your Lordships' permission, I will read, so that there is no possibility of mistake. I thought it right also that on such a matter I should consult my predecessor as to the practice proposed, and I have had the advantage of discussing the matter with Lord Hailsham, who permits me to say he is in agreement with the Resolution.

When a Peer takes by descent, his proper course in order to obtain his Writ is for him to make application to the Lord Chancellor and produce evidence of 1112 his right. Upon the Lord Chancellor being satisfied, the Writ is issued accordingly. There are, therefore, in the custody of the Lord Chancellor a number of documents which have been lodged from time to time by Peers upon making their claim to sit and vote in this House. These documents are in the custody of the Chancellor as Speaker of the House of Lords, to whom the House delegates the duty of issuing a Writ where he is satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt of the justice of the claim. It would not be proper for the Lord Chancellor to part with their possession in any circumstances whatever except upon the authority of the House. I am confirmed in this view by an opinion expressed by my predecessor, Lord Halsbury, in 1884, and am indebted to the Permanent Secretary of the Lord Chancellor, Sir Claud Schuster, for his researches into this matter. Sometimes it happens that, when a Peer makes a claim, evidence which is material is amongst the documents already deposited on a previous claim, and to save labour and expense this evidence on suitable occasions is placed at the disposal of the claimant. The documents, however, not infrequently may contain statements as to the family history of the Peer making the claim or of his collaterals, which would not be furnished if it were not that the claimant and his advisers were satisfied that the statements were regarded as confidential by those in whose hands they were placed.

There is now pending in the Chancery Division an action before the Honourable Mr. Justice Bennett, relating to Teal property, in which the plaintiff styles himself Earl of Egmont. The title of Egmont is an Irish Earldom, and no claim has been put forward by the present Earl to succeed to the English Barony of Lovel and Holland which is held with it, and no question arises in the Chancery action as to the right of the present claimant or any other claimant to the Peerage. I am informed by the learned Judge that it would be of assistance to the Court if there were produced to the Court certain documents deposited with my predecessors on previous claims of successive Earls of Egmont to the Barony of Lovel and Holland. I have satisfied myself that the documents contain no statement which could in any way injure the reputation or be contrary to the interest 1113 of those by or on behalf of whom they were deposited. I am further informed by the learned Judge that the effect of producing them would be to shorten the litigation and to save expense, and that he is anxious, after consideration of all the facts, to see that the plaintiff does not incur any avoidable expense in establishing his claim.

In these circumstances, the question is whether any assistance should be given by the production of these documents. It is, in the first place, clear that I can only produce them if this House authorises me to do so. In the second place, it is clear that I ought not to ask for such an authority, and, in my judgment, your Lordships ought not to grant it, if any possibility of breach of that confidence of which I have spoken would ensue. It may be said that the mere production of a document deposited in such circumstances is a breach of that confidence. I can, however, say that in this particular case the documents appear to be of such a nature that those depositing them, or those on whose behalf they were deposited, if they were alive, would not have objected to their being rendered available for the purpose indicated. They consist of three formal common form affidavits, which I hold in my hand. There remains the further question whether the action which I now ask your Lordships to take can be drawn into a precedent, so as to prejudice the position of those who in future may wish to deposit similar documents. In my view, it should not have that effect. On the contrary, those who deposit such documents will have the assurance that such a step as is now proposed will only be taken after the Lord Chancellor has satisfied himself personally in the premises and has laid the matter formally before your Lordships. I beg to move that the Motion be agreed to.

§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was good enough to mention this matter to me, and. I desire only to say that I am satisfied that the principles which he has laid down are the right principles which ought to guide your Lordships in a matter of this kind. I think it important that they should be stated and clearly understood, so that it shall not be suggested that documents of the character in question in this Motion shall be liable to production hereafter in any circumstances which might conceivably do any harm to anybody interested in the matters referred to in them. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack tells your Lordships that he is satisfied that in this particular case the principles are safeguarded, and I have only to say that it seems to me that the Motion is one to which your Lordships might well agree. I am glad to have an opportunity of stating my emphatic concurrence with the principles which the Lord Chancellor has laid down.