The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-12 00:00:00

recommendation he, with the sanction of the Government,
introduced a bill for acquiring the property which it was
now proposed to purchase, with the exception of the ground
at the back of the Irish-office, which he thought ought also
to be acquired. The bill thus introduced went through a
select committee, and it afterwards went through a com-
mittee of the whole house, but as the bill was very much
opposed by hon. and right hon. gentlemen opposite, who
now brought forward a similar measure, he was compelled
to withdraw it. No fault could be found with the late Go-
vernment for the delay, but if blame were due to any one it
was to those honourable gentlemen who would not allow
the bill of the late Government to proceed, and who were
now about to bring in a bill nearly identical. The com-
mittee were unanimously of opinion that if any design
were adopted it should be one of the designs that had
gained the first three premiums. But the noble
lord had not give any particular reason why
he had passed over the first and second premiums and given
the erection of the new Foreign-office to the architect who
had gained the third prize. Me would admit that if it were
to be decided that a Gothic building should be constructed
in the midst of buildings that had nothing Gothic about
them, no architect could be found who understood that style
of architecture better than Mr. Gilbert Scott. (Hear.) The
noble lord, in addition to the plan he had selected (No. 3),
ought also to hang up by the side of it in the library the
plans of the two other architects, in order that hon. members
might see why he had taken the third design. The house
might also form its own conclusion as to the effect of a
Gothic building placed near the Treasury-chambers and
Whitehall, with which it had nothing m common.
Mr. B. HOPE thought it was apparent, as Lord J. Man-
ners had stated, why it was that he had passed over the
architects placed first and secottd, according to the award,
and given the appointment in question to the architect
placed third. If hon. members looked at the end of the
tables to the report of the committee they would see that
there were obvious reasons for the selection made. Upon
the list of judges there was only one professional gentleman,
and to him, assisted by two assessors, was entrusted the
awards. _These gentlemen drew up the list of awards. It
appeared that in these lists the name of Mr. G. Scott was
placed second. According to the result of the awards of the
professional gentlemen, whom they must suppose knew more
of this matter than mere amateurs, the great sum total of
ability rested with Mr. Scott, and that in an infinitely
greater degree than in anfother gentleman, for both the
War-Office and the Foreign-Office. Upon that great sum
total of ability was based the decision of the Government,
and also the decision of the noble lord, the Secretary for
India, for the Indian office would be placed upon the same
footing and built in the same style as the War-office. If
the house reversed the judgment of the Government, what
a ridiculous fix they would put the Government in, for the
India Minister proposed to build a new India office out of
his own pocket—(laughter)—and without having anything
to do with Parliament at all. (Hear, hear.) It would be
built out of the Indian revenues. If they turned Mr.
Scott out of the Foreign-office, the building next door
would be erected in some other style, and by some other
architect. He (Mr. Hope) felt certain the house would
not sanction such a miscarriage of common sense as that
reversal would involve. The right hon. baronet opposite
(Sir B. Hall) stated that the new building would be in-
congruous with those adjacent—that there would be an in-
congruity between its style and that of Westminster
Abbey and the palace in which they then were; but the
right hon. baronet had surely forgotten the style of
building which he wished, when in office, to erect. He
hoped the noble lord the First Commissioner of Public
Works would not be deterred from pursuing his own course
by this opposition, but would adopt that plan which had
met with the acclamation of all the distinguished men out
of doors, and with the approbation of all the intelligent men
of the profession. The committee appointed last session
distinctly referred the question—not to the House of Com-
mons—but to the Government, and the Government would
not do their duty if they refused to proceed in the course
which had been pursued. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. CONINGHAM felt bound to express his regret that
the Gothic style had been adopted in the building which
was about to be erected. The disadvantages of the style
could not be better illustrated than by the place where the
House of Commons assembled. Gothic architecture gave at
the maximum of cost the minimum of accommodation, and,
at the same time, a degree of darkness which, in London,
was most inconvenient. The noble lord talked of the Gothic
as the national style of architecture, but he would remind
4he noble lord of the names of Wren and Inigo Jones. The
• --Gothic was an European style of architecture, and it was a
mere revival introducing it into civil edifices. It had beauty
and merits in the period when great ecclesiastical monu-
ments were raised, and was eminently characteristic of the
spirit of that age. But the day was gone by for it. It was
a barbarous style. We did not live in an age of darkness.
We wanted more light, and he thought cur public offices
especially wanted both light and ventilation in more senses '
than one. He could not hear the question discussed with-
out recording his solemn protest against the use of Gothic
architecture in public edifices. It was a style peculiar to a
sect of which the hon. member for Maidstone was a distin-
guished representative, but it was antagonistic to the taste
of the English people. (Hear.)
General THOMPSON suggested that the whole matter
should be postponed until the bill from India came in, and
it was seen how much money we had to spare for such pur-
poses. (Hear.) It was far from certain that we were not
on the eve of an European war, and he should be very
pleasantly surprised if England managed to keep her hand
out of it. Prudent individuals did not spend their money
beforehand where there was a chance of important calls
being made upon them, and nations ought to act on the
same principle, The Government could not afford to take
off such taxes as the paper duty, and yet a plan was now
brought forward entailing a large expenditure, which the
majority of people, he was sure, would think very ill-ad-
vised under the circumstances.
Lord PALMERSTON—I never heard a less satisfactory
explanation than that given by the noble lord opposite and
the hon. member for Maidstone on two points—the selec-
tion of the architect and the choice of style. (Hear.) The
reason which is given for the choice of Mr. Scott is that he
was second in all the trials. He was second in the compe-
titions for the Foreign-office and for the War-office, and
therefore he is put first—on the principle, I suppose, that
two negatives make an affirmative. It certainly is a new
doctrine. What would be said if it were applied to horse-
racing, and the horse which ran second in two heats was
held to be entitled to the cup ? (Laughter.) It now appears
that there is not to be a War-office, and Mr. Scott, there-
fore, is shosen to build the Foreign-office, because his plan
for it was deemed second best. Then, with regard to the
style, it is said that Gothic has been chosen because it is
the "national style," "suited to Teutonic nationalities,"
and all that sort of thing. I conclude, therefore, that the
Secretary of State for India will be safely lodged in a
pagoda, or a taj-mehal—(laughter)—in accordance with the
" nationalities" with which he has to do ; and, as Mr. Scott
cannot be expected to be well acquainted with that siyle,
we must have an architect over from India, who will be
more competent to judge of the peculiarities of an Indian-
office. I think, therefore, that no satisfactory reason has
been given why the two architects whose plans were better
than Mr. Scott's should be set aside. I quite agree with
the right hon. member for Marylebone, that it would be
fitting-that, if the plans of Mr. Scott are exhibited, the plans,
also of the other architects which were adjudged to be bet •
ter should be exhibited at the same time. (Hear, hear.)
I quite agree, too, with the hon. member for Brighton in
protesting against the selection of the Gothic style.
(Hear, hear.) It is going back to the barbarism of the
dark ages for a building which ought to belong to the time
in which we live. It is said that it is intended hereafter
to build on the whole space between Downing-street and
Westminster Abbey, and that you are beginning with a
Gothic building close to Downing-street in order to fill the
whole of that space with Gothic buildings. If the choice of
the Gothic style for a Foreign-office is to involve the neces-
sity of an immense block of buildings down to Westmin-
ster Abbey, you are taking the first step in a course which
I deprecate in the greatest possible degree. (Hear, hear.)
If your principle of congruity is to apply for the future,
let it apply a little to the present also. The neighbourhood
of Downing-street is full of buildings of a totally different
style. There is the State Paper-office, for instance, fire-
proof, well placed, very convenient, and much wanted
—though Mr. Scott, I am told, in order to complete the
congruity of his Gothic block, says he must pull that down
—lust as he proposes to Gothicise the exterior of the Horse
Guards for the same purpose. All the buildings in con-
nexion with Downing-street are of a totally different
style.
There are the Treasury buildings, the Horse Guards,
the Admiralty, the Banqueting-house, which is one of the
finest specimens of architecture to be found anywhere.
(Hear.) That is to be confronted by a building which, by-
the-bye, does not, after all t answer the description of the
noble lord, who talks of "national style," for it appears
that it is not to be English
Lom-
bardo Gothic. I have not had the'l but Italian, or
knadovantage of visiting
those climes lately, therefore I don eexaomcbtlinyews,hlatsuthp-e
peculiarities of Lombardo Gothic are, but it pose, all the modifications of barbpallis_mm.at (Laughter.)
wis
Look, too, at that street of palaces,
magnificent clubs, each one handsomer than' the other.
Take St. Paul's and Somerset house rwill venture to assert
that they are handsomer in their
respective ways than
Westminster Abbey or the Houses s
The Houses of Parliament are a b ar hainent.(Hear.)
building, but I
think we have made a mistake in point of expense and ac-
commodation. (Hear.) But because wein live made a
mistake—a handsome mistake, I admit,
on effectraising
abnmilddincosgt
too—are we committed for ever to go
after building in a style totally unsuited to the purposes
view ? Ido hope that the decision of theonnoonlbleanloiiadoiinsnot
irrevocable. Mr. Scott, it appears, is a m
gard to Gothic, but he studied first, I believe, Italian and-
Greek architecture, but if it is finally determined that he is
to be the architect, a gentleman of his abilities would be
able to draw quite as good a Greek or Italian design as this
Gothic one which the noble lord favours. I hope, there-
fore, that he will be told to put a more lively front to his
building than that now contemplated, and that we shall
have a Foreign-office in harmony with the other public
buildings of the metropolis, either in the Italian or Greek
style, and one that will be adapted to the purposes in view.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BENTINCK cordially concurred with General
Thompson, the member for Bradford, as to the inexpe-
diency of spending large sums of public money on orna-
mental buildings under present circumstances, when there
could be little doubt that a largely increased expenditure of
the country would be necessary, when their naval defences
must be strengthened, and when there was a rumour that
the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be called upon to
t"IPPIy an inevitable deficiency of the revenue. At such a
time it was the duty of the house not to sanction the ex-
penditure of one shilling that could be spared.
REWARDS TO NATIVE PRINCES.
Mr
s. -VER
TYNON SMITH wished to ask the nole lord the eereta
or mars
__ of State for India, whether any rewards
princeskhornour had been conferred upon the native
maiest,T_Tei Ministers who had proved faithful to her
hmi'ort.;fle"e:niia° Ira: mutiny. The subject was one of great
the most trying
ere(' to the fidelity of those Princes under
must have upon thecunt7tances, and the moral influence it
from the noble lord tablavtes of India ; and he hoped to hear
oh encouragements as he re-
ferred to had been conferrer.
Lord STANLEY—I ara glad that the right hon. gentle-
man opposite has put this questirb.to me, and has called
the attention of the house to the
tt ied to which it refers.
I agree with him that at the presen
timeoov hardlye any subject
can be of greater importance to the
and I fully concur in what he has said, that theenth °f
of recent events has confirmed the view of that school course
Indian politicians who have always maintained the inallep°l .f
lime of keeping up the independence and dignief tayimoefzaihetiertorstle-
native States as against the modern theories
and hear, hear)--und have contended that We
should find them the most faithful allies and supporters

case of war. The subject of rewards to our native allies has
not escaped the attention of the Government of this country.
Two despatches, one dated the 28th of July, from the late
Court of Directors; and the other the 31st December,
addressed by me to Lord Canning, have been sent to the
Government of India, naming certain native princes as spe-
cially deserving of reward, and calling for a report upon the
claims of others. That general report we have not yet
received, and I need not tell the right hon. gentleman,
or the house, that in a matter of this kind it is impossible
for us in this country to act without previous consulta-
tion with the local Government in India. Rewards,
however, have been given to the Rajah of Putteala, by
a cession of territory worth two lacs of rupees a-year,
and something besides; to the Rajah of Jheend terri-
tory worth one lac ; to the Rajah of Nubba, territory worth
one lac ; and to the Rajah of Chirkaree some land of which
the value is not known. The Guicowar has received a re-
mission of the tribute or subsidy of three lacs of rupees
annually which he was bound to pay for the support of a
force of irregular cavalry. That subsidy has been remitted
with the sanction of this country, by the advice and upon
the representation of Lord Canning. The cases of Scindiah,
Ilolkar, and the Nizam are specially mentioned in one—l
think in both—of the despatches to which I have referred.
That of the Rajah of Gwalior is at present under considera-
tion. With regard to Nepaul, the house is aware that a
distinguished mark of honour has been conferred upon the
able minister of that State. It has also been in contempla-
tion to show our sense of the assistance which we derived
from the Government of Nepaul in the manner suggested
by the right hon. gentleman. A correspondence has taken
place upon that subject, but in a matter of that kind much
discretion must be left to the authorities in India, and I
have not yet heard whether any final arrangements have
been made with regard to it. I can only remark, in con-
clusion, that I am as fully impressed, and I believe that the
Government here and the Government in India are as fully
impressed as the right hon. gentleman can be with the im-
portance of not destroying the grace and the value of these
gifts by deferring them until a time when the memory of the
services for which they are the rewards sball cease to be
present to the minds of the natives. (Cheers.).
THE LOSS OF THE CZAR.
Mr. BUXTON asked the First Lord of the Admiralty
whether,he had received any explanation of the conduct of_
Commander Dunn, of her Majesty steam-sloop Virago, who.
saw the Czar screw storeship go ashore off the Lizard at
2.15 on Saturday, Jan. 22, but continued his course without
making any attempt to succour the crew (12 of whom
perished, besides the master and his wife), upon the ground,
as he alleges. that he thought very little assistance could
be rendered. He did not doubt that the conduct of Com-
mander Dunn would turn out to have been perfectly
right, but he thought that the matter ought to be thoroughly
cleared itp, in order that merchant captains might not be
able to silage the or_ampla uf Majesty's
navy as a reason for neglecting to assist a ship which was
in peril
Sir J. PAKINGTON saidthat he was not surprised that
the hon. gentleman should have wished for some explana-
tion of the circumstances which attended the wreck of the
Czar, and the melancholy loss of life which accompanied it,
and with the permission of the house he would state the
facts which were immediately reported to the Admiralty.
The Czar went ashore in the middle of the day upon a rock
very close to the Lizard Point. At that time her Majesty's
steam-sloop Virago was between 10 and 11 miles directly to
the eastward and leeward of the Lizard, and the persons on
board of her distinctly saw the calamity which had befallen
the Czar. The weather was then very bad, it was blowing
a gale, and the sea was very heavy. In addition to the
usual responsibility resting upon the commander of a ship,
Commander Dunn was responsible for the safety of 200 of
her Majesty's troops, whom he was conveying from Cork
to Plymouth. Under these circumstances, and seeing
another steam vessel much nearer to the Czar than he was,
and steaming towards her, he deemed that it was his duty
not to attempt to render her any assistance, but to proceed
at once to Plymouth. These circumstances were at once
reported to the Admiralty, and he was bound to say that
the impression of the board upon receiving the statement
was that it was not satisfactory ; that the duty of an
officer in command of one of Her Majesty's ships to
render assistance to a wrecked vessel, if it was possible,
was so imperative, that Commander Dunn would have ex-
ercised a sounder judgment if he had at least made an
attempt to succour the Czar. In consorphnee of this
being the impression of the Board of Admiralty, orders
were sent to Plymouth that there should be a court of in-
quiry into the circumstances. Three very experienced and
able captains held that inquiry, and allayed at the conclu-
sion that although any attempt to render assistance to the
Czar would have been attended with serious risk, the at-
tempt should, nevertheless, have been made by Commander
Dunn, though, according to the evidence, it would have
been attended with no good result. (A laugh.) That was
the opinion of the officers who made the inquiry, and he
was bound to add the Board of Admiralty had concurred
in that opinion, and had communicated to Commander
Dunn that, while recognizing the responsibility and diffi-
culty of his position, they thought he would have acted
with a sounder judgment if he had at least made the at-
tempt to rescue the crew of the Czar. (Hear, hear.)
The motion that the house at its rising adjourn till Mon-
day was then agreed to.
OCCASIONAL FORMS OF PRAYER BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
SUPERANNUATION BILL.
This bill, which stood for a second reading, was postponed.
TITLES TO LANDED ESTATES.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said—l rise to move for
Leave to introduce a bill to simplify the title to landed
estates in England. The subject is one the importance of
which is now admitted by every one. The evils which are
complained of and the complexities which have to be sim-
plified are unfortunately now no now topic. Looking back
to the history of the law of real property in this country, it
may, by a broad line of demarcation, be divided in sub-
stance into two parts. Up to the time of the Common-
wealth we were occupied in endeavouring., by means of
legal fictions, to make the severe and simple forms of feudal
law bend themselves to the advancing interests of com-
merce and to the wants of the people. Examples of that
may he found in the introduction of the fictitious system of
fines and recoveries in this country, and in the various
purposes which the complicated system of uses and trusts
was made to serve. When, about the period of the Com-
monwealth, you had succeeded by those various means in
getting rid to a very considerable extent of the severity of
feudal tenures, a new period commenced, which has con-
tinued to the present, during which the great effort has
been to get rid in turn of those complex systems of legal
fiction which had been useful up to that time in lessening
the severity of feudal tenures. Of the latter class an ex-
ample is to be found in the constant and repeated efforts
made after the year 1660 in this house to establish regis-
ters, sometimes successful, sometimes unsuccessful—suc-
cessful as to parts of the country, always unsuccessful as
to the whole. (Hear, hear.) You find examples of the
same course of action in the most useful measure by which
you got finally rid of the system of fines and recoveries al-
together, and in a number of measures introduced with the
view of limiting the various claims which formerly hung
over landed estates, and thereby to a certain extent
simplifying their transfer. It is remarkable during
the period I have mentioned how uniform has been the
complaint of the injury to landed property itself, occa-
sioned by the complexity of the tenure on which it was
held. Upwards of 200 years ago, or thereabout, I observe
Sir Matthew Hale, writing of a property which he had pur-
chased, said, he would willingly give one year's purchase
more for it could he be sure thereby to have a good title.
That was a moderate "bid" for a simplification of title to
landed property. Shortly after that—namely, in 1669, a
committee of the House of Lords was appointed to inquire
into the question of the tenure of land, and a sentence from
their report, I think, is worthy the attention of the house.
" That, after serious debate and examination of several
persons of the Committee of Trade and Merchants, the
Lords' Committee had come to the conclusion that one cause
of the decay of value of lands was the uncectainty of titles
of estates, and recommend that there should be a Bill of Re-
gisters for the future."
The value of land was very much depreciated at.that time,
and the other House of Parliament came to the csorlusion
that the complexities of tenure had very much to Ito with
that depreciation. I find about the year 1703 a register of
deeds was introduced into the West Riding of Yorkshire,
and whatever may be our opinions of the advantages of that
institution the grounds on which it was established are at
least deserving attention. The act by which the register
was established recites
" That the West Riding is the principal place, in the
North for the cloth manufacture, and most of the traders
therein are freeholders, and have frequent occasion to bor-
row money on thair estates for managing their trade, but for
want of a register find it difficult to give security to 'the
satisfaction of the money-lenders (although the security
they offer be really good), whereby trade is much obstructed
and many families ruined."

It was a measure, therefore, introduced in the belief that
commerce as well as land had suffered from the want of
simplification in the title to landed property. Coming
down to more modern times, I find in 1846 another com-
mittee of the other House of Parliament addressed itself to
the subject, and they reported,—
" They are convinced that the marketable value of real
property is seriously diminished by the tedious and expen-
sive process attending its transfer.
Then, in 1856, a Royal Commission having been appointed
to take the whole question into consideration, I find in the
appendix to the report, to which I shall afterwards have
occasion to refer, witness after witness addressing himself to
the depreciation in the value of landed property, and to the
actual loss consequent on the difficulties incident to its trans-
fer.tion e
erl
int a kLeo,nadso
nan,
ofln stanemincee,nacestin his
snt made by an auc-
profession, and of
great ex effect
in dealing with landed estates. He says,—
" The e of the present state of things is unfairly to
depreciate the value of all fee simple property by obstructing
and impeding transactions ; whereas, if the principle acted
upon in the Encumbered Estates Court in Ireland in d
regar
to titles and their confirmations was rendered universal
(although it is not essential or requisite to establish a similar
court, under the circumstances in which property is placed,
in England and Wales:mororSeep.otland),
,everyucestaatregwereaulmdounseltl urchase am hl
years' more
in landed and other real pro-
ofofroaatplietaalstwthroz
mediate application."
fettered and capable of immediate perty, and circulated in improvements by its becoming un.

This estimate is a larger one than that of Sir Matthew
Hale. He was willing to give one year's purchase, but the
auctioneer offers three. Now, passing from this short pre-
liminary view of the question, I think it desirable to define
the evils of which complaint is made in general terms.
They may be said to be two. The first is the length of

time which at present must elapse between the making of
a bargain and the completion of the purchase. We know
how the purchase of all other kinds of property is com-

pleted. If you buy stock you don't require to be told how
many hours are necessary in which to make the transfer.
If you buy railway shares, in like manner you have

your purchase completed and your money paid in a
few hours afterward. Perhaps the most extraordinary
facility of transfer obtains in the case of ships. In five
minutes and at the expense of 45e, you might make a con-

tract for and actually transfer such a ship as the Himalaya
or the Great Eastern. (Hear.) It ought never to be for-
gotten by the owners of shipping property in this country
that, whatever may be their position in other respects, they
are not subjected to the stamp duties and the difficulties of
making out a title to which the owners of landed propertyare
subjected, but can transfer their ships as if they were shares.
The mode in which the transfer of a ship is effected is by a
document of a simple form, and by the entry upon a register
that the transfer has taken place. But compare that with
what is done in the case of landed property. You buy an
estate at an auction, you enter into a contract for the pur-
chase of the estate, you are very anxious to get possession of
the property you have bought, and the vendor is anxious to
get his money. But you cannot get the estate, nor can the
vendor get his money, until a considerable portion of your
lives has been spent in abstracts, in the comparison of deeds,
in searches for encumbrances, in objections made to the
title; in answers to those objections, in disputes which arise
upon the answers, in endeavours to cure the defects. Not
only months but years frequently pass in a history of that
kind, and I should say that it is an uncommon thing in
this country for a purchase of any magnitude to be com-
pleted—completed by possession and payment of the price—
in a period under, at all events, 12 months. The conse-
quences of this were stated in the report of the commission
to which I have already referred, in words so apposite that
if the house will permit me, I should desire to read them.
That commission stated in their report :
" When a contract is duly entered into, the investigation of
the title often causes not only expense but delay and disap-
pointment, sickening both to the buyer and seller. The seller
does not receive his money nor the buyer his land until the
advantage or pleasure of the bargain is lost or is passed
away."
Unquestionably that is one of the very great evils under
which we now labour. But that is not the greatest evil.
I can well imagine that the purchaser of an estate
would be content to submit to delay and to some consider •
able expense if he were assured that when the delay and ex-
pense were over upon that occasion, at all events he would
have a title, as to the dealings with which for the future
there would be no difficulty. Unfortunately that is not the
•ase. Suppose I buy an estate to-day. I spend a year or
two, or three years, in ascertaining whether the title is
good. lam at last satisfied. I pay the expense—the con-
siderable expense—which is incurred in addition to the price
which I have paid for my estate. About a year afterwards
I desire to raise money upon mortgage of this estate. I find
some one willing to lend me money provided I have a good
title to the land. The man says, "It-is very true that you
bought this estate, and that you investigated the title, but
cannot be bound by your investigation of the title, nor can
I be satisfied by it." Perhaps he is a trustee who is lending
money, which he holds upon trust. He says, "My solicitor
must examine the title and my counsel must advise upon
it." And then, as between me, the owner of the estate,
and the lender of the money, there is a repetition of the
same process which took place upon Jny purchase of the
estate, and, consequently, the same expense is incurred as
when I bought it ; and for the whole of that I, the owner
of the estate and the borrower of the money, must pay.
Well, that is not all. Months or years after all this is
completed, from circumstances I find I must sell my estate
altogether. I find a person willing to become a pur-
chaser, The intending purchaser says—" No doubt you
thought this was a good title when you bought this estate,
and no doubt this lender of money thought he had a
very good security when he lent his money; but you
are now asking me to pay my money. I must be satis-
fied that the title is a good one. My solicitor must look
into it, and my counsel must advise upon it." Then again
commence abstracts, examinations, objections, difficulties,
correspondence, and delay. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
I am the owner of the estate, and I must pay substantially
for the whole of that, because, although the expense there
is paid in the first instance by the purchaser, of course a
proportion of that expense must be borne by me, and the
awri;jetho dhwe erlongigveer
upon
rmthe
ne
thpreeeslasteae,treti.en(Hwill
which
e.:.rref.ail)thelutpsaliioennethnettenepevrieilecseeeto which under the
present system landed property is subject. Is it possible to
remedy these evils ? We all agree that if it can be done a
great good will be accomplished. But how is it to be done?
Well, of course, the first thing to do in such an inquiry is
to direct our attention to precedenls. What have we by us
up to this time which will afford us a guide by which we
may act, and can we proceed further in the same direction ?
I suggest that the house should look to the case of Ireland.
What has been done in Ireland by the Encumbered Estates
Court. I beg the house to observe what were the particu-
lar objects for which the Encumbered Estates Court was
in the first instance established in Ireland. These objects
were two, and they were perfectly distinct. The first object
was to obtain the means of enforcing. the compulsory sale of
an encumbered estate, the second to give to the purchaser a
Parliamentary title. Objections were at first made to the
accomplishment of the first of these objects. It was said
that it would be unjust to to compel the sale of an estate at
a period of depression, but no one objected to the conferring
a Parliamentary title upon a purchaser. But in the result
the Court was unquestionably successful. The value of
estates sold byit rose, and it finally became a matter of con-
sideration in this house and in committees of this house
whether the system might not be extended to unencum-
bered estates. It was decided, and I think most wisely,
that it was impossible not to extend the system to them.
(Hear.) The reasons which induced the house to come to
that conclusion never were and never could be answered.
The reasons were these. In the first place it was said that
if you do not extend the system to unencumbered estates
you will have a continuance of that which has already be-
come a practice—the putting on of fictitious encumbrances
in order to achieve a sale. Next, it was said upon a sale
the encumbrancer does not give you any security that
the title is one which ought to be confirmed by the
Court, for of course the object of the encumbrancer will
be always to conceal and not to disclose any flaw in the
tiile. It is his interest as well as that of any one else to re-
present that the title is good, and therefore there is nothing
in the existence of encumbrances which would relieve you
from the difficulty of investigating the title. The third
reason was this, that if you had got an estate encumbered
not to its full value, but only a part, the Court is always
prepared to sell, and as far as that estate is encumbered, you
are virtually doing that which you are asked to do—viz.,
selling by means of a Court an unencumbered estate. This
house accordingly determined to permit the Court to go to
the length of selling unencumbered estates. Then, another
question arose. It was said you cannot stop short and say
that all the power which this Court must possess is that of
selling encumbered and unencumbered estates ; you must go
still farther ; you must give an indefeasible title not only to
persons who want to purchase estates, but you must also
give an indefeasible title to persons who do not want to sell.
You must give them the means of publicly provingthe vali-
dity of their title. These reasons were irresistible, and I have
-not heard any answer to them. First, it was said if you do
not do this you will have fictitious sales as well as fictitious
encumbrances. Persons would invent a colourable sale, in
order to call the powers of the Court into requisition; or in •
tending purchasers, knowing they might obtain a parliamen-
tentarytitle,would sit down and leave everything to the Court.
The examination therefore would come from the Court alone,
and not from the purchaser. Then if the power of the Court
was confined to sales, what was to be done with other cases
of transfer? A man wants to mortgage, to let ground for
building plots, on long, leases, to settle family estates on
marriage—all cases in which there is no sale, but just as
much as a sale, requiring all doubts as to title to be removed.
The result was the house came to the conclusion, in the bill
of last session, that the Landed Estates Court, before called
the Encumbered Estates Court, should have the power of
giving an indefeasible title in all cases of sale by
the Court, and to any owner of an estate who could prove
his right to possess it. The advantage of this sys-
tem to the public in Ireland no one has ever doubted for
many years past. But we must not rest satisfied with this
public advantage only; we must inquire whether any dan-
ger, or injury to individuals, has been incurred by the exer-
cise of these powers. Fortunately, we have ample materials
for forming a conclusion on this point. In 18.55 a commis-
sion was appointed to inquire into the working of the En-
cumbered Estates Court. In 1856, certain bills before
Parliament on this subject were referred to a select com-
mittee of this house, which again inquired into the working
of the Court. Several hon. gentlemen who were members
of that committee are still in the house • the right hon.
baronet the member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham), the Pre-
sident of the Board of Trade (Mr. Henley), the Secretary
for the Home Department, and the hon. members for
Coventry and Devonport, were all on that committee.
It was intended, when the committee was appointed, that
all the different views of the question should be re-
presented in it. In the committee were some strong
advocates of the Encumbered Estates Court, some equally
strong opponents of it, and others who held a middle
position and were anxious that the evidence on the
question should be fully heard. There was a full inquiry
into the working of the system, and the result may be
shortly stated in this manner :—lt was found there have been
sold by the Encumbered Estates Court properties to the
extent of twenty millions of money; that the conveyances
executed by the Court exceeded 7,000 in number; adding
those that have since been executed, they are not less than
8,500. The amount of acreage that has passed through
the Court, allowing for the cases that passed twice, is about
3,500,000 acres. As the area for Ireland is from 20,000,000
to 21,000,000 acres, the Encumbered Estates Court has
sold about one-seventh of the acreage of the country.
Now, in the course of transactions so numerous, and of
such magnitude, there has been no case of injury done to
any individual. (Hear, hear.) Of course, Ido not enter
into the question whether injury may not have been done
by selling, by the Encumbered Estates Court, a property
that might advantageously been kept longer unsold. ; but I
contend that the Court has never sold the estate of one man
as the estate of another, nor a part of any estate that was
part of another. (Hear, hear.) There was great anxiety
to arrive at the truth in this matter; and it was stated by.
Mr. Commissioner Hargreaves that there had been only
two cases heard of in which a wrong had been done in inves-
tigating a title under a sale of land. The house will be
curious to know what those cams were, though both errors
were discovered before the completion of the sale and the
execution of the conveyance. One of the two cases was the
right to 13 acres of a bog, to which no physical boundary
existed. (Laughter.) A boundary line was assumed, by
which 13 acres of this bog had been included more than
ought to have been taken in. But the error was discovered
before the conveyance was executed ; and as it was agreed by
common consent that no sum low enough could be fixed on
as compensation for this portion—(laughter)—the disputed
right was given up. The other case was this—in the Salo
of the Martin Estates, in Galway, which were heavilymort-
gaged, it was found that one township was mortgaged to the
Law Life Insurance-office ; this township was sold with the
rest ; but again, before the conveyance was completed, the
error was discovered. The insurance office, however, was so
satisfied with the price obtained that the sale was never dis-
puted. (Hear.) From the whole evidence before the com-
mittee as far as I can discover, these are the only two cases
in which the Encumbered Estates Court ever sold an estate
of which the title could be disputed. (Hear, hear.) In
the evidence the house will find a good deal of discussion
about Lord Blaney's case, but this was not a question of
title at all • it was a question whether the Court had acted
tpahr usai
small
eua
inll t
tl
ry anl ns
a s
cetl
o encumbrance, i nn gs
oa large.iNe
ohwems
tt
aroigt
ihto
uantd is we
nicthst
to
sales
ser eaantwdt r
ja
tsbr
ua
no n lt e
dy.
f
flertsidnkof suitchnlimaypobret
thoasinbeveesntigthaete inthvearitallees,
a antcteribtuhteerde htaos
tbhereene sueacuhsegrs.eatFsafirsetty,
it?
pitanctievcoeryof
catshee, Conomthmieirssioonwerus
responsibility. The second cause is, I think, to be found
in the powers the Court possesses to call before it the par-
ties and their agents to give evidence on any points that
require clearing up. The third ground of the security is
this, that it is the practice, and is in the power of the Court,
to issue advertisements of sales, and serve notices in every
direction, about the land to be sold ; iii fact, hi the publicity

of every proceeding attending a sale by the Court. (Hear,
hear.) In these proceedings I find the explanation of the
wonderful fact that in so many transactions there has not,
practically, been a single error. Now, compare the facili-
ties afforded by the Encumbered Estates Court with what
takes place every day in this country. Many thousands,
even millions of pounds, change hands on the faith only of
an investigation of title by barristers. They have nothing
to guide them but deeds or abstracts of deeds and compari-
sons of deeds and abstracts. They cannot examine wit-
nesses or take evidence on oath, or publish advertisements,
or issue notices on neighbouring holders ; and yet, with all
these disadvantages, such a thing as a conveyance proving
a bad one is seldom heard of. Such being the case, let us
see whether any reason has been suggested why that which
has worked so well in Ireland—the bestowal of an indefea-
sible title—will not be equally beneficial and practicable in
England. The only reasons which I have ever heard--
and upon a question so important it is right that we should
candidly consider every argument that can be brought for-
ward—the only reasons are these :-Ist, it is said that in
Ireland there is a registry of deeds, which enables us with
greater security to know the state of every title. Next, it
is said that in Ireland there is an Ordnance Survey upon a
large scale of six inches to the mile ; and, farther, that in
Ireland there is an uniform valuation for the whole coun-
try, and that these advantages being possessed by the
Landed Estates Court enable it to act with greater safety
than any court in England could do. I will state frankly
what occurs to me upon these objections. With respect
to the registry of deeds there is no doubt that if such regis-
try, comprised every deed which could affect the land,
and if the non-registry of any such deed rendered the
title invalid in Ireland, that would show a vast difference
between the two countries. But in point of fact such is not
the case. I find it stated that there is a large class of deeds
most material to the titles to estates, which are never to be
found in the registry in Ireland. Thus it is said that no
registered conveyance is valid against its granter.
"An unregistered conveyance is valid against the
granter, and he is personally bound to its fulfilment. It is
also valid against persons deriving under him by marriage,
descent, devise, succession, probate, administration, sur-
vivorship, and execution, and allpersons claiming under him
by means incapable of registration."
The result is, that any Court which said, " We will search
the register, and take the title to be just so much and
nothing more than we find there," would at once fall into
• the gravest errors, and the greatest injury would be inflicted
upon all persons claiming in the manner just mentioned.
Therefore, although I do not underrate the importance
to the Landed Estate Court of this registry, yet so far
from admitting that where such registry does not exist
you cannot apply a similar system, as is carried on by that
Court, I think it shows there is great danger indeed,
where you have a register which goes to a certain extent,
but not to the full extent, of engendering a false security.
(Hear, hear.) With respect to the Ordnance Survey, I
think that reason may bo oodiy dowrt with. It is not the
practice in Ireland to sell by map, and I hope such a prac-
tice will never prevail here. The Ordnance Survey has
nothing distinctly to do with titles. No doubt it is
valuable in order to ascertain the boundaries of the estates,
and the position of other properties in the same locality ;
but it must not be forgotten that although we have not a
survey here upon so large a scale, still we have accurate
surveys upon a certain scale. Indeed, in some northern
counties, Yorkshire and Lancashire, that scale has reached
six inches, and perhaps in time we may have a similar
survey made of all England. But then we have a
large and valuable collection of maps in the Tithe-
office, the preparation and completion of which has
cost, I am told, something like two and a half millions.
Then, as to the third point, the uniform valuation, I have
never been able to see how a uniform valuation in Ireland
can be of any use to the Landed Estates Court. Valuation
may be of great use if you wish to ascertain if you are get-
ting the true value on a sale, but with respect to title it is
of no value. (Hear.) As these are the only reasons I have
ever heard advanced against the system prevailing in Ire-
land being introduced into this country, I have felt it my
duty to state my views of them, and the conclusion I have
arrived at is, that they are not reasons which should deter
us from following the example of Ireland if in other re-
spects we are agreed as to its propriety. But against those
reasons we may set off that which is the case with titles in
England. We have, and I say it with no intention of dis-
paraging the abilities of Irish conveyancers, a better system
of conveyancing here than prevails in that country. We have
got titles here into better order. The accounts of rentals are
better kept, and the details of the holdings upon different
estates are better recorded than is the case in Ireland.
This has been universally admitted even by Irish landed
proprietors, who have lamented the imperfect condition of
the accounts of their own rentals. The result then appears
to me to be that there is no valid reason why we should
hesitate to apply to • this country one part, and one part
only, of the system which was introduced by the Encum-
bered Estates Court. The part which I think we could
with safety apply to England is the part by which the
Court is authorised to grant an indefeasible title. The
part which I would be sorry to see introduced here—be-
cause there is no occasion for it—is that which enables
the Court to enforce a compulsory sale of encumbered
estates. (Hear, hear.) The usual course of the law is
sufficient to give incumbrancers opportunities to realise
their securities whenever they are inclined. I have now
explained the grounds upon which I have arrived at the
conclusion that it is proper to offer a scheme for conferring
upon persons who prove to be entitled an indefeasible, or,
as it is called, a Parliamentary title to their lands. I will
proceed to state as briefly as I can the general outline of the
scheme we propose, and which is embodied in the first of
the bills which I ask leave to introduce. We propose that
any owner in fee simple of land or any one who has power
to dispose in fee simple of land, and who has been in pos-
session or in receipt of rent by himself or predecessors for
a period of five years, may come to the Court, which I will
presently describe, and apply to have a declaration affirm-
ing his title to that particular land. He will have, in the
first instance, to supply to the court an abstract of his
title, and a description of the land he claims. It will
be the duty of the court to see that two things are
done—first that there is shown in the document sub-
mitted to them a.prima facie title, and next that the peti-
tioner shall declare his willingness to give a sufficient pledge
to meet such costs as may be necessarily incurred in the
further investigation of the title by the court. When this
is done, the court will proceed by advertisements in the
newspapers and by notices served in the vicinity of the land
in question to make public the application which has been
made to them, but it will be competent for the applicant to
say he does not claim a clear fee simple, but that he claims
a title subject to epia..in ineuminauces, and the Court may
announce that the application to them is for a title, subject
to certain encumbrances. The materiality of this is, that
we seek to offer the strongest inducement and to make it the
interest of the applicant to 'state truly any incumbrance to
which his land may be subject. If he does so the adver-
tisement will state it, and then there will be no necessity for
the person whose title is thus saved to come and object to
the declaration asked for. If, however, any incumbrance
is withheld from the knowledge of the Court, the publica-
tion of the notice will enable the incumbrancer to appear,
and we provide that the costs of such appearance shall be
paid by the applicant. The same course may be taken where
two or more persons constitute the owners of an estate.
We have fixed upon two periods in respect to which the
Court shall be governed in granting declarations of title, at
the end of the first of which. the Court may make a provi-
sional declaration of title, and at the end of the second an
absolute declaration Those periods, although open to fur-
ther consideration, are these--12 months for the first, and
three months for the second. We have selected those
periods because we find from a statement of Mr. Hargreaves
that the average period in which a sale is completed, and
the money distributed by the Encumbered Estates Court is
15 months. During that time publicity continues, and there
exist opportunities for persons to come forward and make
claims if they have any, and, considering we are dealing at
once and for ever with a title, I do not think we ought to
fix upon a shorter period. There are certain things which
every title must be subject to, and which we do not propose
to interfere with—tithe rent-charges and burdens of any de-
scription, and easements, which can only be discovered by
an inspection of the property, such as rights of water, and
other matters of that description. So also with respect to
leases. We take 21 years as the ordinary maximum dura-
tion of an agricultural lease, and in those cases in which
there is a lease which does not exceed that period, and the
tenant is in possession, we do not propose to interfere in
any way with that lease or holding, and the title will, as
heretofore, continue subject to every instrument of that de-
scription. These are all matters which can be ascertained
by any person who may be desirous of doing so on the spot,
and not matters as to which there will be any necessity of
giving notice of title. Well, when the declaration of title is
made we propose that its effect should be as follows :—That
it should be efficacious in substance, for the purpose of
change of ownership,—that is to say, that it should be a
declaration which will enable a valid title to be conferred
on sale or mortgage or lease of landed property—in short,
on any settlement for title, or any other kind of dealing de-
scribed in law as taking place for valuable consideration,
but that it should not be called into action when such is
not the case. We further propose, that office copies should
be furnished by the Court under which the provisions of the
bill, if it should be passed into a law, will be administered,
which documents will constitute the certificates of title of the
owner of the land. We also propose that the same process
should be pursued upon the occasion of a sale if the vendor
or purchaser should deem it desirable to receive from the
Court an instrument of that kind. We, in addition, pro-
vide that in the case of any claim upon an estate which, from
its nature is reducible to a simple money claim, the Court
shall have the power to require that a sum should be dope
sited with it previous to the sale for the purpose of meeting
the charge, should the necessityfor its payment subsequently
arise. We propose, moreover, that the power of conferring a
title on sale should apply to sales under the Settled Estates
Act, and also to estates under the control of the Court of
Chancery, the new court in such cases having a discretion
to decide whether or not an indefeasible title ought to be
given. We also provide a safeguard with respect to decla-
rations of title, to which it has not been thought necessary
to resort in Ireland, and to which it may not be necessary to
have recourse there, but which, as it is simple in its nature,
and may easily be put into operation, I think it would be
undesirable not to adopt as a matter of precaution. It is, that
if any person should consider that he had an interest in an
estate—be that interest ever so remote—which he may
think would be likely to bo overlooked in a declaration of
title of this kind, he should be empowered to lodge with the
Court a caution or caveat, setting forth his claim ; the re-
sulta
s made of
which proceeding would be, that when application
w
declaration of title with reference to the land
f o r
which was stated to be involved in the claim, the person
lodging the caveat should be entitled to notice of such ap-
plication. He will not thus, of course, have his title to the
lands in question affirmed, but be he never so apprehen-
sive that his claim would be overlookd, he will have
nothing to do but to lodge this caveat, and to state where
notice is to be served on him should a declaration of title
be about to be given. (Hear, hear.) I have now stated
the course which is to be pursued by the Court in dealing
with this subject, and I shall therefore at once proceed to
inform the house what course we intend to pursue in refer-
ence to the court itself. I freely admit that it would be
extremely desirable if the thing could be done to make use,
for the purposes which I have just mentioned, of some of
the existing courts of the country. It is expedient to do so
in order to avoid multiplying unnecessarily our judicial tri-
bunals, and the expense which is consequent upon the in-
creaso of their number. At the same time, however, we
have, after the fullest consideration, arrived at the conclu-
sion that the duties which would have to be discharged under
the operation of the change which we are about to ask Par-
liament to sanction are of such a nature that there is no
court at present in existence in England to which their per-
formance could advantageouslyorconveniently be committed.
(Hear.) The reasons why we think such to be the case are
twofold. In tho first place, all our courts have already quite
as much business to get through as they can well transact
—(hear)---and could not therefore undertake the discharge
of duties of magnitude so great as would, under the opera-
tion of this new legislation, fall upon them, with the hope of
being able to deal with them satisfactorily. But there is a
second, and perhaps a better reason for not imposing upon
them this additional labour, than that which I have just
mentioned. It is that this new species of business which we
propose to introduce is as different from any which our courts
of law are now in the habit of transacting as one description
of business MA be from another. (Hear, hear.) The courts

which we already have are tribunals which are engaged in
trying disputes between individuals—a plaintiff on the one
side and a defendant on the other—and the duty of the
judges in these cases is to confine themselves within the
scope of the circumstances which the parties to the snit lay
before them. The business with which the new court would
have to deal would be, however, of a wholly different nature.
It would be its duty to transact business such as that which
came within the province of a conveyancer in chambers, or
such as that which was now transacted by the judges of
the Encumbered Estates Court in Ireland—namely, the
investigation of titles, the reading of abstracts, the endea-
vour to discover whether all that was material to the case
under their notice had been brought to their knowledge,
or whether a declaration of title could, upon such ma-
terials as they might have been furnished with, be
safely granted. 'When the matter, therefere, is duly con-
sidered by the house, I feel assured it will be apparent to
every hen. member that business such as that which I have
just been describing is not of a nature which renders it pro
bable that it could be satisfactorily disposed of in the existing
tribunals of the country. (Hear.) We propose, therefore,
that a new court should be constituted to deal with this new
description of business. It is fortunately one of the advan-
tages of our scheme, that a beginning can be made without
the necessity of incurring any very considerable expense,
although hereafter it may, no doubt, be found desirable to
carry it out on a more extensive scale. But, be that as it
may, what we now propose is that a Landed Estates Court
should be constituted, with a chief and a secondary judge.
The qualification as to each of those judges we propose
should be this :—that he should be either a conveyancer in
practice, and who had practised for 10 years •, or a person
who had for a certain number of years filled the position of
a judge in the Landed Estates. Court in Ireland—(hear)—
for it maybe found desirable and advantageous to the working
of the new system, that some one of the functionaries who
have presided in that court should be selected ta take part in
carrying the scheme into effect. (Hear.) With regard tothe
salaries of the new judges, what we propose to do is not to
place them on a par with the judges who preside in the
superior courts, but rather to regulate the amount of remu-
neration which they should receive with reference to the
question of what might be considered a sufficient induce-
ment for a conveyancer in good practice and in all respects
efficient to accept one of those appointments. Looking
upon the matter, then, from that point of view, we propose
that the salary of the chief judge should be £3,000, and
that of the second £2,500 per annum. (Hear, hear.) We
further propose that each of them should be provided with
a secretary and a chief clerk, and that the new court
should, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, have
the power to frame rules for the due regulation of the entire
of its practice. We also propose that, as questions of law
or fact may arise in the Court, and involve a species of
litigation which would be foreign to its constitution, it
should be enabled to submit such questions to the decision
of some other tribunal. With respect to the financial ar-
rangements connected with the Court, we hold that if our
scheme shquld turn out to be successful it will be, as the
Landed Estates Court in Ireland will lit, to a considerable
extent, if not altogether, self-supporting. (Hear.) It is,
,we conceive, no unreasonable requirement to ask those who
come before this Court to seek the boon of a simple and in-
defensible title to their estates to pay a moderate sum in
the shape of a percentage for the work which theycall upon
it to accomplish in their behalf. (Hear.) If that be done,
then will the Court be to a certain extent, if not altogether,
self-supporting, although of course it cannot be fairly ex-
pected that that will be the case during the first year of its
existence. I have now given an outline of the scheme
which we propose and nothing more, inasmuch as I am
sure it is the desire of_the house that I should upon the pre-
sent occasion confine myself to exposition instead of being
critical or argumentative. It may be said that the plan
which I have sketched is all very well so far as good titles
are concerned, but that it is desirable to know what we
intend to do with respect to those to which there is some
objection. (Hear, hear.) Indeed, the noble lord the
member for Tiverton, in his usual playful manner, re-
marked, on the first night of the session, that we proposed
to give an indefeasible title to all occupiers of land ; to con-
vert bad titles in to good ones, and, as a consequence, to
produce what no doubt would be regarded as a very popular
measure. I can, however, assure the noble lord that we
have no plan in contemplation for turning a bad into a*,
good title. What we do propose is, that those who have a
good title should be enabled to obtain a declaration of it.
I believe that, in point of fact, there are very few titles in
this country which are not good. But there are titles which,
though substantially good, are open to certain technical ob-
jections that are generally guardedagainst by the conditions
of sale, and which, in strictness, are of a nature that pre-
vents you from saying a title is absolutely good. Yet it is
very rarely the case in regard to any one of these that the
technical objection could not, bya little trouble andexpense,
be cured. At present there are no inducements for a man
whose title is open to technical defects of this kind to
have them removed, because, if he sells, their removal
would occasion him heavy expense, and as to the buyer, he
secures himself against them by the conditions of sale. But
if you were able to assure the owner of an estate that, by
some such aarangement as I have described, he could cure
the technical defects which now exist, and then have a de-
claration of title once and for all, I am much mistaken if
numbers of titles liable to these objections would not be
cured and made good in form as in substance, and be found
to deserve the sanction of this court. The course, therefore,
which I anticipate will be taken under a measure of this
kind is this—that those who desire to avail themselves of it
and have perfectly good titles, will obtain a declaration in
their favour ; while those whose titles are open to technical
defects will attempt to cure them, and also come in to secure
the same advantage. And then we all know there must,
sooner or later, come a time, with regard to the very worst
titles in the country, when their flaws will be taken away by
long possession, if by nothing else, so that the period will
arrive at which bad titles in turn will also receive the bene-
fit of this declaration. (Hear, hear.) If the details of this
bill are found to be satisfactory, I need not dwell on the boon
which it would confer upon landowners. There are so many
ways of putting its advantages that it would be tedious to
describe them. You may obtain in this manner that which
I believe many owners of land in this country have found
to be a great desideratum—viz., the means, where small
parcels of land are held under different titles, of consolidat-
ing those titles, and getting one general title for the whole.
Whereas now, in the case of building ground to be sold in
plots of i or 1 of an acre, an abstract of title is required for
each plot, and the expense of an investigation of the title has
to be incurred for each, you will, by this plan, get one title
for all, and an office copy or certificate of the title will be
handed to each purchaser; while for the purpose of raising
money on loan the advantage of such a title must be mani-
fest on the slightest examination. The next question
to which I wish to call the attention of the house
for a short time is this—What would you do with the
title when you have cured it ? (Hear, hear.) Will you
allow it to be clouded over again and involved in process
of years in those embarrassments and perplexities
from which you have delivered it ; or is there any way by
which you can devise a simple and easy mode of transfer
through a register, upon which you can put the name of
him who has thus been declared the owner of an estate, and
from time to time keep upon that register the name of some
person who will at all times be able to dispose of, to transfer,
and to deal with the estate, subject, of course, to any claims
of other parties who may ive a right to object to such a
transaction ? We have here, sir, lam happy to say, every
large portion of our work done for us by those who have
been in the field before us, and from whose labours we de-
rive very great benefit. I refer to the report of the Royal
Commission upon the Registration of Titles, which was
presented to her Majesty in the year 1856. With respect
to that report I feel a difficulty in speaking in any terms
which can justly convey to the house the very profound
impression which its perusal has left upon my mind. I
I can only hope that those who take any interest whatever
in this subject may either have found, or may yet find,
leisure to study that most valuable document. If we look
at the names of the commissioners I think they will carry
the greatest possible weight with the house on a question of
this kind. We have, sir, in the first place, the benefit of
your experience and counsels upon a subject on which that
experience and those counsels were most valuable. (Cheers.)
We have the aid of my right hon. friend the Home Secre-
tary, who addresses himself to this question with the energy
which he devotes to everything that he undertakes.
(Cheers.) We have the assistance of my hon. and learned
friend'the member for Aylesbury (Sir R. Bethell), than
whom I may be permitted to say that, whether in this house
or out of it, there is no one who has been more persevering
or more vigorous in his endeavours to effect a reform in this
as in every other branch of the law. (Cheers.) We have
the hon. member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe), the benefit
.of whose service on the commission it would be imnossible
too highly to estimate—(cheers)—we have also the hon.
member for Surrey, the hon. and learned member for
Newcastle (Mr. Headlam), the present Chief Justice of the
Common Pleas, the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland,
a gentleman formerly a member of this house; Mr. Vin-
cent Scully, a very eminent conveyancer; Mr. Lewis, Mr.
Wilson, and a solicitor of very great experience and emi-
nence, Mr. Cookson. We have adopted and we propose to
the house a scheme founded, to a very considerable extent,
upon the report of this commission. I say to a consider-
able extent, because we confine our plan of a register of
titles to those cases in which a declaration of title has in
the first instance been obtained. I venture to think that if
at the time this Commission made their report they had
possessed the knowledge of that which has since been done
by this house with reference to Ireland, they also might
not have been indisposed to confine their recommendations
in the same way. The difficulty of going farther is this,
that if you do not set out with an indefeasible title you will
be obliged to register the title subject to all that may pre-
vail in the shape of incumbrances or claims during the last
60 years. I must explain to hon. members who may not
have much considered this matter what is the precise
meaning of a register of title. We are very apt at the first
sound of the word to confound it with something perfectly
distinct from it—namely a register of deeds. Now a register
of titles has nothing on earth in common with a register of
deeds. The objections to a register of deeds in this country
are so manifest that hardly any person in the present day
would venture to propose it. Those objections are of this
kind—To be worth anything a register of deeds must be
made compulsory, and you must have it for the whole
country. When you have got it it will not simplify title in
the least. It only puts on a formal record tke whole of
that multitude of deeds and conveyances of the extent and
complexity of which we already complain. You have .to
investigate and search just as before In addition to that,
3on have to pay for searches in the registry, and also
to pay in some shape or other the expense of placing
the deeds upon it. Moreover, the cost to the country
of the establishment by which a registry of deeds could
be managed, would be something which, I should think,
none of us would like to contemplate. I believe the
calculation is that for this- country you must have the
materials for registering a thousand deeds every day. In
the next place a registry of deeds would interfere with and
render nugatory a very large portion of the dealings in laud
which turn upon the deposit of deeds. (Hear, hear.) The
last, and perhaps most formidable, objection to a registry
of deeds is that it would involve a disolosure of the most

secret transactions, settlements, and family arrangements
for the borrowing f money, that Ido not believe the coun-
try would for a moment tolerate. (Hear, hear.) Therefore
I hope hen. gentlemen will put aside all idea of a registry
of deeds, and allow me to describe very shortly what I re-

gard as a registry of titles. The best illustration we have
of a registry of titles is furnished by the species of property
to which I have already referred. Take the case of a ship,
or of money in the funds. A ship is built, and John Smith
is the owner of it. His name is upon the register as the
owner. When the ship comes to be sold, John Smith is
the man to execute the conveyance, and if it is properly
executed to another person that other person in turn has his
name placed upon the register, and the name of John Smith
is removed. The register is the title to the ship. The
deeds are immaterial. But then it may be said, "That IA
all very well in respect to a ship ; but suppose there are
complicated settlements and arrangements for the lending
and borrowing of money, and that variety of traffic and
transaction in regard to real property which every day goes
on here. Do you mean to put all that on the register ?"
The answer to this is that all that now occurs both in the
case of a ship and in that of Government stock, which, per-
haps, offers a better illustration. There are settlements,
mortgages, and intricate deeds in respect of ships and stock
which are behind the register altogether—(hear, hear)—
but still you have this great advantage, that as long
as nothing is done to prevent the mail whose name is

on the register from making a transfer he can make that
transfer, and the person who receives such transfer obtains
a perfectly good and indefeasible title. And with regard to
transactions which go on behind the settlements or mort-
gages, if they are of anature that leads theperson interested
in them to desire that there should not be a transfer, and
those persons are entitled to require that the ship or the
stock should not be transferred, means are provided, by
what is called a distringas, by which the transfer can be
prevented, if there is reason to believe that the owner whose
name is on the register is dealing improperly with the pro-
perty. Having once got an estate into such a position that
it may receive a declaration of indefeasible title, we propose
to give to the person who has *that declaration of title a
power to put his name upon the register, and, once on the
register, it must continue there. Whether the name is, or
is rot, in tho first instance, to be put on the register, is at
the option of the owner. do not compel hirato register,
but if he does so, the name must continue on the register,
and will always represent the person entitled to transfer the
estate. The same process will take place with regard to any
subdivision of estates. It will now, perhaps, be desirable
that I should describe how we propose to meet the case of
dealing, with the land which we have thus got fixed on the
register, and I think it will be bestto show, inthe first place,
what we propose to do with regard to dealings which fall short
of a transfer of the estate from one man to another. As to
leases, I do not propose that the bill should affect 21 years'
leases when tenants are inpossession. (Hear.) They will
go on as at present, and will not be affected by the registry.
With regard to longer leases, we propose that the holder
of Such a lease should have a right to put on the register,
when his title is once placed, a leaseholdefi notice—not a
registry of his lease, nor a description of it, but a notice
of his name and address. Where this leaseholder's notice
is entered, then, before any dealings with the estate can
take placer-to his prejudice, it will be necessary that he
should be infbrmed of these dealings. With regard to
mortgages which do not involve the transfer of the estate
what we propose is this —Many people who borrow or
lend money do not care a straw whether or not the fact
is published at Charing-cross, while, on the other hand,
many are unwilling that there should be any publicity.
We shall endeavour to meet both of those cases. We pro-
pose that there shall be a power of registering mortgages,
just in the same way as there are now registered mortgages
of estates.. These registered mortgages will thus be the
title to the mortgage charge ; they will pass, by transfer
upon the register, from one man to another; and they will
always appear on the register as a check upon any dealings
with the property. That will meet the case of mortgages as
to which there is no desire for secrecy. But we propose that
mortgages may go on unregistered, as at present, and that
any person who has a mortgage may simply protect himself
by a mortgagees caveat, which will reveal nothing, but will
entitle him to notice before any dealings to his detriment
can take place with the land, while it will also serve as .a
notice to any person who is about to deal with the land that
this mortgagee has an interest in it. This will meet. both
the cases I have mentioned, ensuring, on the one hand, a
benefit from publicity, since charges upon the land will thus
be more easily transferred, while, on the other hand, it
gives security, by means of a caveat, which will entitle
parties to the notice I have mentioned. (Hear.) So much
for dealings with the estate which do not amount to a trans-
fer. I pass now to sales and settlements. Under this bill
any intending
.purchaser of an estate will say to the ven-
dor, " I will give you so much money for your estate as
soon as you show me that your name is on the register, and
that there are no caveats. If there are caveats you must
settle with them, and if you do settle with them, transfer
the estate to me, and here is your money." (Hear, hear.)
As to settlements, when it is wished to settle an estate, the
course will simply be to transfer it to the names of the
trustees of the settlement ; and we propose to adopt a most
valuable suggestion made in the report of the Commission
—namely, that those trustees—the house will, perhaps,
excuse me for entering here upon rather a technical point
of law—should be tenants in common and not joint ten-
ants ; that there should be no survivorship as between them
which would enable the survivor to deal with the land or
to part with it; but that the moment one dies there
should be an incapacity to deal with the land until another
is appointed in his place. That provision will keep up the
number of trustees and will, I hope, satisfactorily meet the
case of a settlement. - I have been speaking hitherto of
transfers for valuable consideration. We propose that any
merely voluntary transfers—those not made for valuable
consideration—should be dealt with according to the present
law of voluntary dispositions, and that if there has been any
fraud the transfer should not confer a title on the trans-
feree. The only other point in the scheme is that of caveats.
We propose that caveats should be of two kinds—caveats
proper and caveats of inhibition. Any person who thinks
he has a right to be-apprised of any dealings in respect to
an estate upon the register may enter a caveat, the effect of
which will be that no dealings can take place until the
lapse of a certain number of days. If the owner undertakes
to satisfy the Landed Estates Court by proper security to
the extent of the whole value of the estate that the caveat
has been wantonly and improperly entered, he may then,
without waiting the specified number of days, have it re-
moved. So, also, the Court may order the caveat to be taken
off after hearing the parries, and if it has been wantonly en-
tered the person entering it will be answerable for any
damage caused by the delay. Caveats proper, therefore, will
be put on the register simply by individuals. Inhibitions will
be of a more permanent and formal character. Whenthere
is a settlement for a great number of years, the inhibition
will operate as a restraint upon sale, and will be put upon
the register by the Court itself, if it thinks fit to do so,
until the expiration of a particular time; as, for example,
until the children under a marriage settlement come of age.
These inhibitions will be placed on the register by the
Court, and it will not be in the power of any individual to
enter them. 'With this exposition of the measure, I think
the house will see that, if the machinery is fitted to work out
the scheme proposed, these three advantages will be gained
—first, perfectly unfettered dealings with the land, as at
present; secondly, a clear title upon the transfer, speedily
and simply acquired ; and, thirdly, entire concealment of
all transactions, such as settlements or mortgages, which it
may be considered undesirable to disclose. (Hear, hear.)
The question then arises—'Where do you mean to have this
registry ? We propose that it should be a metropolitan
registry simply, and the reasons I have to assign, which I
4hmk will be satisfactory, are substantially those given by
the commission. In the first place it will be under the con-
trol of the Landed Estates Court, and you will thus have a
uniform and a safe mode of registration. In the second
place, a register of titles differs greatly from a register of
deeds. In the latter case it is convenient to have the regis-
ter as close as possible ; but in the case of a register of titles
you only want to know one fact, and that may easily be
ascertained in London. In the next place you have in the
metropolis other registers, which must be searched on occa-
sions of this kind—registers of judgment and of Crown
debts—and no inconvenience has been found to result from
their location here. Then again you have in London the
same registries with regard to stock and railway shares, and
no inconvenience accrues from the arrangement. In the
next place every solicitor in the country has an agent in
London through whom he can make inquiries; whereas, if
you have country registries, you will still be involved in
the necessity of sending a considerable distance, and your
solicitor will probably have no agent in the country whom
he is in the habit of employing. (Hear, hear.) Lastly,
you will save a very great expense, because you will have
only one establishment in London instead of a multitude in
the country. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the registry
we propose also that it should be self-supporting by means
of moderate fees taken in return for the service which it
will perform, such fees to be a matter of future regulation ;
and in this way we hope that very little charge will ulti-
mately be imposed by the establishment of this office.
(Hear.) I should add that, inasmuch as the register is
to be confined to estates in respect of which there has been
a declaration:of titles by the Landed Estate Court, and inas-
much as I have assigned a period of three months to elapse
before there can be any declaration of title, it will not be
necessary that the work of the registry-office should com-
mence at once. I propose, therefore, that the operation of
this Act should be fixed by orders in Council according as
it is found that the Landed Estates Court has made pro-
gress. (Hear, hear.) I have now, Sir, gone through—at
considerable, but not, I hope, at unnecessary length—
(cheers)—the measures which I have to propose. I venture
to hope that they will be found on examination not ill-
considered, or involving any principle which this house has
not already sanctioned. Ido not desire to represent them
as measures which all at once, or even in a limited time,
will regenerate and make simple the titles of land in this
country. On the contrary, lam persuaded that a system
which introduces itself without compulsion, by degrees,
and just and only in proportion as it is suited to the objects
it professes to attain, is the system best adapted for the
tastes, prejudices, and wants of this country. (Hear, hear.)
I believe that we have now a hope, without any danger,
had at a trifling expense, of introducing a system of this
kind by the measures I have the honour to propose • and,
to those who are able to avail themselves of the system, it
will result in an immediate and substantial increase of the
value of their lands. (Hear, hear.) I believe that it will
likewise prove advantageous to the interests of commerce,
because it will have the effect of making land the subject
of speedy and safe bargain and traffic, which in this
country it never yet has been—(hear, hear)—and I believe
that if this house should on consideration—as I hope it
will—think right to adopt these measures, we shall have
the satisfaction of thinking that, without endangering any
right of any person whatever, without suddenly interfering
with any long-established practice, and without a costly
array of officers or officials, we have at last taken a step,
and that neither a trifling nor unimportant step, towards
removing that complication and expense, which has long
been the reproach of the law relating to the land of this
country. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded,
amid cheers, by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to
simplify the title to landed estates.
Sir R. BETHELL rose to express his sincere thanks to
the Government for having brought forward such a bill,
also to express the great pleasure with which he had listened
to the most admirable speech of the Solicitor-General. It
had been most lucid, and had evinced a powerful mastery
of details, and at the same time the greatest attention had
been paid to insuring to all a general apprehension of the
subject. He congratulated the hon. member on being a
member of a Government who had had the good sense to
bring forward such a bill after all the previous efforts that
had been made to effect a solution of such a difficult ques-
tion. He thought that some of the objections to the report
of the committee made in 1856 had been remedied by the
bill of his learned friend. The establishment of a tribunal
having power to declare the indefeasibility of title was a
fact which had been established by precedent in Ireland.
The benefit was exhausted now in the declaration, and the
machinery to carry it out was wanting, but now by this
bill all would be made perfect. We wanted a man to be
able to say—" My estate is on the register; give me my
certificate"—that is if there was no mortgage, or if there
was a mortgage there would be a notice of it. The pur-
chaser would have no difficulties as at present. There
would be no necessity for the inquiries as to title. The pro-
duction of the parchment title, the necessity of its investi-
gation by each succeeding transferee, and of his having the
decision of a lawyer upon it being all superseded. The
difficulties which had to be contended with would be easily
understood. Mortgages by deposit of title deeds with
bankers would go on with the utmost facility, because it
would only be necessary for the owner of the estate to have
from the registry a certificate that he was in a condition to
deal with the estate, and upon the production of that certi-
cate he would be enabled to create incumbrances upon it
without difficulty. There were one or two matters which
he wished to refer to, in order that attention might be di-
rected to them in future discussions. They naturally looked
with jealousy at the creation of an additional court. They
had already too many—(hear, hear)—too many opposed 837E-
toms of procedure ; at the same time it would be ne-
cessary to have some court to resort to for determining
questions that might arise as to prohibitions and caveats.
This would be a matter of some intricacy, upon which they
might possibly be informed at some later stage of the bill.
There was another matter, and one which he found to be a
formidable obstacle in his way in passing the Administra-
tion Bill through the house. (Hear, hear.) He referred
to the important question of the practitioners. (Hear, hear,
and laughter.) He warned his honourable and learned
friend that ho would incur all those perils to which he was
himself obliged to yield when he proposed the metropolitan
registry of wills. He was compelled, chiefly by the activity
of honourable gentleme4 on the other side of the house, to