The Express.
London, England, 1849-03-08 00:00:00

Mr. MUNTZ said the lawyers were the worst men to give
an opinion on • question like ibis. The bon. gentleman
who spoke last no dsubt knew that if this bin were carried
out, the conveyancing business would ant be eo extend* as
it had been. (Hear, and laughter.) It would be a great
evil to throw open all titles to public examination, but any-
thing which would facilitate conveyancing, and reduce the
expense, would be • benefit. It would be desirable to meet
that the government should have power to re-grant estates
to the holders, after due notice given, so as to simplify all
existing titles, and thereby reduce the expenses of writings.
Mr. DRUMMOND replied, but he Oyu nearly inaudible
in the gallery. Re was understood to say that it was neces-
sary to convince the landed interest that there was no other
way of getting out of the hands of the lawyers bat by sense
such legislative provision as that before the house. Until
this made its way into the " agricultural mind " he &im-
paired of success.
The gelle was cleared for • division, but the debate
was resumed, and on the gallery.being re-opened—
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was found on his lege,
pretesting against the bill, and declaring his Intention to
move that it should be read a second time that day ex
month..
Mr. DRUMMOND reminded the Deese of the statement
made by Sir O. Grey the other night, that legal gentlemen
were slow to adopt those notions which were contrary to
those they bad imbibed from their education and pursuits.
Sir G. GREY said he had hardly expected that this opinion
of his would be quoted is favour of a measure like this. lie
could not go the extent of the hon. member for Birming-
ham, in toying that nobody had a right to look into the
title of another person wishing to sell his estate.
Mr. MUNTZ explained.
The LORD ADVOCATE said he should support the
amendment, but not because he disliked the system of regis-
tration. which w eon the It in hand the only means of se-
curing good titles. Registration had worked well is
Scotland for the last two hundred years; it wag •
system for the purpose of securing 'publicity. Approving of
the principle, he only objected to this measure because it did
not carry out the principle most effectually.
Sir R. PRICE hoped the ball would be withdrawn on the
understanding that the government would take up the ebb-
ject, otherwise he should vote for the second reading„ so
thoroughly was he convinced of the necessity of some legis-
lation on the question. (Rear.)
Sir H. VERNEY said that, though the expenses of ciin-
veyenciog might be diminished, the cost of proving a title
wag as great ea ever. Re should vote for this measure, as
the government bad declined to give any pledge to bring
the matter under the consideration of the house.
The house then divided—
For the wood reading
Against
The bill was then read a second time.
Sir 0. GREY said that he hoped the bill would come out
et the hands of the select committee free from those objec-
tions which induced many hon. gentlemen to oppose the
second reading.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR would suggest that there should not
be • single lawyer on the committee. (Laughter.)
POOR LAWS (IRELAND).
The report of the resolutions agreed to in committee last
night was brought up, and a bill founded thereon was
ordered to be brought in.
AFFIRMATION BILL.

Mr. P. WOOD said that, in moting the second reading of
this bill, he would be governed a great demi by the drown-
stance of whether or not it was to be opposed. If it wss en-
opposed he would be extremely short in his statement ; but
if otherwise, he would, of course, ba obliged to state his cue
at greater length. (Cries of " More, move.") He would,
therefore, content himself at present with moving that the
bill be read a ascend time.
The motion having been put, and no opposition offered,
the bill wee read a second time, and ordered to be committed
on the 28th of March.
LIFE POLICIES OF ASSURANCE BILL.
Mr. FAGAN moved the second reading of dila bill.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that he did not in.
toad to oppose the second reading, but he did not wish that
his assent should be taken as if he pledged himself to the de-
tails of the bill.
In answer to Sir H. WILLOUGHBY,
Mr. PAGAN said tbs. of course he would be willing to
adopt any improvement in the details of the bill generally
The bill was then read a second time.
POOH LAWS.
- - -

Captain PECHELL moved for copies of the se-
veral letters received by the clerk of tie Oodstone
Union from the vestry clerk of the parish of
Brighton, with the answers thereto, respecting the
maintenance of John Hedger, his wife, and family, whose
relief was withdrawn by the Godstone guardians pursuant to
the instructions of the poor law commissioners, founded on
the opinion of the law officers of the crown. What he com-
plained of was that the parish of Brighton was put to con-
siderable expiate in this matter, in consequence of the pro-
ceedings of the poor-law commissioners, founded on an
opinion of the law officers of the crown, respecting the
construction of a proviso in the Poor Removal Act,
which opinion was since overruled by the Court of Queen's
Bench. He therefore thought that some compensation
,how'd bee made to the parish.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL laid that he took upon
himself the whole responsibility of the matter complained
of by his hon. and gallant friend. The poor-law commis-
sioners and his late right hon. friend (Mr. C. Buller), had
nothing to do with the matter. The poor-law eciandmioners
merely acted on the conetruetion which he put on the Root
law Emoval Act. His opinion was that the proviso in that
set was not retrospective. That was his opinion still,
though he' regretted it. was at variance with the Queen's
Bench, which gave • contrary decision. 4.11 that he could
do was to give his opinion to the best of his judgment.
The question was a very difficult one, and neither he nor
the poor-lew commiseioners were responsible for delaying
the decision from the year 1948, to Nov. 1848. In the
ease of Ledger he believed there was no ground of com-
plaint. But if there were, it was matter rather for the
decision of a court of law, than for the oonsideration of that
Mess. (Hear, hear.)
Lord D. STUART thought that there was well-founded
ground for complaint, because it was evident that several
parishes had been saddled with expense unjustly and ille-
gally. He wished to know from the lion. and learned
gentleman whether the correspondence would be produced ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied that it would.
Mr. HENLEY hoped they would not go back to make
one pirish repay to another what had been spent under the
opinion of the construction of a difficult act of parliament by
the law officers of the mown.
Mr. BAINES said he believed there was no power to open
any amounts which had been justly audited and settled, and
be would not advise the house to enter into any engagement
of the kind by proposing a new bill on the euhject. His
belief was that what parishes had lost one way they gained
in another by the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench.
;- Mr. BANKER could not consider the poor-law commis--
gleams wholly blameless, because be had himself suggested a
declaratory bill on this subject, which the government, act-
ing under the advice of the poor-law commissioners, would
not assent to.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that at the period re-
ferred to the question was considered in committee, and his
right hon. friend the late Mr. Buller stated that it had been
determined not to introduce • declaratory bill.
Captain PECHELL herd the poor-law commissionen
would not is figure prevent boards of guardians from ful-
filling their Ingagegnente.
The motion was then *greed to.