The Sun.
London, England, 1858-03-17 00:00:00

SLAVERY.

Lord BROUGHAM, in presenting a petition from
the Anti-slavery Association against the revival of the
traffic in the West Indies and the West Coast of Africa,
called the attention of the house to the proceedings
that had lately taken place in the island of Guadaloupe.
The noble and learned lord said he could not believe
that the French Government had any intention of
reviving the hcrrors of the slave trade, though the
system of immigration of free negroes into their colonies
would, in his opinion, lead to such a result. It was
true that the authorities at Guadaloupe had passed
what they called a vagrant law, it would reduce the free
negroes into the condi,ion of A similar
law bad been passed in Jamaica, but it would
be absurd to charge Her Majesty's Govern-
ment with a desire to revive slavery, so it
would be unjust to blame the French Government for
what had occurred at Guadaloupe, and he had the highest
authority when he stated no blame whatever attached
to the French Government. The noble lord concluded
by urging her Majesty's Government to the necessity of
taking the whole f the subject into their consideration.
Earl of MA.LMESBURY said since he had had the
konour 4 occupying the position he at present held, no
intimation had come to his knowledge relative to what
had taken place at Guadaloupe. He assured the noble
lord that the Government would give their best atten-
tion to the subject., and that they' would do all in their
power to put down anything calculated to a revival (
the slave trade.
THE MARQUIS OF CL ANRICARDE'S
EXPLANATION.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE gave notice that
he should call the attention of the house on Friday next
to the state of education in Ireland. The noble marquis
said, while he was on his legs he felt he ought to give
a further explanation of a circumstance that took place
last night with respect to a motion that stood on the
paper in his name. What he stated had no doubt been
misunderstood, owing to the indistinctness with which
he bad spoken. It had been stated that he had post-
poned his motion till Friday next. What he said
was, thathaving received numerous representations from
learned and noble friends of his that the motion he had
given, and the statement he had proposed to make, were
quite at variance with Parliamentary practice, and
might on a future occasion be drawn into a precedent,
he felt it right, on those representations, with the per-
mission of their lordships, to withdra-v the motion alto-
gether.

TRUSTEES' RELIEF BILL.
Oa the motien of Lord ST. LEONARDS, the house
went into committee on this bill. The •whole of the
clauses were agreed to with a few verbal amendments,
and the report was ordered to be received on Friday
next.
TRANSFER OF ESTATES SIMPLIFICATION

BILL.
Lard ST. LEONARDS, in moving that the house go
into committee on this bill, said the object of the bill
was to simplify and make less expensive the transfer of
titles from a vendor to a parchaeer. In order to create a
limitation against the claims of persons on estates, it had
been the custom to levy a fine, as it was called, a mere
form, a kind of suit in which all the parties concurred,
and that suit being concluded was considered to consti
tote a title. But if a person had an interest in remainder
he was allowed five years from the time at which he had
a right to make entry, in which to take proceedings. In-
dependent of that there was a statute of Henry VIII.,
which made 60 years a bar to all actions for the recovery
of real estate, and by a later statute of James 1., 20
years was fixed. And so the law continued till William
IV., and then a new statute was passed, which took 30
years as the common law to everybody from the time
the right accrued. Bat that statute also saved the rights
of persons who werelabouring under disability, and gave
them 10 years, and confined the whole period to 40 yeare,
giving them a title as against all the world at the end of
40 years. It would have been a great boon to owners of
property and purchasers if abstracts of title had been
limited to 40 years ; but it was the custom to extend
them to 60 years, in order to guard against a case which
did not occur in I purchase in 5,000, the case of a tenant
for life selling an estate as an estate in fee. Ia order to
guard against that particular case, all the owners of
landed property in England were subject as effecting a
sale to an additional charge for the abstract of title, and
the purchaser was also put to great expense in having to
investigate the title so far back. The object of this bill
was to shorten the time within which actions might be
brought for the recovery of real estate, and also to
shorten the period f )r which the abstract of title should
be made out. He pLopeeed. that 20 years should be the
common time applicable to all the world, within whin
actions might be brought. But then there might be
same persons labouring under debility. He proposed,
as under the statute of fines, to give them five years
to prosecute their rights after their disability ceased.
And, with regard to the remainder man, whose right did
not accrue till after the death of the tenant for life, and
he could not tell when that would happen—to meet this
he proposed that any person having an estate in re-
mainder might go to Chancery and obtain a decree giving
him the right of entry, when he would properly fall into
possession. He believed that would be found to meet
every possible case, and would be a very great boon to
purchasers. Then, by this bill, in future abstracts of
title need not go beyond 40 years. The danger to be
guarded against was a person sellingan estate which was
under settlement, suppressing the fact of the settlement.
It might be feared that a person would sell an estate
which was settled on himself, for life, and after big
death upon his children. It might be asked, would
they bar children as against a purchaser '• And he an-
swered, yes. In the first place, he had never known a
single instance of a tenant for life having sold an estate
as an estate in fee.
Lord WENSLEYDALE was understood to remark
that such cases had occurred.
Lord ST. LEONARDS did not say it had never hap-
pened, but it had never happened within his experience,
and he had had more experience than any member of
that house. It was very improbable that it should hap-
pen. The wife, or the children, or the tru,tees, would
in all probability hear of the intended sale, and prevent
it. But there were two provisions in the bill to prevent
such cases from occurring. The one was, that if a tenant
for life should sell an estate as an estate in fee, the pur-
chase-money in his hands should be trust money for
those who would be entitled in remainder, and he should
lose all interest in it for his life. But there was another
and a better provision, which wasf that if a tenant for
life, or his solicitors, should sell an estate, and should
suppress a settlement or deed, or alter a pedigree, he
should be hell to have committed a misdemeanour, and
be fined and imprisoned, with or without hard latiour.
There was another question—that of judgments. He
would provide that therec iris might be searched on ply.
ment of a small sum in order to discover whether there
were any julgrneete. But there was no reason why
judgment should be charges againet a purchaser. lie
did not propose to take away the general effect of a
judgment, but he proposed that if the person who lavi
obtained a judgment does not issue execution within a
certain time, the judgment shall be void as against the
purchaser who has paid his purchase-money. There
were several other provisions of imroitance, and in
epmmittee he slinuld be happy to bear any sueegestione
ny which the objects of the bill could be better carried
out.

Lord CRANWORTEI said he thought there could be
no objection to the course which his noble friend pro-
posed. His noble and learned friend had truly said this
was a most important measure, and his fear was that,
important as it wa-, it Was little likely to receive all the
attention which it ought at the hands, not of those who
were designated the law lurch, but of the lay lords, be-
cause it to a great degree affected the interest of every
landholder in the country. This was a bill which went
not merely to the technicality of the law, but to the
very root of that which constituted the enjoyment ( f
property. He was not going to fallow his noble and
learned friend into the details of the bill, but he would
at once say that several of the alterations it made were
extremely desirable. He thought nothing could be better
than the provision that selling land under a false titl,,
knowing it to be false, should be made a crime puni,h-
able just in the same manner as was the crime of obtain-
ing goods by false pretences. And when his noble and
learned friend mentioned it to him, he would do him the
justice to say that he suggested that the imprisonment
might be with or without hard labour. This crime was
Pr"idei for by the civil law and by the French code,
and it ought to be provided for by our law. He would
simply call their lordships' attention to the main ohj-ct
of the bill, in order that it might be distinctly understood
in what way the bill would affect property. By law as it
now stood there was a limitationaadvoetrs2o years within
which any person rnu,t assert an title to the land
in possession of another, or ever hold hise ti
peace. The law
had drawn a line of twenty years, and
that had been
found a convenient rule. But his noble and learned
friend proposed that the adverse party should bring his
snit within 20 years of the time to which the property
might be sold to a purchaser. That would be no ad-
vantage to the purchaser, hut it would be monstrously
unjust to persons whose rights were not in existence at
the time of the sale. A person might have a contingent
interest of which he knew nothing. Such cases might
not ordinarily occur, but legislation of that kind might
t„e ate enormous injustice.a means of remedying
per As inconvenience which might arise, his noble and
learned
friend
proposed that during the 20 years any
personlanise:ra; interest was reversionary might file a bill
But what remedy .„Po'ltz,,T,. of having his right declared.
in existence or might, nrtat,Zs 1,,r those who were not
of their rights'?
kHear, hear) Ile trustee their rare would
weerdebiPe. and particu-
larly the lay lords,
and whether in giving facilities a
r,,e dpsi hr the Proposal,
Pru 1
r"
not shaking the stability of the titles cc, they Were
at no distant day they might have thept EZt,t4twlaich
to regret.
words from Lord ST. LEONAIIDFi in r
After a few
RD CHANCELLOR said he thoughtYi'
The LORD
would be quite impossible in the house.todiscuesthe important
tprnos
which it involved were pro.
visions of the bill fully
not only of great importance, but
many of them were spa technical n.atere, rtiemqeuirbiengshgoroeiadt
care and attention ;
propose
ucgohm
oi
int t emei ut
tpeset a
pi rsr.o
J.(
rema
a.,)
to refer the bill thoroa
The bill then passed t
and was ordered to be reported.
LAW OF PROPERTY AMENDMENT BILL.
Lord ST. LEONARDS moved the second reading of
this bill, and was about to explain its provisions, when
Lord CRANVY ORTH interposed, and expressed a
hope that his noble and learned friend would give fur-