The Sun.
London, England, 1853-03-04 00:00:00

NELSON'S daughter. Here is the reason for our
revival of the melancholy story of the paltry and
ungenerous treatment of that great man during his
lifetime by his fellow-countrymen. And not only
during his lifetime, but actually, let us add, after
his death and interment ! Ungenerous England
had shown herself towards him during the period
of his existence, but after his burial she must be
said, in truth, to have proved herself doubly
ungrateful. Look at the facts. A codicil
to his will was written by Lord NELSON on the
morning of the famous 21st of October, 1805, the
morning of Trafalgar, in which codicil the hero
penned these words—" I leave also to the beneficence
of my country, my adopted daughter, HORATIA
NELSON THOMPSON ; and I desire she will in
future use the name of NELSON only. These are
the only favours I ask of my King and country,
at this moment, when I am going to fight their
battle. May GOD bless my King and country,
and all those I hold dear ! My relations it is
needless to mention : they will, of course, be
amply provided for." Moreover, when the action
had actually commenced—indeed, after the fatal
wound from the effects of which NELSON but too
speedily expired—he exclaimed, " Thank GOD, I
have done my duty. . . . Remember that
I leave MY DAUGHTER HORATIA as a legacy to my
country. Never forget HORATIA." Recollect
those words—" I leave to the beneficence of my
country my adopted daughter HORATIA." And more
—" These are the only favours I ask of my King
and country, at this moment when I am going to
fight their battle." And last of all, almost in the
act of expiring—" _Remember that I leave my
DAUGHTER, HORATIA, as a legacy to my country."
Forty-eight years have since elapseed, and the
country has paid no regard to that sacred legacy—
the nation has done nothing for that Daughter.
Endeavours, it is true, have been made, and are
still being continued by a Committee, comprising
six of the surviving officers of the "Victory," and
originally presided over by Sir EDWARD CODRING-
TON, with a. view to offer to the Child of NELSON
the tribute of a tardy Testimonial. But that
Testimonial, at the best, could he only of a private
and restricted, whereas it should be of a national
and munificent, character.. The time has arrived,
we believe, when the people may at length hope
to witness this sinister blot of ingratitude wiped
away from the national escutcheon. The glorious
NELSON has himself long since passed away, it is
true—so that we cannot offer him reparation.
Had he been a Sea Captain, not under GEORGE
111., but under NAPOLEON the GREAT, the latter
would have created him a PRINCE long before the
battle of Trafalgar. •

But we have still the opportunity for atoning,
as becomes a magnanimous people, for our deplor-
able and protracted negligence in regard to his
wishes—for, if we have not NELSON still amongst
us, we have one who was very dear to him, and
whom he bequeathed to us as his only legacy—
we have EfORATIA, his Daughter. Confiding,
earnestly, hopefully, in this particular, we look
to the munificence of the House of Commons, or,
rather let us say, to the conscientiou s and recol-
lected patriotism of the Imperial Legislature.

A more important question in all its details,
or one requiring more attentive consideration,
could not have been brought forward than that
which was last night discussed in the Rouse of
Lords with extraordinary ability and energy. We
have so frequently explained some of the many
evils arising from the vexatious delays, the
ruinous expenses, and the perplexing doubts in-
separable from the transfer of real property—have
so frequently insisted on the imperative necessity
of a large and comprehensive measure in that,
perhaps, the most important and most urgently
required of all legal reforms, that our readers
must be in some degree familiarised to the topic.
The question has been repeatedly asked why landed
estates may not be transferred with as great
facility, and (the stamp duties excepted) with
almost as little expense, as money in the Funds or
shares in joint-stock companies ? The problem
has been' solved elsewhere. The difficulties have
been overcome in other lands. Why may they not
be successfully encountered in the British do-
minions, so that the " black mail" now levied on
such of the territorial aristocracy as may be com-
pelled to dispose of or encumber their estates
may be avoided, and one of the most onerous
" burdens on land" fully and completely re-
moved?

There is no extraordinary difficulty in framing
suitable answers to these interrogatories. The
causes may be easily traced out by these who
enter on the investigation zealously and energeti-
cally, with an unflinching determination to elicit
the truth. The abuse has been so long main-
tained—partly through the influence of practi-
tioners—who--and we would not wish to be sup-
posed to attribute any dishonest or improper
motive to many respectable men belonging to the
profession—are deeply interested in its perpetua-
tion, and are also greatly biassed by their educa-
tion and early training in favour of the "grey
iniquities," and partly by the unreasoning preju-
dice of the community, that sacrifices a reality in
search of a phantom. "An Englishman does not
choose to expose his title 1" "He likes to have
his own sheepskins in his own box." Such are
the arguments that are put forward in favour of
concealment Why, if every thing is bond fide
and straightforward, should any man, if he be
really the owner of property, desire concealment?
Why should he want to retain his title-deeds in
his own possession—if equal, if not greater se-
curity could be obtained by placing them in a
public depositary?

It surely cannot be the wish of the Legislature
to enable parties fraudulently to .continue in the
enjoyment of the rents and profits of lands really.
and truly belonging to others. Such an imputa-
tion would be indignantlyand instantly disclaimed,
and, undoubtedly, with abundant justice. It is
not for such a purpose that the Members of either
Houses of Parliament would advocate privacy.
But the only practical result of the existing sys-
tem is to place difficulties almost insuperable in
the way of claimants for justice. A man is not
bound to expose his title. No, not unless a bill
of discovery--it may be what is technically termed
" a fishing bill," founded on some kind of infor-
mation, licked into shape by an acute and skilful
lawyer—be filed for the purpose. But if the
information can be obtained, even by means of a
tedious, expensive, and vexatious process, what
can be the necessity or utility of a mystery that
can be thus cleared up, which might be injurious to
legitimate claimants of slender means, but could
not possibly avert, or even retard, the proceed-
ings of the concoctors of an ingenious and com-
plicated fraud. Nay more, would pro-Vide
plausible excuses for the total ignorance of the
parties cone 3rned as to documents that might
alter the right of succession. There is no such
objection to the publication of the names of share-
holders in a joint-stock company, nor to the
registration of the proprietors of Bank of
England Stock, or of Three per Cent. Consolidated
Annuities. Men who have unquestionable titles
to property do not object to the public announce-
ment of the fact. Much ,property is also held
under wills, recorded at Doctors' Commons, which
can be perused, at the small charge of a shilling,
by any person interested. We have never heard
that any mischief arose from the -power. If,
however, it was considered indispensible that
secrecy should be observed, except when a trans-
fer was about to take place, means might very
easily be adopted to prevent any access to the
books, except on the part of persons authorised by
the nominal owners, or enabled to adduce satis-
factory reasons for the application.
On the second point, as to the retention of a
" man's sheep-skins in his own box," it is just as
easily disposed of. The point, indeed, does not
arise, for it would be merely a duplicate and not
an original that would be deposited, and addi-
tional security would thus be afforded, inasmuch,
as the simultaneous destruction of the deeds in
his own possession, and that deposited in
the public registry, would be an exceed-
ingly improbable occurrence. Thus, then,
the chief objections to the scheme for an
general registry, can easily be set aside. But
though we may approvereqouif
retheelepsreinceixpalemj
principle,
uthaetiedne:
tails of the project