The Sun.
London, England, 1831-01-19 00:00:00

LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JANUARY 19, 1831.

twelve, Fel,. 8, at eleven, and Miren I, at ten, at the
Court of Commissioners. Lofty, King-street, CheapsiJe.

DIVIDENDS.

R. B. Cooper, Princes-street, Lambeth, distiller,
Feb. 8, at eleven, at the Court of Commissioners—H. R.
Kirkman, St. Paul's Church-yard, silk-warehouseman,
March 29, at eleven, at the Court of C;mmissioners
A. Thomson, New Grove, Able-end-road, nurseryman,
Feb. 11, at eleven, at the Court of Commissioners—L.
Potty, Bristol, carver, Feb. 8, at ten, at the Court of
Commissioners—T. Davison, Birkenshaw, Yorkshire,
woollen cloth manufacturer, Feb. 8, at ten, at the Court
of Commissioners—J. Austin, High-street, Shoreditch,
arorer, Feb. 8, at ten, at the Court of Commissioners_...
J. Peer, Coleman-street, coachm•sker, Feb. 8, at eleven,
at the Court of Commissioners—W. West, Brendenbury,
Herefordshire, farmer, Feb. 21, at twelve, at the Feathers
Inn, Ledbury, Flerefordshire—J. Burraston, Hereford,
coal-merchant, Feb. IS, at eleven, at the King's Head Inn,
Ross-S. Timms, Ashby-de-la-Zouch, confectioner. May 3,
at eleven, at the Queen's Head Inn, Ashby•de•la-Zouch—
R. W. Wills, Barnstaple, Devonshire, linen-draper,
Feb. 16, at eleven, at the Golden Lion Inn, Barnstaple—
J. Birks, Barnsley, Yorkshire, druggist, Feb. 15, at
eleven, at the King's Head Inn, Barnsley—J. Bidniead,
Cheltenham, plumber, Feb. 12, at eleven, at the office of
Mr. J. Chadborn, Gloucester—T. and B. Hogg, Leeds,
woollen cloth manufactures, Feb. 9, at eleven, at the
Court-house, Leeds.

the Lord Chamberlain, in which he was informed
that he had surrendered the patent originally granted
to Devenant aml Killigrew—and as he had sub-
mitted himself to her Majesty, permission was by
that letter given him to imet comedy and tragedy;
and he begged their Lordships to observe the ex-
press terms and stipulation upon which the grant
wag made to him ; he was there strictly required
and enjoined not to permit Rich, or any person con-
tinted kith or deriving under his patent, to have
the slightest interference with the privilege given
him to act Comedy and Tragedy. Now could it
be possible for language to speak more plainly as to
the right of the Crown to limit, or suspend, or
withdraw those patents under which alone he sup-
posed • it was intended to maintain the mo-
nopoly of the great Theatres ? After that, it
would really be waste of time for him to trouble
their Lordships with a single consideration
beyond what that letter suggested. The Learned
Counsel went on with his history of the Theatres
through the grant of the invent to Sir R. Steele;
the transfer of Gifford's company from Goodman'--
fields to Liecoln's-inn-fields, without a license, and
in the teeth of the patent ; the revocation of Sir R.
Steele's patent, and also that of Mr. Rich ; the
licensing of a new playhouse in the Haymarket, in
1720; the grant of a patent in 1722, to Wilks,
Cibber, Betterton, and others; the sale of a patent
to Highmore, from him to Fleetwood, then to Gar-
rick and Lacy, and down to Sheridan; the exist-
ence of a theatre conducted by Fielding, which had
ne license, in the year 1736, when the Licensing
Act was passed ; till he came to the petition pre-
sented by Betterton, which, with a slight alteration,
would be effectually expressive of the sentirhents of
those who appeared for the winter theatres at the
present moment. He complained against the ex-
istence of a second theatre, as they would now
against a third, as tending to enhance the emolu-
ments of performers, and to extend their market, as
encouraging foreigners, dancers, rope and ladder
performances, reducing our national theatres to a
level with the exhibitions at Bartholomew fair.
Thus, then as now, each party was disposed to extol
his own wares, and cry out, " There is nothing like
leather." —(A laugh.)—He thought, then, that his
client was at least as well entitled as others to say a
word in favour of what he proposed to produce,and it
was this—that his object was to be attained through
an encouragement and a fostering of native talent,
and the cultivation of a taste for British music. He
then reverted to the incorporation of the Royal
Academy of Music, proceeding from the notice of
that topic to observe, that what his client applied
for was not only unobjectionable in itself—not only
likely to prove convenient and beneficial to the
public, but was no novelty—it had actually been
enjoyed by that gentleman's father. He contended
that the patent rights of the other theatres were not
worth a farthing—that they were valueless in law—
and that, if they at the present moment existed at
all, they were riot of force to disturb the perform-
ances of others; and, even were it possible fur any
one King to restrain or limit the authority of any
of his successors—which it was not, and which no
one was absurd enough to imagine—yet it was a'
power which Charles 11. never exercised. As we
are increasing, said he, at the rate of 500 a day, it is
to be presumed that the population of the metropolis
advances in proportion ; and from that he con-
tended, that soon Drury-lane and Covent-garden
would be too small to contain the play-going
people of London—nothing but larger Theatres
would meet rite difficulty. Then he begged their
Lordships to observe how reasonable were the Paten-
tees: they required permission to keep their Theatres
open during the winter months, when great extent
of space was not an object of much convenience to
the public; and when the raging summer months
came, they required that his Majesty's subjects
should be shut up in a small and close Theatre ; and
if their despotic temper was allowed in that instance
bto e pursue ivtesr bredtamchaidnlge incourse, cnotuhres et,n
at heir enier
risi eoxitstep .
tiithe people
wo'tli tl
made it convenient, to declare that they, forsooth
preferred the summer to the winter, and the licensed
Theatres would only have the refuse portion of the
year. If their patents were good for anything, they
were as good for the summer as the winter ; and if
good for anything, they must be as valid against Ita-
lian as against English Opera. Was it to be en-
dured that foreigners should be encouraged, and na-
tives of this country not patronised ? He was not
opposing the Italian Opera, hut was merely contend-
ing that when the upper classes had their peculiar
enjoyments so carefully attended to, it was no un-
reasonable matter to expect that those of the middle
orders should not be neglected. tie lamented the
practice of excluding the poorer classes from many
innocent amusements in the open air and else-
where, which 'they formerly were in the habit
of enjoying; and, in that view, he thought
. that their Lordships could do nothing better, on
the present occision, than recommend to the Crown
a plan to enable the middle and lower classes of
the people to enjoy, at a moderate cost, entertain-
ments of so innocent a nature as those which Mr.
Arnold contemplated providing. As respected the
size of the theatre, he believed that no one could
go into one of the great theatres without feeling
extreme inconvenience from their size. The first
thing which struck any one going from one of the
larger to one of the smaller theatres was, that in the
latter a small man upon the stage looked like a giant
—not, indeed, in mind or talent as an actor, but in
stature. They (the Patentees) had enlarged the
theatres in such a way, that the audience were
compelled to wear, at first, opera glasses ; and
lately, these being insufficient for vision in the ex-
tended area of these buildings, it had been neces-
sary to introduce instruments of greater power—
lunettes, he thought they were called—and at length,
if these theatres were further enlarged, he supposed
we roust go to diem provided with a telescope to
assist the aught, and a little /tearing trumpet to
catch
.the sounds from the stage ; and at last, pee-
haps, it will be advisable to have a speaking trumpet
to communicate with one's acquaintances in the
further end of the pit.—(Laughter.)—He (Sir E.
S,) always regretted in those theatres to see a man
exhaust. his strength, in efforts almost vain, to make
his voice audible, or his action distinctly ob-
servable to his &want spectators. When Shak-
speare gave his celebrated iejunction to the actors
of his plays, that they should not " o'crstep the
modesty of nature," he could not have contemplated
that they should have to perform in theatres of such
inordinate extent. If the proprietors of those build-
ings should go on enlarging them, the public would,
doubtless, be much obliged to them if they
could, at the same time, extend the vision
and improve the hearing of the audience in
the same Proportion.—(A laugh.) If they could
do so, then they ought not to oppose the extension
of useful instrue:ion, of which he (Sir E. Sugden)
considered the theatre to be a vehicle, when pro-
perly conducted. He did not think it desirable that
we should become a nation of fiddlers or singers ;
yet he thought that no other amusement could be so
calculated to make the English people attached to
their country, its language, arid its institutions, as
that in which they heard their national stories and
songs combined with their national music. He did
not object to the Italian music or drama. He only
asked for fair play to the hovers both of the English
and of the Italian Theatre. Let those who prefer-
red the - latter to the English go to the ' Italian
Theatre, For those who preferred the English
could have no theatre better conduced than Mr

PRICE 7D.

Arnold's had been. If that gentleman were con-
Clued to the smaller season, no benefit would be con-
ftifred on him by the granting of his license so re-
?tri ctvd. The expensiveness of such an establishment
:Vonld be so great, that if their Lordships should
lot grant him the whole year, he could not be abl:•
o maintain his theatre. He felt perfect confidence
•hat their Lordships had considered every particular
vliich he had submitted to them, and that they
.would view that application in favour of English
-kill in such a light as would lead them to recom-
mend it to the protection of the Crown.

Mr. HARRISON said that the first point to which
he had to pray their Lordships' consideration was
that to which his Learned Friends on the other side
had first addressed themselves, respecting the pre-
' rog,rat ire of the Crown to grant such patents. On
that pont they said that all the prerogatives of the
Crown were as old as the Crown itself. Their
next argument was respecting the Statute of Alo-
qopolies; the next respecting the grant of one
Monarch binding his successor from the exercise of
a privilege; and the fourth was, that if those pa-
tents were not grants, binding the successor, they
were not analogous to the grant of markets and fairs.
The next subject for consideration was, whether
those patents had been forfei,ed by anything which
had occurred since the year 1662. The next consi-
deration was, whether the Crown bad not so sanc-
tioned those patents for 40 years past as to put an
end to all doubt respecting them, especially in the
arrangement entered into in 1790, with the sasc-
tion of the Crown, and afterwards in the-argument
before the Privy Council in 1810; and further, by
the refusal of Parliament to an application against
them. Under such sanction, property to a great
amount having been embarked, a claim was esta-
blished upon the Crown not to grant that which
would interfere with that property to a ruinous ex-
tent. . He thought that the position laid' down by
Sir E. Sug,den, respecting the prerogatives of the
Crown being as ancient as the Crown itself, was
scarcely tenable.-- There were some privileges which
had a more modern origin. But the fact was, that
the exercise of this particular privilege ma; as at.-
dent as time—legal memory, In the prolegomena
of Malone, who wrote in the year 1781, plays are
related to have been performed in London under the
Royal permission long before that time. That
writer relates, that mysteries and other enter-
tainments were performed in Smithfield, by mer-
chants, who made use of them as means of in-
ducing people to frequent their booths and pur-
chase their commodities. In the time of Richard
a petition was presented to the King, praying
him to prevent ignorant persons from representing
on the stage passages from the Holy Scriptures,
whereby persons who had, at great expence and
study, fitted themselves to perform in such mysteries,
were-greatly injured. In the reign of Henry VII.
grants of money were paid from the Exchequer for
the performance of plays, especially in French. In
the reign of Edward VI., the prerogative was exer-
cised' in the prohibition of playa in London
and Westminster. Afterwards an Act of Parlia-
ment, the 30. h of Elizabeth, declared all players to
be vagrants, except those who had license from tire
Crown,'or from a Baron; and they were considered
vagrants from that tame until the 10th George 11.,
when it was finally settled what should be the law
respecting such persons. From those facts he was
entitled to say, that the Crown had considered the
protection and the regulation of players to belong
to its privilege from the earliest period. The King
was the great conservator of the peace and morals
of the realm, and, as such, he had especially the
controul of dramatic entertainments, which were
immediately connected with the public morals.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Your argument would
extend much further than to the stage. What is
there more important to public morals than the con-
duct of the Press? and yet it is not assumed to be
controlled by the prerogative of the Crown without
an Act of Parliament.

Mr. HARRISON continued—Yet there were par-
ticulars connected with the Press over which the
prerogative of the Crown was exercised—the print-
ing of bills, paragraphs, and proclamations. The
prerogative of the Crown was exercised for the sake
of the public peace, in regulating and in granting to
individuals many other important things—markets,
fisheries, ferries, &c. which would otherwise be en-
joyed in common by all the people. From those
facts, he submitted, it was plain that the argument
of Sir E. Sugden against the privilege of the
Crown could not be supported by principle or by
precedent. He (Mr. Harrison) had not only shown
that so early as Richard 11. the Crown had exer-
cised its prerogative respecting the players, but that
the patents granted since that time had been recog-
nised by the Act of Parliament, in the tenth year
of the reign of George 11. lie had a right to con-
sider this Statute, taken with the Statute of Ann,
to be declaratory of the law, and in them the patents
and licenses were distinctly recognized as being
of sufficient authority to exempt persons acting
under them from the penalty of vagrancy, which
actors not so protected would incur, according to
those two Statutes. That recognition by the Legis-
lature of the power of the Crown to grant those pa-
tents, was a complete answer to Sir E. Sugden. Now
the Act of 25th Geo. 111., in granting to Justices of
the Peace the power of granting licenses to players,
especially provided, that no licence should be
granted so as to interfere with the interest of persons
having a previous license—no license being allowed
to be granted by a Justice within eight miles of a
place in which players were already performing by
license. In the patents granted to Davenant and
Killigrew, the privilege of representing plays, tic.
was made distinctly exclusive. The next argument
of Sir E. Sugden had been, that these patents
would be void by the Statute of Monopolies. Now,
certainly, the words of the Act did not include pri-
vileges given by the patents. The monopolies for-
bidden were of things which are made, bought,
sold, or used. The mere circumstance of the pa-
tents giving an exclusive right did not bring them
within the meaning of that Act. The argument
would have had much more weight, had the pa-
tents given to particular carpenters or others the
exclusive right of making articles- to be used in
those theatres. But a complete analogy to the case
of the theatres would be found in that of public
markets ; an-exclu,ive right to which the King un-
doubtedly had a right to grant. But there was no
analogy between the right to exhibit entertainments
in a theatre, and the right to make cards for sale.'
The latter was, as his Learned Friend (Sir E. S.)
had argued, one of the things comprehended in
the Statute of Monopolies, the former was not.
Nor had his Learned Friend shown anything in
support of the argument respecting that law.
The next consideration was respecting the fran-
chise or grant, and it would answer all his
purposes if he showed the patents to be
either; for in that case, it was plain, as in the
case of a market, by the rule quo ad durnnum, the
person possessing- the privilege could prevent any
other from interfering ; or, if they were put merely
upon the question of justice, he was not quite sure
but that in respect to the jurisdiction of the Court
which he was then addressing, lie would find on that
ground a strosger protection than on any oilier. In
that case, the Crown would he more cautious in
making a second grant to interfere with the first,
titan in a case where a legal remedy could be ob-
tained. (The Learned Gentleman then read the
observations of Lord '1 hurlow on those patents be-
fore read by Sir Edward Sugden, and argued, that

it was the opinion of that Judge that it would not
be advisable for the Crown to grant any license,
whereby the property embarked under the faith of-
he patents might be iujuriously affected.) lie did
not deny that the Crown-could revoke the it: vents;
as, in point of fact, it might be said to have (lobe
before. The patentees did not stand upon their
right, but upon that princirde of justice, in respect .
to which Lord Thurlow had said, that he would
not advise the Crown to revoke a grant, upon the
faith of which many thousands of pounds had been
expended, unless it conkl be shown that the paten-
tees were so embarrassed as to be unable to fulfil
purposes for which the grant had been made. oe
those grounds the patent was, on that occasion,
refused to O'Rielly. In 1790, with the ex-
press concurrence of the Crown, the second pa.
tent, then in the hands of the proprietors of
Covent-garden, was passed over to Mr. Sheridan,
the lessee of Drury-lane. Now, as respncted the
legality of the patents, even supposing that the
Crown had before that transfer revoked them, or
that they had become void, as was aegued by Sir
E. Sugden, in consequence of their having been
united, the Crown, in giving its sanction to the
stipulations under which one of those dormant pa-
tents, as they were termed by his Learned ;Mend
was transferred from Covent-garden to a ury-lane ,
virtually revived them both. The Learned Counsel
hen proceeded to read an extract from a deed ex-
ecuted by Mr. Sheridan on the one part, and three
others on the second part, by which it was agreed
that the Italian Opera-house should perform Italian
Operas only, and that right should not be encroached
upon yy the other Theatres. This deed received
the approbation of the Duke of Bedford, and was
sanctioned by the King himself in the year 1791;,
although the arrangements in the deed, in conse-
quence of some long Chancery suite, were not ac-
tually put in force till 1813. This, he appre-
hended, was a complete recognition by the Crown .
of the validity of the patents;. and on the founda-
tion of that recognition, large sums of money were
laid out in the rebuilding of Drury4ane Theatre; a
long lease be'ng alto given by the Duke of Bed-
ford. In the year 1809, Drury•lane, it would be
recollected, was burnt down.' -From the expenccs
which would attend the rebuilding, an application
was made for permission to build a third Theatre.
He (Mr. Harrison) was Counsel there along %I ith
some of their Lordships, and he recollected Mr.
Sheridan speaking in behalf of his property very
ably for a considerable time.

Sri EDWARD SUDDEN—This was an application
for the chartering of a Corporation.

Mr. HARRIS iik said that he was aware of that
fact ; but the whole of the discussion turned upon
the relati re situation of Covent-garden and Drury-
line, and the probable effect that it would have
upon them, more especially the hitter, encumbered
as it was with so many previous debts, to a very
large amount. It was contended then, that the two
patents would riot be injured, and the applicants for
a third Theatre made an offer to deposit fifty thou-
sand pounds to meet the demands of the Drury-
lane creditors, supposing that the third theatre
would have a prejudicial effect upon them; that,
however, was not considered sufficient, and the ap-
plication fell to the ground. In the following year
a motion was made to bring in a Bill, authorising
the building and licensing of a third theatre, which
was opposed very strenuously by that able Member,
Mr. Whitbread, who obtained leave to postpone the
reading of the Bill for six weeks, in order that be
might inquire whether or not such aßill would injure
the two Theatres. At the end of that period he over-
came the difficultiesattendant upon the first occasion,
and, by clearly showing the probable injurious effect
of a third theatre upon the two existing oncs,the Bill
was thrown out. In consequence of the discussion,.
attendant on that occasion, a Bill was afterwards
brought in and passed, which had for its object the
regulation of Drury-lane Theatre by a Committee,
&c. It appeared from the clause of that Act, that
two persons, named White and Ann Martindale,
were to receive a considerable sum in consideration
of the interest that they bad in the patent derived
from Charles the SeCond, after the expenses atten-
dant on the house had been defrayed. Thus the
patents had been sanctioned and recognized in the
first instance by the King, and in the Second by
the Parliament. Could it with justice, then, be
said, that the patents were not worth the paper
on which they were written ? He apprehended
not, and that their Lordships would also be of the
same opinion. In consequence of this recognition, a
long lease was granted by the Duke of Bedford,
and various expenses were incurred in rebuihlaig
the theatre. The Learned Counsel then went on to
say that it was never his intention to put his whole
case on the exclusive rights of the patents as granted
by Charles 11. In fact he could not do so, as the
discussion would be naturally crippled, from the di-
versity of documents lying in various places, which
it would take a very long time, and the ingenuity
of a most intelligent solicitor, to collect, and then
put in the proper form to be brought into Court,
He had only made these remarks from the great at-
tention which the other Counsel had paid to the
patents. Their (Drury-lane) memorial, signed by
Captain Polhill and Mr. Lee, had been drawn up ia
a hurry, and put into the Lord Chamberlain's hands
in September, merely in answer to Mr. Arnold's
petition, not suspecting that such a solemn dis-
cussion as the present would come on. If they
had had any such suspicion, Counsel would
have been employed to draw up something like a
case, instead of the simple grounds given in the me-
morial. The Learned Counsel said that lie
would give explanations, if it were required,
for every transaction since 1662, which had been
argued upon by the other side, in derogation of die
patents. This, however, he was of opinion, he
had no need to do, as he had a very strong case on
the recognition and transactions that had occurred
shortly after Mr. Arnold had a license granted to him
by George the Third. This Monarch, it was well
known, entertained a very strong predilection, nay,
prejudice, for English music and English musicians.
Mr. Arnold, in consequence of this, proposed to
his Majesty to build a theatre, which was to be
the
ex-
clusivelydevotedto
encouragementtheot. English musicians
cultivation
and
composers, as well as to rival the Italian Opera-
house, by which foreigners took heaps of money
from the English. Nothing could be more gratifying
to King George, and he at once granted the license
to Mr. A. to open the Lyceum. But did that gentle-
man act up to his proposition ? No; he did not use
his license for one year, and then entered into an
agreement with Mr. Sheridan to allow his The itre to
be used on that gentleman's account, in consideration
of his receiving some of the profits, and being made
the composer. Not till the end of three years
did he use his license; and this, he should submi
was a forfeiture of the license, according to his
Learned Friend's doctrine, that non-usal was aban-
donment; and that using a thing granted for one
distinct purpose for another purpose, was a violation
and forfeiture. The Learned- Counsel then pro-
ceeded to show that Mr. Arnold's theatre was re-
fused an extension of the license at one time, and
that it was with some difficulty he obtained a re-
newal of his license in 1812. The Learned Coun-
sel was going into another argument, when
The LORD CHANCELLOR said it would be better
to adjourn. Monday and Tuesday would be the
most convenient clays for the next sittings, when he
hoped the arguments would be brought to a close.
The Learned Counsel on both sides hoped so
too, and said they would endeavour to comprise
their arguments within that time.—The Court ad-
journed at ten.

A WORD Is SEASON.—A correspondent.
observes, "What embarrassments would be relieved acd
good effected at a time like the pre,ent, were the wealthy
part of our neighbours, quickly after delivery, to examine
and discharge their Christmas bills, instead of letting them
remain unheeded for months, as is too gemerally the
Large placards have been this day extensively
posted through town, announcing a charity dinner
iat
MeautsoN's, on Wednesday next: O'CoxtiEr.r. Lc
chair.—Dublin Evening Parket.

THE REAL PROPERTY COMMISSION-
REGISTRATION OF DEEDS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

.N 1 R. EDlTOR,—Complaints against the present
system of conveyancing are nearly as loud, and quite
as well founded, as the clamour for Reform in the
practice and constitution of the legal tribunals of the
country. The science of conveyancing is commonly
considered " the mystery of mysteries"—" the
apocalypse of the law :" and the public, comprising
in that term King, Lords, and Commons, and ex-
cepting only the few quiet persons who have, amidst
the cobwebs that are proposed to be swept away,
shrunk from the very idea of enterm4 its dusty and
labyrinthine chambers on an expisr ng mission.
The debates on this subject in the Hounc of
Commons have afforded, and are likely to extend,
the 'tritest illustration of this opinion, The learned
supporters of the Bill introduced by Mr. Campbell
for providing a general registry for deeds (and
which has invited this letter), restrained themselves
(from political deference to the feelings of the
House) from any examination or disphy of the
inner grounds recommending the measure; and the
other learned members, I respectfully presume, who
took part in the debate, reserved their consideration
of the question until it arrived at a more mature shape.
The circumstances of toy life and profession here
led me to take an interest in this branch of jurispru-
dence, and conviction has long made me an advo-
cate for Reform. The plans of the Commissioners
f. ,r improving the laws relating to real property,
especially the design of a general registry, ought to
engage the serious attention of the public: and I
trust that the sentiments on the,c subjects of an
individual who may, in some sense, call himself a ;
witness (being ministerially an instrument in the
workings of the system), may be permitted to find
a vehicle for public dissemination through the
columns of your Journal, which furnished a copy of
the reports adverted to, and which has displayed
an intelligent attention to the subject.

The great sources of evil, bithvto pervading
every province of the law, have originated in muses
by no means innate in the legal Constitution, but
extrinsic and capable of easy excision i and are
principally tlie following f—lst. The interposition
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in rendering
all legal transactions the subject of grinding taxa-
tion, thereby aggravating expense ; then the system,
sometimes alluded to under the bye-word of
" vested interests," by which many of the Ministers
who fill subordinate, but important, offices in the
halls of justice, derive their salaries from taxes on
the procedure, thereby interesting them, and insur-
ing multiplicity and delay ; and, lastly, that our
ancestors, in adapting institutions, devised in a
simpler and ruder age, to the wants of increasing
and artificial society, did not remove systems and
forms no longer applicable, but, supporting their
authority, invented contrivances and sanctioned fic-
tions to render them as practicable and convenient
for modern use us the unpliable nature of the origi-
nal materiel permitted.
These great cperating causes, the effects of which
in the general administration of justice are noto-
rious arid sufficiently exposed, have had equal influ-
ence in the more silent department of the law now
under consideration.

In the system of " convey ancing" on the transfer
of property, the evils occasioned by these causes lay
on the surface, and have long been very prominent.
The necessity of a lease for a year, in addition to a
release as a conveyance of real estate, is an inven-
tion to avoid the inconvenience of the old practice
of transferring estates, which required notoriety
and attendance on the land; and has hitherto been
retained because laid hold of by the Chancellor of
the Exchequer as a medium of taxation. Fines and
recoveries, both of which are fictitious suits, in
which the parties are dragged through all the
" formula" of procedure in a real action, have long
since been discovered to be merely private convey-
ances, and requiring to be put on the footing of
such : but " vested interests" stood in the way.—
The late Mr. Canning enjoyed the benefits of the
King's silver office. The Duke of Grafton has the
seal office, &c. &c. Dower was a provision for ti e
widow, which, adapted to one age, a change of cir-
cumstances has rendered productive of inconve-
nience in another. The rules regulating the descent
of real property were framed in subserviency to a
political system which has been subverted.
These instances, without further, sufficiently
illustrate the above position, and show that their
removal by legislation is as easy and safe as the
eradication by a surgeon of the simplest excrescence
that evil humours may engender in the human frame.
The defect in the law in all these respects has
been long acknowleged by the profession ; and the
propositions contained in the first report of the
Commissioners not only suggest remedies of perfect
efficacy for their cure, but also originate new plans
of improvement which promise to render the science
of conveyancing as nearly perfect as is permitted to
human institutions.

But the master proposition, recommended by the
second report of the Commissioners, and in accord-
ance with which the Bill now under discussion has
been introduced into Parliament, is the establish-
ment of a general registry of assurance relating to
lands. . _

I do not shrink from this plan from mere appre-
hension of innovation, instead, I object to it as a
plan to nroid Reform, and as creating troublesome
and onerous machinery, and as productive of un-
necessary expence.
In exhibiting my views, I propose to di fine the
scheme, to describe the prominent evils that will
flow from it, and then, (my main object) to enter
into a discussion whether the alleged reasons for
submitting to such a burthen are not ascribed by
the Commissioners to effects which would cease if
the anatomizing knife had gone to the causes that
produced them ; and whether, in short, the scheme
is not one to stave off Reform where it is most
needed, and where it would be most beneficial and
effective.

The plan ‘vhich excludes district registers, pro-
vides one Metropolitan register, where every docu-
ment (with few exceptions) any way affecting teal
e.tate is to be registered at length, and the original
deposited.

The evils are very prominent.
Ist. Grantees must incur a charge on every con-
tract in getting possession of the benefits of the
register, viz., of a search by a person who has pre-
viously acquitted himself with so much of the
grantor's title as shows identify of persons, things,
and instruments : he must, in the same transaction,
incur a further charge in complying with the con-
' dition now imposed on him of the transmission and
registration of his conveyance; and, as the original
deeds are to be left at the office, if he would possess
the evidences of his title, lie must suffer the ad-
ditional expense of procuring copies.
All these expences will be created—brought into
existence—by the Act of Parliament.
But, to render the imposition of fresh expenses
consistent with the design and scope of the com-
mission, which vas to remove, and not to create,
burthens, the public are informed that the Com-
missioners have devised means by which this ex-
pence shall be •irtually sustained by the attorneys.
The length of conveyances is to be abridged, and the
necessity of particular deeds is to he greatly super-
seded. There is a little " see•saw" in this part of
the report from a desire of conciliating all ; for, the
attorneys are told in their turn not to be apprehen-
sive of injury, as the Commissioners will meet their
case by recommending an increased scale of fees.
It will be subsequently shown that the alleviation
offered to the public of shorter and fewer convey-
ances may be afforded without paying the price
which this scheme exacts of them.
2d. The delay which must occur when the
parties reside in the country, will operate in those
innumerable cases of emergent exigency, which, in
the artificial and extensive concerns of a commercial
nation, art constantly arising, and may produce un-
merited disaster and ruin.
3d. The risque attending the transmission of

such documents, which can be reached by no in-
surance from remote parts of the empire, to the
metropolitan registry, and of mistakes in the busi-
ness of the registry.
4ths The abolition of a convenient mode of ob,
taining loans, credit with bankers, &c., by depositing
title deeds, which deposit secures a right in the
holder to require an actual mortgage, should such
circumstances make such additional security necessary.
The frquency of transactions of this kind may 1;e
unsuspected by the Commissioners who advile its
destruction.

sth. The exposure of private transactions==-the
power of investigating any gentleman's or lady's
affairs at pleasure', which in despite of the Corn-
tnistmers, the mass of the public will put in the
scale of evils.

I now In?rioach the main inquiry, the necessity
for the merits of this scheme.

The evil which a general register is to remedy is
the insecurity of title from the facility with which
false titles are made by the suppression of deeds. It
also promises great collateral benefits by rendering
ntinceessary the various deeds and devices, which
the ingenuity of lawyers has invented for the pro-
tection of owners estates against such dangers,
thereby sinp!irying and cheapening the practice of
cortr*hncing.
These are the cardinal virtues on which it is
advocated; the few bye-advantages expected hardly
need referring to.
To explain the nature of this insecurity, it is ne-
cessary to refer to the state of the law, which I
can best do by citing the instances taken by the
Commissioners.

" The seller or mortgagor may have been the
absolute owner of the fee simple, and may produce
he instruments by which hi:, owner-hip was con-
stituted : but he may have executed some settle-
ment, by which hi; interest has been reduced to a
tenancy for life. The possession of the estate and
of the title deeds wall have remained unchanged;
and, in order to impose on a purchaser or lender of
money, he need only keep back the settlement.
" Again, the seller or mortgagor may be heir at
law of the last proprietor, and may claim as such
heir, and may suppress a will giving him a limited
interest ; or he may be heir at law, or general de-
visee, of some deceased proprietor, who may have
made a settlement, giving him a limited interest, and
he may claim as such heir or devisee, and may sup-
press the settlement."

All the means of inqniry and investigation, af-
forded by the present law,being insufficient to guard
against the insecurity of title arising from the pos-
sible suppression of documents, the subtle invention
of lawyers has been exerted in availing themselves
of some peculiarities of our system of law, built
upon the distinction between legal and equitable
estates, and they 'have devised machinery, called
" attendant terms," to be a defence to the posses-
sions of their clients.

It is impossible, within the limits afforded, to de-
scribe the nature, principles, and value of this pro-
tection; but, it is properly treated by the Commis-
sioners as a protection at once costly, inconvenient,
and uncertain : and they found a principal claim for
approbation of their plan on the promise of super-
seding by a registry this imperfect, intricate, and ex-
pensive invention.
Such are the merits and prospects of the scheme:
—the grounds of opposition to it remain to be
considered.

The prominent objections are that the devise of a
registry creates machinery as pregnant with expense,
risque, and inconvenience as the old; that it is alien
to our legal and moral system, and calculated to
prevent reform where it is 71103 i needed, by divert.
rug the public attention from the true source of the
evils that require a remedy; and that it tends, by
giving increased value to the equitable title, to con-
firm and perpetuate that jurisdiction of the Court of
Chancery over real property, which has been the
prolific parent of the abuses now complained of.
Some derail is inevitable.

The original simplicity of the common law ad-
mitted of no immediate estate in lands, which was
not clothed with the legal seizin and possession :
and the practice of conveyancing was remarkable in
early times for its preciseness, brevity,and clearness,
until the ecclesiastics, in order to evade the statute
of mortmain, invented the practice of conveying
lands to one person to the use of another : and cle-
rical Chancellors assumed the jurisdiction of com-
pelling the execution of such uses in the Court of
Chancery, consummating the work of usurpation,
and the extension of their authority, by setting aside
the maxims of the English law, and deriving the
rules by which uses were governed from the civil law.
This assumption was not brooked by the Com-
mons of England in silence; at length a statutory
remedy (the statute of uses) was applied, being in-
tended, in the contemplation of the framers, to be a
law of restitution, and " to restore the good ancient
common law." _

The chief object of that statute was to provide
that whoever bad the use and enjoyment of land
should be held to be the legal owner : but, by an
extraordinary construction of the statute, its plain
and acknowledged end failed, and the Court of
Chancery retained its domination over the same
interest in real estate under the appellation of trusts.
The title of the Court of Chancery to the juris-
diction exercised over landed property was founded
in usurpation arid fraud, and maintained by violence
the effects of it were to displace the simple and brief
assurances of ancient times, and to substitute a
system of conveyancing which has rendered deeds
voluminous and expensive, and involved titles in a
labyrinth of intricacies and refinements, which (in
the alleged assertion of a great conveyancer of the
day) the very Judges of the land possess no clue
to, nor any body else except the Learned Gentle-
man himself and about two persons beside T.
Recitals in deeds which, but for the interference
of equity, would only be occasionally necessary when
wanted to render the frame of a document intelli-
gible, are now dilated to an inordinate length, from
the expediencies (while the Court of Chancery ex-
ercises such an authority) of preserving and embody-
ing with the muniments of the title evidence of the
fairness of the transaction. The bulk of convey-
anc rig has thus swelled to its present magnitude.
A further result was the reduction of the autho-
rity of the Common Law Courts over real property,
where the decisions are speedy, the evidence oral,
and the proceedings cheap; and the subjection of it
to a tribunal whose character, as regards delay and
expense, is written in the debates of Parliament
and in the complaints and ruin of its suitors, pro-
claimed through the public press and through every
organ where oppression can express its feelings.
The state of the law is, as an old writer phrases it,
radix maloruni : and reform there while it would
improve and perfect the system of English convey-
ancing, would render the cumbrous and costly ma-
chinery of a registry superfluous.
The insecurity to titles which is sought to be
remedied is nearly altogether occasioned by the
artificial rules of the Court of Chancery. To apply
this allegation to the grievance of false titles pro-
duced by suppression of deeds, and which registry
is to remedy the fraud in all the instances adduced,
except of one anomalous class, can only be com-
mitted by the assistance of a third party, whose
right and duty it is to hold the deeds, and thereby
not to afford the means of fraud.
It is among Bacon's maxims that a party en-
abling another to commit a fraud is answerable for
the consequences; and it is an easy corollary from
the doctrine (and was the old notion) that the
trustee, mortgagee, or purchaser not taking the title
deeds, and by his omission, negligence, or improper
confidence, enabling the proprietor to commit a
fraud, should be postponed to a subsequent grantee,
who has the title deeds. But the doctrine of equity
is the reverse, except moved by evidence of fraud.
Secondary interests will not be of less value
by adopting a different principle, because the second
and third incumbrancer, who cannot have the deeds,
will take care to have notice of his incumbrance re-
corded, by an endorsement, on the deeds in the
custody-of the possessor.
Alter therefore the law—re-establish the old rule

—and what residue of insecurity from this source is
left to be dealt with ?

The anomalous class of interests excepted from
the protection of this new rule, or rather restora-
tion of the old, occurs where the possession of an
inheritance is carved into quantities—where A has
an interest for life, and B at his death—so that the
tenant for life has the custody of the title deeds,
and, if he were a former owner of the fee, but
abridged his interest by making a settlement, he
might retain the deeds showing the fee in himself,
and suppress the settlement.
But the exception—the anomaly—could easily be
specially provided for.
The proposed rule, it will he said, is not suffi-
cient for the case cited by the Commissioners of a
devisee for life, who also happens to be heir at law,
suppressing the will, and disposing of the estate as
if entitled by descent.
But it is singular that it did not occur to the
eminent and learned members of the commission,
that the heir-at-law, to manifest his title by descent,
must prove, when he sells or mortgages, the intes-
tacy of the late proprietor. If the present proving
medium be too weak, let it be strengthened.
A very concise statement is all that space permits;
the proposition above recommended at least dimi-
nishes, aud, with some auxiliaries ingrafted, would
reduce to nothing the insecurity arising from sup-
pression of deeds.
The mischief connected with the practice relating
to attendant terms, even if left to work uncontroul-
led, would then be very trifling.
The evil and absurdities pervading the doctrine
of attendant terms is also altogether created by the
state of the law, an exposition of which would be
the severest satire on our system of equity. The
creation of terms for purposes of family provisions,
mortgages, &c., is of public convenience, and is not
pr,)po•ed by the Commissioners to be interfered with;
but let the rules governing the further dealings with
them be reformed, and rendered reasonable ; let not
the termor, as at present, who is a mere conduit
pipe, be the arbiter—the uncontroulled and perhaps
venal arbiter—(for equity does not distinguish be-
tween unbribed and venal injustice)—of the con-
conflicting rights of the claimants to the inheritance,
and the doctrine (the occasion for the application of
which will be greatly diminished by giving increased
value to the possession of the title-deeds, and new
modelling the law of dower,) will then be subdued
within limits which will abate the nuisance.

I regret that I cannot enter into detail, but am
confined to broad lines, and the larger principles.
But there is another suggestion I cannot •forbear
throwing out.

Equity has departed from the old common law
rule—" Qui prior est lege, fortior est jure ;" and by
such departure has given birth to a large portion of
the intricacy, absurdity, injustice, and consequent
complaint which have led to the issuing the present
commission. I think it well worth consideration
whether the re-establishment of that rule, concur-
rently with what has been suggested as to the bene-
fit of the custody of the title-deeds, would not be
the best reform of which the sy3tem of conveyancing
is capable. The Court of Chancery would be thert-
by ousted of half the subject matter of its jurisdic-
tion over this department.
My views, as partially and hastily developed, it
will be seen, lead me to regard with hostility a plan
introducing a measure opposed to our legal and
moral system, producing great expellee, and fostering
the extension of trusts and of equitable interests,
and enlarging and establishing the usurped authority
of the Court, which, I confess, 1 regard with an in-
vidious and jealous eye. Instead, I think, a recur-
rence (which, assisted by the labours of Humphreys
and others, we are rapidly approaching) to greater
brevity and simplicity in conveyancing, and the more
precise rules by which rights in property were ad-
ministered, when the maxim " Qui prior est," &c.
prevailed—the adoption of remedies for excising
the bundle of abuses springing from the causes ex-
plained at the commencement of this paper, the
" vested interests," &c., and, chiefly, the providing
that the interference and authority of Chancery, as
a Court of Law controuling real properly be les•
seized and recede, while the jurisdiction of the Com-
mon Law Courts converge and resume their original
power and controul, are the principles which a
wisely amending spirit would cultivate.
A Reform founded on such a basis, at least deserve
the consideration of the Legislature. I have aimed
only at affording outlines, glimpses, fragments of
ideas. But there is matter conveyed, which, passing
through the alembic of a more powerful mind, might
originate a plan for that radical amendment in the
laws of real property which it was the object of the
Commission to elicit.

Incidentally, it requires pointing out that a me-
tropolitan register will have the effect of diverting
a large portion of the conveyancing business of the
country from the provinces to London ; the intri-
cacy of the register containing a hash of all the titles
to all the estates in the kingdom, and of all con-
tracts and equitable incumbrances affecting them,
will render the important duty of the search too de-
licate and difficult to be entrusted t.,) mere agency ;
and it will be found expedient by,large and cautious
proprietors, to transfer this duty and all its depem
dencies—in short, their business—to the only class
of the profession who can personally perform it.
This result will work ill with the Local Court
Jurisdiction Act ; that measure will increase the
mass of litigation ; and, when emolument from em-
ployment in the best and most responsible line of
business is dried up, it is evident that the character
of the profession in the country will change, and be
deteriorated. The race of pettifoggers is nearly
worn out—it will be unwise legislation which will
produce a second kora.
Your very obedient servant, T. B.
East Retfurd.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.

GREENWICH- HOSPITAL.

An Account of the Prices of Bread and Meat psi,' at Greenwich
Hospital, in the Years 179 A, 1791, 1792, and in the Years
1828, 18:9, and 1830.

BREAD, per lb.

51
LO 0 1 1/25T0

1 414
0 0 11 / -
'l, 360

0 0 I 348
360

Calculated on the cost priccl
of Flour supplied in each year,l
and 4s. 2d. per nick for making
into Bread, 36411 h. being consi.
demi the produce fr m eachl
Sack of Flour.

BREAD, per lb.

28A
£0 0 1123c0
IS
0 0 2 375
35
0 0 2 570

Calculated on the average
jprice of Flour supplied in each
lyear, with expenses, and 45.
per sack for making into Bread.
'lle price for the present quar-
ter has been assumed to be the
same as in the prece.!ing quar-
ter, the account not being vet
received from his Majesty's Vie-
,

.Z. s. d.
1,106 14 6
1,510 19 11
1,498 10 1
1,495 2 0
1,505 19 11
1,465 0 3
1,475 15 11
1,340 14 2
1,174 19 2