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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 7.
TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (in cantinuation from
our Afternoon Edition of yesterday) said— By the
existing law, however, the registration was not com-
plete evidence of title, but this Bill provided, by the
29th clause, that the party who had registered the
document and evidence of his title after
the lapse of thirty years should become
the absolute owner of the lands to which the deeds and
evidence referred. Now, by the interpretation clause,
the owner of the land meant a tenant for life, with re-
mainder to his children, so that if a man who had regis
tered a title to property were to die without issue his
brother, or his brother's children, could not claim to be
registered as the owners.—(Hear, hear.) That
might, indeed, not be the intention of the
framers of the Bill, but that really would
be the effect of it.—(Hear, hear.) The Bill in fact took
no notice whatever of remainders, while all the pro-
tection that was given to the public that a man should
not register another's property, was that the party re-
gistering should give six menthe' previous notice in the
Gazette of his intention to do so.—(Hear, hear.)
But how could that notice prevent a party register-
ing his neighbour's estate with his own? True,
the Bill provided that any party doing so should be
guilty of felony, but what protection was that when it was
taken in connexion with other parts of the Bill?—(Hear,
bear.) The other provisions, indeed, were still more ab
surd, if he might be allowed to use the expression; for in-
stance, the registration was not to be an open one, and
any party who was desirous of searching the registrar
could only do so by first going through the expensive
proceeding of proving his title to the land he claimed.
No such proceeding, however, was extol ted from
a party who wished to register an estate, which, id his
view, was rather a strange anomaly.—(!hear, and laugh.
ter.) Then again, having proved his title, a
patty was not at liberty to search himself, but
was bound to depend upon the search of the registrar,
and if he were dissatisfied with that search he could
only search himself by obtaining en order of court.
The Bill, however, omitted to specify how or where
that order of court was to be obtained. He pre-
sumed, however, that the cheapest mode of
obtaining such an order would be by summary applica-
tion to one of the Chancery Courts, but then of what
ta. "avail Would even that be when the Bill provided that before
a party could amend or annul an entry he must first, prove
his title? The result then would be that the Bill would
be productive of endless litigation, instead of amending
the present system, and a party who might be anxious to
put the owner of a'i estate to expense and trouble had
nothing else to do but to register himself the owner ik
the estate, which registration at the expiration
of thirty years would give him the title, and
before the real owner could annul this entry, he
:must go through the expense of an action at law to
probe his lit le.—(flear, and laughter.) It was a difficult
matter indeed to secure an effective system of
registration, and it was equally clear that
if they could hit upon a perfect registration,
it would be a great desieeratum, which the Bill totally
failed to eupp!y.—(clear.) There were other parts of
teis Bill which were no less anomalous than those he
had already referred to, but he would not trouble: the
H, use by going through them. He could, however, as •
sure the Reuse, and the lion. Member who hadintroduced
the Bill, that he had carefully considered it, in the hope
tt finding that some of its provisions were calculated
to remove some or the evils of the existing system,
but he was satisfied that if it were referred
to a Select Committee the Honourable Member
for Surrey would find himself constrained to
give up clause after clause as being impracticable,
and that, in fact, the only improvement that could be
made in its provisions would be to give the Bill up
altogether.—(flear, and laughter.) Upon that view or
the case he would suggest that the better course for the
Hon. Member to pursue would he to withdraw the Bill
for the present. He confessed he should not feel dis-
posed, feeling the strong desire that he did on the
subject, to meet the motion for the second reading
by an express and direct negative ; but he
would ask the Honourable Member whether it
would not be advisable to withdraw the measure with
a view to the further examination and consideration of
the subject, which it would be admitted was one of very
considerable difficulty, so that with the assistance of
others he might be enabled to-introduce hereafter a Bill
which would carry into effect his own views and objects
in a better and less objectionable mode.
Mr. WOOD said he had listened with great anxiety to
the speech of his Hon. and Learned Friend the Soli-
citor-General, but he regretted without any hope being
held out that the desirable object which they had in
view would be carried out more fully and completely
than could be done by the present Bill. He feared,
from the way in which his Honourable Friend ter-
urinated his speech that the prospect of so desir-
able an object being effected as that proposed by the
present Bill was as indefinite as in 1832. In that year
a Commission was appointed, which was composed of
men of the highest eminence in all ranks of the profes-
sion, and of men also who were thoroughly acquainted
with the theory and practice of conveyancing, and it
Came to an unanimous coneusion that a Bill for
the general registration of real property was
imperatively demanded. That was not a new idea, but
one entertained by every eminent lawyer, from Sir
Matthew Halo downward ; and he must say that
Honourable Members had not done justice to the
lawyers, for they were the only persons who agi-
tated the subject until the Honourable Member
had happily taken it up, but they were invariably opposed
by the country gentlemen, who were the parties really
interested in the matter. He could not help alluding to
the words of Sir Matthew Hale, who, in the time of
Charles 11., saw the extreme necessity of a measure like
the present, and who took that large and compre-
hensive view of the mode in which land
should be dealt with that was generally entertained
throughout the country, but which was then confined
alone to the enlightened few. He said that the regis-
tering of all conveyances would prevent much litiga-
tion, and do away with many opportunities which
were afforded to parties to cheat and defraud others.
He also said that in England our greatest inland
trade was the buying and selling of land, and that,
therefore, greater security ought to be given to creditors
in that respect, and to persons who lent money upon the
security of land, and that the buying and
selling of land ought to be as free and un-
controlled as that of every other commodity.
Chief Baron Gilbertson and Mr. Justice Blackstone, and
every other legal authority up to the time the Commis-
sion was appointed in 1832, entertained the same view.
That Commission not only recommended registration,
but pointed out a definite plan by which it could be
'Carried out, and the conclusion they arrived at
was not only participated in by lawyers but by the
country generally. When the Noble Lord the Member
for North Devon brought forward a measure in 1836,
the House was counted out, there being only twenty-
seven Members present. Under those circumstances,
it was perfectly refreshing when the Honourable
Member for West Surrey gave notice of his intention
to bring in a Bill of this description, and thought his
(Mr. Wood's) name was upon the back of it, and al-
though he did not mean to follow the example which
etas witnessed the other day, and to repudiate his con-
nexion with it, he begged to say that the whole credit of
the Bill was due to the Hon. Member for West Surrey, and
to the other gentlemen who assisted him, and that he only
saw it after it had been prepared. Many of the objec-
tions which had been urged by the Solicitor-General he
attributed to his not having had time, in conse-
quence of his numerous avocations, to look
into the Bill, because many of them were totally
inconsistent with the Bill itself. If his Learned
Priced had told the House that the Government
were prepared to bring forward another measure for a
. complete, full, and effectual system of registration he
confessed that he ,would have been infinitely gratified.
A committee of gentlemen was appointed, two years
next April, to investigate the subject, which they did
with a great deal of earnestness; but they had only
lately been told that the report was ready, and
it would have been still further delayed but tor the
notice of the Hon. Member. He did not mean to say
that the Bill was completely effectual for all the purposes
which it was intended to accomplish, but it was quite
sufficient on the present occasion to maintain
the principle of the Bill, and to show that
it was capable of being fully considered in
Committee. The objections raised by the Solicitor-
General would be found in no way to apply to the prin.
ciple of the Bill itself, which was to give some better
security for the titles of land, and to diminish the in-
creasing expense of the present system of conveyance.
—(Hear, hear.) The subject was too large to
enter into all the existing evils ; but he would
refer to a publication of Mr. Tyrrell, who
was one of the Commissioners in 1832, in which he
mentioned eight remarkable cases of fraud in consaed-
(pence of the want of a proper register. A person h
paid 20,000/. for an estate, but it was afterwards found
• that the fee was only held for three lives, and
another claimant coming in three years after-
wards, he was obliged to give up the whole
property, and so lost the whole of his money. Such a
state of things ought no longer to exist. Frauds were
every day being committed, and were becoming a matter
of common Occurrence. England was the only country
in the whole world which did not adopt the system of
registration, and it had been established in France,
Belgium, and Holland, and also in Ireland, and in some
counties in England. When they made a serious change
of the kind suggested, they ought to leave persons free
to register or not as they liked, but when property
was once registered every subsequent transaction or
transfer with respect to it ought also to be regis-
tered in order to make a legal title. In Middle.
hex the important business of registering was effected
by the attendance of a merely formal personage,
and not of those who conveyed or were otherwise
deeply interested in the matter. No authentication was
required of the accuracy of the statements. The
objections urged against the Bill were more in
respect of its details than of its principle, and the
prep'. arrangement of these details could be easily
effected. He agreed with the Learned Solicitor-General
that the indices were the most important part of the
. Billy but their nature would also suggestas they could
aand
msult, with that view, the indices used in Bavaria
other continental states, as well as the plan reported
upon by the Commissioners in 1832. It would be well
for the House to take care that they did not adopt a
stereotyped form of index, which could not be altered
without an Act of Parliament. He hoped the House,
being satisfied of the necessity for such a measure, would
not consent to its postponement or abandonment, unless
• her Majesty's Government would state that they would
- undertake the preparation of a similar measure on the
subject, which he regarded as one of the utmost public
:importance. • Sixteen years had already elapsed since
• the report of the Commissioners of 1832, and if they
bad to wait five or six years longer, it surely was time

for the country gentlemen to bestir themselves, in order
to get removed those improper imposts which at present
pressed upon land. Every Honourable Member who
had purchased land must be aware that the soli-
citors' charges were often as much for a small
as a large property—sometimes the conveyance was 5/.
per cent. upon the whole purchase.—(Hear.)
Mr. SLANEY said, though he could not deal with the
technical parts of the question, yet he was firmly im-
pressed with the belief that at no time was a
measure of this kind more required than at the
present moment. When all the great lawyers concurred
in the necessity for such a measure, and they had a
knowledge of the evils that at present existed, he
thought it was time to pass a measure of this nature. If
the Government thought the measure an unfit one, and
ought not to be sent to a Committee up
stairs, he hoped they would give an assurance
that they would at the earliest possible moment
bring forward_ a measure themselves. Though
the present state of the law affeeted the opu-
lent and wealthy classes most injuriously, yet it
operated with increased severity upon the middle
and industrious classes, who were prevented from
investing their savings, as no doubt they wished, in the
purchase of land. The facility which they should possess
for this purpose was withheld from them, and hence that
stimulus to the culture of land and to industry, which
it was the duty of the II .use to foster was
in a gri at measure destroyed. Besides these classes
had greater charges put upon them than the upper
classes. It' they looked at the sale of land fur some
years, they would find that, in consequence of the heavy
legal and other charges, the loss had been equal to
five years' purchase, for instance, in consequence of
the difficulties of proving title. He trusted the
Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Drummond) would perse-
vere until a measure, with a similar purpose, was passed
into a law.
Sir G. GREY quite agreed with the Honourable and
Learned Member for Oxford (Mr. P. Wood), that
the House was much indebted to his Honourable
Friend opposite in introducing the Bill before
them. It his object had been to elicit the opinion
of the House upon the expediency of establishing a
general system of registration, not only with the view of
keeping up the value of property, but of facilitating its
transfer, and at the same time diminish the enormous ex-
pense, his object had been fully answered, since no
opinion had been expressed hostile to the necessity of
such a measure, however much some Hvn. Members
might differ in its details.—(Hear, hear.) And looking
back to the period, which many of them no doubt recol-
lected, when Registration Bills were before the
House, it wes satisfactory to find to-day that a
great change existed, both in the House and
in the country, as to the benefits such as
measure was calculated to confer. He should have no
objection to vote for the second reading of the Bill on
the principle that registration was required. He would
not follow the Hon. and Learned Gentleman in detail;
but would caution the House against consenting to the
second readings of Bills because they con-
curred in their principles, since they thereby adopted
details which perhaps had not been duly considered. Bills
were frequently s,nt up to Committees, and were there
remodelled, end rendered altege her different to their
original state; and when sent back they were nut unfre-
quently preceded with as if they had stood as at first.
With respect to what had been said by the Honourable
and Learned Member, as to requiring a pledge
from the Government that they would bring in a mea-
sure, he had to state that the Learned Solicitor-General
considered that the present Bill would fail to effect the
object for which it was introduced. He (Sir G. Grey)
thought it would not be fair, under the present circum-
stances, to proceed with the Bill. It was now two
years ago since a Commission was appointed
headed by Lord Langdale, and composed of other men
competent to deal with the question; and when the
House knew that they would shortly report to the House
he thought it would not be well to proceed with this
Bill until the lion. Gentlemen and the House had seen
that report. Tho Government could give no pledge as
to what course they should adopt until that report had
been presented. That report would receive the atten-
tive consideration of the Government, who would do
everything in their power to facilitate the object which
the Hon. Gentleman had in view.
Mr. HENLEY could not give his consent to a measure
of this kind until he had seen the details.—(hear,
hear.) A registration was in force in Middlesex, York,
and Ireland, and he had never heard it stated that
any of the difficulties or expenses referred to had been
thereby obviated. This Bill bad not effaced from his
mind the great difficulties involved in the question. He
agreed with the Solicitor-General that it would be better
to withdraw the Bill, and to introduce another after the
report of the Commissioners had been presented. The
vast expense of the machinery was too great a matter
to be lefties tho hands of a private Member of that House.
Mr. EWAR r thought it would not be well to proceed
with the Bill in the absence of the report, and intimated
that he should vote against the Bill, but with this quali-
fication, that the Government should subsequently intro •
duce a Bill.
Mr. MULLINGS said the Bill would be attended
with infinitely more expense than the present system.
He had perhaps one of the largest conveyance, businesses
in the west of England, and as a matter 'of., course vast
quantities of property had passed through his hands,
and he was prepared to assert that the
present expense had been much reducei, and that the
length of the conveyances was caused by the frequently
numberless provisions which they contained. He must
dissent, therefore, to the proposition of the Honourable
Member who claimed support for the Bill, on
the ground that it would reduce the expense of
conveyance. Property was usually valued, not go much
in regard to the claims of the owners, or their relations
to it, as to its value and rental. He would undertake
to prepare the sale of an estate, seized in fee, in ten
lines; but where provisions were made for children and
others, much language was reqUired. He could not
concur with the principles of the present Bill, and he
must, therefore, oppose the second reading.
Mr. MUNTZ thought that something ought to be
done, and must be done, in order to simplify the
transfer of real property in this country, but it ought
to be done without consulting parties that had no in-
terest. No plait would work well which allowed title-
deeds to be looked into by any parties other than those
who had an interest in them.

Mr. H. DRUMMOND having replied shortly,
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, but in conse-
quence of
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL rising to address the
House, no division then took place. The Hen. and
Learned Gentleman, on our re-admission to the House,
was moving that tho Bill be read a second time that day
six months.

After some observations from Mr. IL Drummond, Sir
George Grey, and the Lord Advocate,
Sir ROBERT PRICE said, he should vote for this
measure, and against the amendment, in order that the
registration of estates might be simplified and their trans•
fer rendered more easy.

Sir H. VERNEY would support the second reading
of the Bill, believing that it would be productive
of great good. It did not go so far as he could wish,
but still it was a step in the right direction.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared—.
For the amendment of the Attorney•Goneral 45
Against it ... 55

Majority against the amendment
A result which was received with loud cheers.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
be committed on the 22d.
AFFIRMATION BILL.

Mr. PAGE -ii,'o6D, on the motion being put for the
second reading of this Bill, said that his conduct in
proposing the second reading would be directed by the
proceeding which might be adopted with respect to it
by Hon. Members present. If the Bill were not opposed,
he should confine his remarks to a very brief compass.
If it were opposed, he should, of course, of necessity,
enter at some length into the reasons for its adoption.—
(Cries of " Not opposed, not opposed.") Well, then,
he should simply content himself with moving the
second reading of the Bill.
The Bill was then read a second time and ordered to
be committed on the 28th.
LIFE POLICY ASSURANCE BILL.

After a few words from the ATTORNEY-GENERAL
and Sir H. WILLOUGHBY this Bill was read a
second time.

POOR•LAWS (IRELAND) BILL.

The resolutions of the Committee on the Rate-in-Aid
Bill were brought up by Sir W. SOMERVILLE, and
agreed to.

EFFECT OF THE POOR LAW.

Captain PECHELL, in moving for copies of the se-
veral letters received by the clerk of the Godstone
Union from the vestry-clerk of the parish of Brighton,
with the answers thereto, respecting the maintenance of
John Ledger, 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, said that
his object in moving for these papers was to abolish that
odious system of oppression by which a poor man,
if he had any means whatever of a partial sub-
sistance, was compelled to abandon his family
The course of which he spoke was one in whiCh.
a man capable of serving his Queen and country was
prevented from doing either by the unsettled state of the
poor-law. The Poor-law Commissioners had in 1846
submitted a case to the law officers of the Crown, for-the
purpose of ascertaiLing whether parishes who had in-
curred expense for removal before the Poor-law Amend-
ment Act was passed ought to be indemnified by others.
The decision given was against the defrayment of suoh ex-
penses, and he might say
also against the opinions of many
of the highest legal men in the country. By this decision
fully one-third of the pauper
,p,(Tulation of this country
had been made irremovable. I his opinion was obtained
in August, 1846, and yet no notice whatever was given
of it to the several unions for more than two months
afterwards. Nevertheless, although there had been
several attempts to tinker up the poor-law, and he had
repeatedly asked the Attorney-General in that House
when the state of the law was to be settled, it was not
until the 25th of November that the Queen's Bench had
come to any determination of the matter. Yet, though the
Judges had decided that the interpretation of the Act
by the Poor-law Commissioners was correct, his (Cap-
tain Pechell's) constituents had rebelled against it, and
were determined to resist it. He did not mean in any
way to include an allegation against the present Hon.
Member who was at the head of the Poor-law Board,
when he designated their conduct as being in accordance
with their usual course of bullying; neither would he
allude to the l Ate President of the Board, whom
no one could be lamented more than he was by him.
When that Hon. Gentleman entered upon his office he
had looked for better things; nor had he been disap..
pointed. He had evinced a constant desire t mitigate
the operation of this law upon the condition of the poor,
and had he been spared he might have been the irm+ra-
ment of much greater good than that which he effected.
—(Hear, hear.) Ile had hoped that when the Honour-

able Gentleman who was now Chairman of the Board
entered upon his office that the system was cleansed of
all its evils, but it appeared that there had been
so much that was bad mixed up in its constitution
that eradication of the mischief was impossible.
He said the House had great reason to complain of the
way in which the whole matter had been treated. Al-
though the most eminent men in the House, and others
out of it of great legal knowledge, declared it could not
be the intention of the Act to settle persons who had
resided five years in a place, yet the country for
two years were kept in that extraordinary
state by the Poor-law Commissioners.—(Hear, hear.)
The Poor-law Commissioners in their annual
report merely just noticed the fact. They said they
had submitted the construction of the Act to the Attor-
ney and Solicitor-General, and they believed the country
was generally satisfied with their construction of the law.
That document was signed by George Nicholls and Ed-
mund Head. The House ought to have those gentlemen
before it, to say why they mystified this subject,
and why they kept the country in this state, by
which parties were put to the greatest ex-
pense, and the poor to the greatest misery that could
possibly occur. It might be said Lord Denman had
given a dtci,ion which was opposed to the opinion of
the Attorney and Solicitor-General. The present
President ot the Poor law Commission acknowledged
that the construction of the Act had been settled
by Lord Denman, and parishes had been saddled
with expenses wholly unnecessary. In one pa-
rish of Brighton the poor settled in the to en
cost 1,168/. • and it was in order to get an explana-
tion from the President of the Poor-law Commission,
and to rectify the diffinilty which the Poor-law Commis-
sioners had thrown oa the country, and in order to see
what power there was to obtain a remedy from them,
that he had brought this subject before the House. There
might be three courses. The first course was to get the
money from the persons who had caused all those
difficulties. Mr. George Nicholls and Sir Edmund Head
should be applied to for payment first of all, and in de-
fault of them he should look to the Government and the
P .or-law Commissioners to reimburse the parish for the
expense of their non-resident poor when the law was un-
settled. Then, again, the Hon. President of the Poor-law
Board should bring in a Bill to enable parishes torepay this
expenditure. He did hope something would be dune
where so manifest an injustice had been created. The
Poor-law Commissioners had had their amusement, and
he now called upon them to pay the bill.
The ATTORNEY-G ENERAL said his Honourable
and Gallant Friend was aware that the Poor-law
Commissioners could not have the papers under
their control. As it was his duty, so he
at once stood up and took the whole of this matter and
the responsibility of it upon himself. The Poor-law
Commissioners had no:hieg to do with the matter ; they
merely acted on an opinion given them by his llou.
Colleague (the Solicitor- General) and himself on the
construction of this statute ; and he (the Attorney-
General) was prepared to abide by that opinion.
The question as to the construction of the clause
was whether the proviso was retrospective or not, or
whether it was clearly prospective. He and his Hon.
Coll( ague gave the question the be.st consideration they
could, and they came to an opinion upon the Ace, which
they gave to the Poor-law Commissioners. They were
not singular in that construction ; many Hotionourahle
and Learned Members in the House and many lawyers
out of it gave the same opinion, that the proviso was
not retrospective. He (the Attorney-General) appre-
tended he did his duty in putting the best
construction ho could upon the Act, and he
was not to blame because he had not had
he coeearrenee of the Learned Judges in his opinion.
lie apple hended that no blame could attach to him be-
cause, lie gave an opinion two years age upon the con-
struction of an Act of Parliament, which the Court of
Queen's Bench had since overthrown; nor could the
Poor-law Commissioners be blamed. They had nu
power to send a case before the Queen's Bench, though
he, in his capacity of Attorney-General, mooted this mat-
ter in the Queen's Bench on their behalf-, but the Court
held that they had no right to decide sooner for one
party than another.—(Hear, hear.) In this case then
there was no ground of complaint at all. He alone
was responsible for the opinion he had given—not the
Poor-law Commissioners, and he was prepared to take it
upon himself.—(llsar, hear, and cheers.)
Lord DUDLEY STUART said, notwithstanding
what had been stated, it was quite clear that the
opinion:of the Learned Attorney-General was wrong, and
that his Hon. and Gallant Friend the Member for
Brighton was right.—(Hear, and laughter.) The con-
stituents of his Hon. and Gallant Friend had, in com-
mon with others, been put to a great deal of expense
by the opinion of the Learned Attorney-General, and
the complaint therefore of the Hon. and Gallant Gen-
tleman was not ill-founded.—(Hear, hear.) The papers
then ought to be produced.
The ATTORNEY- GENERAL—And so they will be.
Lord DUDLEY STUART in that case had nothing
further to say.—(Hear, and laughter.)
Mr. HENLEY gave it as his opinion that neither the
law officers of the Crown nor the Poor-law Commis-
sioners were to blame in the matter. Certain parishes
had applied to the Poor-law Commissioners for advice
as to the construction of an Act of Parliament, which
led to their laying the Act and case before the Attorney
and Solicitor- General for their opinion, and in their pri-
vate capacity the Poor-law Commissioners had forwarded
it to the various parishes throughout the country for their
guidance in arriving at a proper construction of a diffi-
cult Act of Parliament, but it was quite optional for
those parishes to adopt the advice or not; and he hoped
the House would not consent to re-opening ot the ac-
counts which had been incurred in consequence of the
opinion.—(Hear.)
Mr. BAINES could assure the Hon. Gentleman that
the Poor-law Commissioners had no power whatever to
consent to the opening of the accounts, which had been
audited and finally settled.—(Hear, hear.) His belief was,
however, that the parishes had not suffered much from
the opinion of the law officers of the Crown being
upset by the Court of Queen's Bench, for
parish A might have gained by one class
of paupers and parish B by another; but, at all events,
the loss, if any, had not been so great as was repre-
sented by the Hon. and Gallant Member who had in-
troduced the subject.—(Hear, hear.) The Poor-law
Commissioners whom he had the honour to suc-
ceed were not to blame in the matter, for all they had
done was, not to advise certain parishes as to the
course they had to pursue in referenco to a particular
Act of Parliament upon their own responsibility, which
they had no power to do, but lay a case before the At-
torney
and Solicitor-General and forward their opinion
to the different parishes as the best advice that could be
obtained on the subject.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BANKES thought the Hon. and Gallant Mem-
ber who had brought forward the motion had more cause
for complaint than seemed to be allowed by many Hon.
Members who bad taken part in the discussion. He
felt that a degree of blame attached to the Pour-law
Commissioners for having advised the Government to
resist his suggestion to introduce a declaratory Bill,
and at once get rid of the difficulty which arose from
the construction of the Act. Under thesecircumstances,
the parishes had no option but to follow the
opinion of the law officers of the Crown, and on that ac-
count the complaint of the Hon. and Gallant Member
was a perfectly just one.—(Hear, hear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL perfectly recollected
the Hon. Member making the suggestion to which he
had just referred, but th lion. Member was wrong in
supposing that the Poor- law Commissioners had advised
Government not to adopt it.—(Hear, hear.) The fact
was the Committee which was then sitting upon the
poor-laws determined that a declaratory Act ought not
to be introduced.

Mr. BANKES said the Learned Gentleman was not
quite correct. He happened to be a Member of the Com-
mittee, and he proposed that the first thing they should
consider was this very Act, with the view of introducing
a declaratory Bill. His proposition was however rejected.
Captain PECHELL was glad that the papers were to
be laid before the House because the matter could not
rest here.—([fear, hear.) He considered it his duty to
follow up this subject, because he considered the House
would not sanction so great au act of injustice as that
which had arisen from its bad legislation.
PENSIONS, &c.

After some further discussion, the return was agree
Mr. HUME moved for the following return, with
some slight modification, which was not distinctly
heard in the gallery:—A list, alphabetically arranged,
of all persons in England receiving salaries, pensions,
pay, profits, fees, emoluments, allowances or grants of
public money, between the sth day of January, 1848,
and the sth day of January, 1849, the amount of which
exceeds 200/., stating the total amount received by
each individual, and distinguishing the sources
from which the payments are made, and the
aggregate of the whole ; similar list of all persons
in England receiving salaries, pensions, pay, profits,
fees, emoluments, allowances or grants of public money
(not including those persons paid by wages), be-
tween the sth day of January, 1848, and the sth
day of January, 1849, the amount of which is
not above 50L, and not exceeding 2001. sterling
each person, the total amount received by each
individual, and distinguishing the sources from which
the payments are made, and the aggregate of the whole;
so as to exhibit in those two lists every person in Eng-
land in the receipt of upwards of 50/. from those and
from all other sources of public money (the Church ex-
cepted). Also, two similar lists for .Scotland, and two
similar lists for Ireland.—Agreed to.