The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 23, 1859.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY).

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.
PRE-PAYMENT OF LETTERS.

The Duke of ARGYLL called the attention of the house
to the recent order of the Postmaster-General rendering
the pre-payment of letters compulsory, and providing
that in case of non-payment all such letters should be
opened and returned to the sender. He was of opinion that
-the new rule was in the highest degree unsatisfactory and
inexpedient. The principle was one which, if earned out
to the fullest extent, must necessarily be extended to letters
insufficiently paid, and could only lead to inconvenience.
Ho therefore wished to ask his noble friend what were
the advantages the Government supposed .would result
from the new regulation?
Lord COLCHESTER said he was glad the question had
keen asked, because it would afford him an opportunity of
explaining certain misapprehensions that had got abroad.
The greatest number of unpaid letters were, generally
speaking, valentines and:circulars sent by tradesmen puffing
their own goods, which were only productive of annoyance
to the persons to whom such letters were addressed. Since
1847 the arrangement of prepayment of '66l6nial
and registered letters had been carried out. The
present system had • long been in' 'action in
other countries, and he did. not think any great
inconvenience would arise by the prepayment of letters ;
but, on 'the contrary, when it became general much good
would arise.
The Duke of RICHMOND thought that unpaid letters
ought to be-subject to an increased• charge; but he could
not see the benefit that was expected to •arise from•the new
regulation. He trusted the noble lord the Postmaster-'`
General would reconsider his determination.• • • •

Earl GRANVILLE had the strongest .objection to the
new regulation, and he never yet heard a• single'persen ex-
press himself pleased with the new plan.• • In• the'country
on Sundays-it was impossible to obtain .postage• stamps, se
that if the writer did not happen to have them, he would
be prevented from posting his letters for many-hours. He
thought no good would result from the order.
Lord yAMPBELL said so far as he was concerned he
was in favour of the order. All the writs from
the Court of Queen's Bench were issued in

the fond of letters, signed .1-ohn, Lord Campbell,
4n and as ' was supposed that he was the sender, he
received immense number of answers, which greatly
annoyedim. (Hear, hear.) The public convenience
was, however' of much more importance, and-he entirely
concurrec. in the observations of the noble duke who had
called their attention to the matter.

The subject then dropped.
POSTAL COMMUNICATION WITH, AMERICA.
Lord STANLEY ot ALDERLEY said, in the absence
of his nohle friend Lord Clanricarde, from indisposition, he
begged tol move that the motion which stood on the paper
for that eVening in his name, relative to the communication
with AmOica via Galway, be discharged.
The Earl of DERBY, with reference to the question,
said he could not say that the Government had entered into
any distinct contract for the conveyance of the mails via
Galway; but the. Treasury was now in negotiation on the
subject with the. Galway Company, and the result, of
course, w4uld depend upon the inclination of the company
to submit, to the regulations and conditions they would be
required tb sign.
The motion was agreed to.

REGISTRATION OF TITLES. ,
Lord S 4. LEONARDS next called the attention of
heir lor4hips to the report of the Commissioners in

1857, on Registration of Titles, with reference to the sale
and purch se of land. He very much regretted that the
question as not brought forward in their lordships'
house ins ad of the other House of Parliament, because,
as the question of Reform would soon be introduced there,
he did not expect a social question like the registration of
titles would receive much attention, and that probably
it would lf?e sent up with the Reform Bill at so late a
period of the session that their lordships would not have
time to co sider it properly. ,It seemed, however, des In
k •
table thei lordships should know how the question then
stood. H believed there was nothing so circumscribed as
the law of England with respect to the sale and purchaseof estates. One of its great objects was to keep up those
families and estates, without doing. which their lordships
would not then be sitting in that assembly with that dignity
and station
r
which
became them. If they once altered the
settlement f their real estates they would find that it would
inflict agr t blow on their lordships' house. When they
heard peop talking about the abolishment of the law of
primogenit e, it ought to be recollected that it
was not orced on the . people of England, that
they had the power of making proper settlements
in their iDwn way, and therefore had no right
to complainl If that law had been abolished a century ago
they would not now be sitting in that house, and he there-;
fore trusted tthat no blow would be struck at it as it now
stood, by a4y measure which might be brought forward.
He certainly thought that some attempt should be made to
facilitate th 9 sale and transfer of land,'-by • removing the
obstruction which now existed to the sale of real estate.
A bill had been brought in by her Majesty's Government
in the House of Commons, of which he certainly did not
approve. Tile difference between real and personal estate
was, that the title to the one ought to be as stable as the
law which imposed it, whereas the ether, from its very
nature, could not be so. A man might invest his money in
the funds, and there was an engagement on the Part of the
Government! to pay him a certain sum for interest .; but
there was nothing tangible in that. If he had £l,OOO in
those funds,land wished to sell out in order to get
money, he ,could do so; but if he wished to raise
£lO,OOO on ihis estate, he could not sell a portion
of it for that purpose, but must go . and• borrow
money on mortgage. A great many schemes had been
from time to ;time brought forward with a view of facili-
tating titles to land, and certainly nothing could be more
advisable than the settlement of the question. He thought
there was great credit due to his noble and learned friend,
Lord Broughitm, for the many reforms in their laws he had
already introduced ; indeed, he was the pioneer on this im-
portant subject. He believed that the individuals who
composed thei real. property commission in 1857 were very
eminent men,' and certainly they made a very elaborate
report, which+ was followed by a bill founded on its recom-
mendations, qually elaborate. It was discussed, with
great care in , their lordships' house, but on being sent to
the House of Commons it found no favour there, and was
subsequently withdrawn. That bill was introduced by his
noble and learned friend opposite when on the woolsack,
and he (Lord St. Leonards) was, from the beginning, con-
sistently opposed to it. He was sincerely of opinion that
it would do more harm than good. It was, as he had
already said, sent to the other House of Parliament, but
they would have nothing to do with it. A royal commis-
sion was next appointed to consider the subject, and they
unanimously rejected the proposed scheme of registration,
so that at the end of 30 years, during which the question
had been discussed, it was unanimously held that a general
registration of titles would not do. The question of what
was called a Parliamentary title was not, they thought,
safe or advisable. They discarded altogether the idea that
the country was to give a man an indefeasible title to his
land, but they said that it was advisable at once to
establish a tribunal, where a man should obtain a title,
not by purchase, but by showing ho was entitled to it.
It was a question whether it was advisable to pass an
act to give a Parliamentary title. Their lordships had be-
fore them an opinion directly opposed to the view which
the Government had taken on the subject. The Real Pro-
perty Commissioners, in their report, from which the noble
and learned lord read several extracts, did not propose, nor
did the Government make it compulsory on a party to
come forward to establish a title and place himself on the
register. In that matter he agreed. The extracts he had
read from the report pointed out very clearly what the
difficulties were which stood in the way. The question
arose in granting an indefeasible title ; by whom was it to
be granted ? In the formation of a new court for that pur-
pose, they would require a great metropolitan registrar, and
also a number of local registrars, and these officers should
be able to form a judgment of title.

Lord CRANWORTH said the noble and learned lord
had risen to call attention to a report, and he was now ap-
plying himself to the provisions of a bill which was not yet
before their lordships. He would ask the noble and learned

lord whether it would not be more convenient to postpone
such a discussion till the bill, which had been brought into
the other house, was before their lordships.
Lord ST. LEONARD S said he considered he had a right
to call attention, and he had a right to suppose, for argu-
ment's sake, that such a measure as he had been referring
to was in contemplation. In such a court, if a man wished
to give an indefeasibletitle, it would take a period of 19 months
before he could succeed in that object, and they called on every
man to come forward who could oppose the title.
Clerks were known to pocket the fees they received, but as
their lordships knew, the most sacred trust may be abused
unless great care was taken to prevent it. His great object
was to assist them in elucidating a subject in which all
mankind was interested and that was why he brought it
forward.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he had taken
occasion the other night, when some remarks were made in
reference to a bill not then before their lordships, to observe
on the great inconvenience of anticipating measures which
were to come before the house at some future time ; and,
with great deference to his noble and learned friend, he
must repeat that observation on the present occasion. The
course which his noble and learned friend had adopted ap-
peared to be not only inconvenient, but irregular, for the
greater part of the noble and learned lord's observations
were directed to bills which at present were in the other
House of Parliament, and he believed that it was contrary
to their lordships' rules to, notice any such measures, and
much more to discuss them and consider them in detail.
His noble and learned friend seemed disappointed that these
measures were not introduced in the first place in their
lordships' house, and seemed to have taken this mode of
this'
house. those
measures
indemnifying himself for the loss of the opportunity which
he would
had
originallyaddressingtheir lordshipste if
introduced into
Upon this point be ivoulcl merely observe that it was
havee
e hadu

thought a proper division of labour in respect to the Go-
vernment measures that a certain portion should first be
originated in their lordships' house, and that another por-
tion should be originated in the other house ; and he
thought he had undertaken a task quite sufficient.for him
in introducing the Bankruptcy Bill and the bill !or Wind-
ing up joint-stock companies. His noble and leaned friend,
would, perhaps, as some atonement for the irregularity he
had committed, allow that the speech made that evening,
should be taken as applicable to the measures com-
mented on when they came' before their lordships,
and his noble and learned friend would then, pro•
bably give the house the benefit of his great experience
and learning, not in discussing the general principles of the
bills, but in improving the details and making then es per-
fect as possible. He did not understand whether his noble
-and learned friend stated that he was not opposed to every
system of registration. [Lord St. Leonards—l an not op-
posed to every system.] Ho was glad to find thathisnob:e.
and learned friend so expressed, himself, hecause ho had
collected from his noble and learned friend's work, and from
that valuable book lately pabliShed-7which, as it Was in-
tended, was eminently practical, and was in everybody's
hands—that his noble and learned friend was of a different
opinion. The great learning of his noble and learned friend,
and his experience in all matters connected with* the titles
to land, made him, of course, a great authority on all these
things ; but their lordships must observe that the question
of facilitating the transfer of titles and the registration of
titles was not a legal question; but was a question of expe-
diency and of social policy, on which many of- their lord-
ships were quite as competent to decide as his noble and
learned friend. With respect to the remarks made in refe-
rence to the report of 1858, he 'trusted that all their lord;
ships who took interest in the subject would read that re-
port carefully, because they would find that its recommen-
dations had been embodied in the measures proposed by the
Government. And who framed the report ? He did not
mean to say that any one lawyer could be placed on an
.equal line with his noble and learned friend, but it was
no disparagement to him to say that, taking two lawyers
who joined in that report, they might be considered to
constitlite an equal -authority with his noble _mad learned
friend. Upon the commission were his right hon. Minid
the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the
Lord Chancellor of Ireland, Sir R. Bethell, and other
lawyers of considerable eminence, together with •prac-
Heal men of business, the present Speaker, of the House
of Commons, Mr. Lowe, and a solicitor of considerable
eminence. All these persons united in the report to
which his noble and learned friend had directed their
lordships' attention, and which he trusted would be care-
fully considered before the bills to which allusion had been
made came up to that house for discussion. The giving a
Parliamentary title and the registration of that title were
two matters totally distinct, though they sometimes ap
peared to be confused together. There might be a regis-
tration of title without a Parliamentary title, and a Parlia-
mentary title without registration. If Parliament deter-
mined to follow the plan pursued in Ireland, and to give a
Parliamentary title in England, theh, as a comp:ement to
such a measure, it would be necessary to have a registra-
tion of that title. He felt a difficulty either in entering
into a discussion at the present moment or in waiving that
discussion after the speech of his noble and learned friend.
He thought it, however, infinitely better not to follow the
most inconvenient and most irregular course adopted by his
noble and learned friend. And he trusted that their lord-
ships would keep their minds perfectly free and impartial
for the consideration of this measure when it was presented
to them, and that they would not be influenced by the ob-
servations of his noble and learned friend merely because
he thought it not consistent with his duty to give an an-
swer to his noble and learned friend at the present mo-
ment. (Hear.
Lord BROUGHAM thought that, however irregular his
noble and learned friend might be in bringing the subject
forward, he was glad he did so, and he only hoped he would
have it authoritatively published for general information.
Lord C RANWORTH wished to correct his noble and
learned friend [(Lord St. Leonards) on a matter of fact.
When he (Lord Cranworth) introduced a bill in 1857 on
the subject, it was done without the slightest delay. The
bill passed their lordships' house after some discussion, but
it met with no favour in the other house, and was conse-
quently withdrawn. The object of the bill was to give an
indefeasible title by establishing a system of registration.
The subject then dropped, and their lordships adjourned,

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.
The SrzAKER. took the chair at four o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The following bills were read a second time and'ordered
to bo committed :—Falkirk Police and Improvement ;
North London, Paddington, Richmond, Hampton Court,
and Kingston Railway; Red Sea and India Telegraph
Company (No. 2) Sirhowy Tramroad ; Victoria Station
and North Western. and Great Western Junction Railway

PETITIONS.
Several petitions were presented from letter-carriers and
others employed in the post-office service in the provinces
praying to be placed on the same footing in reference to
superannuation as those employed in the London Post-
office—Against the duty on paper—ln favour of the ballot
—The admission of Dissenters to trusteeships on charitable
trusts—ln favour of the equalisation of poor-rates in the
metropolis--From Birmingham, against the detention and
opening. of letters not pre-paid, as being most uncalled-for
and unjust—From shipowners and others in the Isle of
Jersey, praying for the removal of unnecessary restrictions
on the shipping trade, &e.

persisted in makingvßv:o
important that the, general reports should .be full, and if
pec
:aannddLdiffordusJe:
the proper remedy was to dispense with, their services. •
insAftetroras
few remarks by sir them
S. No olTuni ei
Russzr,t, : •
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said all
were agreed that these reports shmild be confined as much
as possible to the subject of education. • The Governinent
Would take the matter into their consideration, and prevent
these reports in futtire from branching out into topics not
immediately connected with education. He' hoped, there-
fore, that the motion would not be pressed. •
*Some further, discussion followed, in,which Mr. Ewart,
Mr. Walpole, Sir G. Grey, and Sir A. Elton joined.
• Mr. COWPER said if the terms of the circular were ad-
hered to,' unless the reports were to be given unaltered, as a
whole, he must press his•niotioia.
Ultimately Mr. COWPER expressed himself satisfied with
Mr. Adderley's explanation, and withdrew his motion,
• MASTERS' AND OPERATIVES.
• Mr. /11,A.CRIINI‘TON ,asked: Ic2lve bring in a bill to
.
provide equitable councilsof Conciliation and arbitration
in which' to settle differences between the emplo-er and
employed: The object of the bill, he said, was to prevent
" strikes," which were as injurious to the capitalist as they
were to the labourer. ' • ' • ' -
EVIDENCE BY COMMISSION.
Mr. YOUNG asked leave to bring in a bill to provide
for taking evidence in suits and proceedings pendingbefore
tribunals in her Majesty's dominiona in places' out of the
jurisdiction of such tribunals. • 1
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL objected; but, after
seine explanations from Mt.. AYRTON, leave.was given.
RECREATION GROUNDS.

Mr. SLANEY obtained leave to bring in a bill to facili-
tate grants of land to be made near populous places, for the
use of regulated recreation of adults, and as play-grounds
for poor children.
CONVEYANCE OF VOTERS. _

Mr. COLLIER. moved for leave to bring in a bill to pro-
hibit the payment of the expenses of conveying voters to the
poll and to facilitate polling at elections. His object was,
he said, to repeal a provision in an act of last s2ssion,which,
in his opinion; was one of the.very wort laws that had been
passed in modern times. The design of that act was to get
rid of the effect of a decision of the. Howe of Lords in the
case of " Cooper v. Slade," and it went to establish si, new
and more stringent property qualification. It was said that
an elector might live far, from the poll, and not be able to
pay the expense of his conveyance thither ; but if a candi-
date was allowed to pay it, he, in fact, enfranchised the elec-
tor. Mr. Collier showed the strange results of carrying out
this principle, which, he observed, would justify
treating. If the expense of a poor voter's convey-
ance to the poll ought to be .paid, it should be
by the State. If a candidate was allowed 'to pay
this expense, voters would believe they had a vested right
in a candidate's purse ; there would be an increasing indis-
position to walk to the poll, and a door would be opened to
a vast amount of corruption. The only legitimate way in
which the State could assist voters i.;2 the exercise of the
franchise was
in this bill to
asbyappointin appointing convenient
furtheroiavenie pntopwoeilr
to ing-plac es, and
he
the Govern-
ment to establish polling-places in counties.
Sir W. FRASER said a few words in: opposition P' the
bill. •

Mr. WALPOLE said, if he recollected rightly; the deci-
sion which had been made in the House of Lords was sup-

posed to leave the law in a very unsatisfactory state. Tile
bill of the last session was introduced in the month of June,
and the second reading passed without much` discussion.
The number who voted on the 26th July, when it was dis-
cussed, was—ayes, 133 ; noes, 58. Numerous divisions
took place when the bill was in committee, and on
the 26th July the third reading was carried by a majority
of 33, the ayes being 93, and the noes 60. He thought it
right that the house should be reminded of these facts. The
hon. and learned member seemed to think that the bill ho
now proposed would have the effect of settling the question,
and that it would prevent bribery and corrupt practices.
(Hear.) When he moved the second reading he would,
however, find that he had raised a very difficult question.
He proposed to enact that ,to pay any expenses to a voter
going to the poll was in fact bribery. (Hear.) He (Mr.
Walpole) would put it to the hon. and learned gentleman
whether he was not going too fast in calling an innocent
act bribery—(hear, hear)—but he had got to prove that
paying the bona fide expenses of the voter was bribery.
(Hear, hear.) But in his bill he also proposed to allow a
candidate to carry a voter in his own carriage. Now, if a
rich candidate was permitted to do so, had he nof an ad-
vantage over the poor candidate ? (near, hear.) He was
desirous of abstaining from any discussion on that point at
the present moment. If it was thought that the act of last
session had not been sufficiently discussed, by all means
let it be done this session. The law, as he understood
it to be laid down in the House of Lords, was this :
that if a previous promise to carry a voter to the poll was
followed by subsequent payment, it might have a cor-
rupt influence on the voter. One portion of the hon. and
learned gentleman's bill, which would enable Govern-
ment to increase the number of polling places in counties,
he considered to be 'very objectionable. At present the
number of polling places could not be increased except on
the recommendation of the magistrates, upon which the
Government acted, and he doubted the propriety of trans-
ferring such a power to the Government. (Hear, hear.) He
had no objection that the bill should be introduced, in order
that the subject should be fully discussed. (Hear.)
Mr. DEASY was of opinion that Mr. Collier had under-
rated the difficulties of the question' and that the bill would
have the effect of disfranchising three-fifths of the electors
of the United Kingdom.
General THOMPSON said the payment of a voter's ex-
pense of conveyance to the poll opened a door to gross
bribery. If a man was not rich enough to carry himself to
the poll, a candidate :should not be allowed to pay for his
conveyance.
Mr. AYRTON defended the clause (proposed by him) in
the bill of last session.

Mr. COX supported the motion.
Lord HOTHAM protested against a remark of Mr. Col-
lier, that the bill of last session was passed in the absence of
the legal members of the house.
Mr. DONALD NICOLL said that the right hon. gen-
tleman the Home Secretary had referred to the second
reading of this bill having been discussed at two o'clock in
the morning. This was certainly true, because he recol-
lected that he had an amendment to the bill, which he
intended to bring forward on the occasion, but he was in-
duced, upon the representation of the right hon. gentleman,
to give up his amendment, on the ,promise that ho could
discuss its object in committee. The opportunity was, how-
ever, lost to him, and ho had not the opportunity of mark-
ing his strong opposition to the measure, as he had in-
tended. Ho thought it right to make these remarks, as
the right hon. gentleman seemed to have forgotten a por-
tion of the circumstances connected with the measure
when it was before the house last session.

Lord PALMERSTON said ho thought it right to bear
testimony to the statement of the right hon. gentleman
opposite that the bill of last session had been fully and
fairly discussed. There had been various discussions of
the measure, and the attendance of members at these dis-;
cussions of a fair average character, considering the period
of the session at which they took place ; but he would sug-
gest to his hon. and learned friend who made the proposal
that evening, that he went out of his way to lay a ground
for what he had in view. Admitting that the bill of last
session had a fair and full discussion, that was no reason
why it should not be fully considered this session. (Hear,
hear.) On the contrary, many questions of importance,
which had been fully and fairly discussed in one session had
been again brought under consideration in another session,
and a different result arrived at from that which had pre-
viously taken place. He was one of those who supported
the bill as it stands, and he owned that he had heard no-
thing to shake the belief that the course they had pursued
last session on this subject was the best that could have been
adopted. He could not bring himself to believe that the
payment of the expenses for conveying voters to the poll,
could be considered an act of bribery. He could not think
that a voter would sell his vote for a ride of five minutes in
a cab—(a laugh)—especially as ho had the same advantage
held out to him by the candidates generally. His hon. and
learned friend said it was a quibble to say that this pay-
ment of the expense of conveying parties to the poll was
not to give them money; but there was a real and essential
difference between paying money to the voter and paying
his expenses after he had polled. If the candidate was
permitted to give money to the voter to pay his own
expenses, that would open the door to fraud and
bribery. If money, passed between the voter and the
candidate, it would be impossible to prevent bribery
and corruption, and as the law existed it was only per-
mitted that the candidate should pay the expenses of
conveying the voter to the poll after it had taken place.
It would be a difficult thing to frame a measure to carry
out the object of his hon. and learned friend. The pro-
posal of his hon. and learned friend must not only pro-
hibit the candidate from conveying the voter to the poll,
but also his friends and supporters. If that were
so, they ought to frame the bill and say that every voter
should find his own conveyance. He could only say that
if he was an elector—a poor one—he should not feel very
much indebted to the hen:gentlemen who supported this
bill, and he believed that if it was carried a great many of
the poorer electors would be precluded from giving their
votes. But then it was proposed.to multiply polling places,
and to that proposition he had no objection, so far as they
provided facilities to the voter, both in counties and in
boroughs, so that no man should have a fair pretence for
saying that ho had been prevented from giving his vote
from the want of proper facilities for doing so. But at the
same time hon. gentlemen must remember that any consi-
derable multiplication of polling places must be attended
with great expense, for the rent of such places and the ex-
pense of books, and the cost of polling clerks. (Hear, hear.)
In fact, he thought that, do what they might, it was im-
possible for them to make a contested election an enjoyment
free from considerable expense. (Laughter.) He had had
the enjoyment himself; once or twice in his life: (Hear,
hear.) He did not say that he enjoyed it very much.
(Laughter.) He had no objection to no all that was reason-
able and possible to lessen expense, but he said, at the same
time, that it was wrong to stigmatise as bribery and corrup-
tion acts that were in themselves right and necessary ; and,
therefore, while he was prepared to give the bill of his hon.
and learned friend that consideration which it might re-
quire quire when it was brought in, he must say he was afraid
that it was not a step that would avail materially to stop op the
bribery and corruption against which it was professedly
aimed.
Mr. COLLIER replied, and e. lamed that his reference
to the absence of members of the egal profession when the
bill of last session was passed was merely intended to excuse
his own unavoidable absence on that occassion.
Leave was then given to bring in the bill.
BAIL IN CASES OF MANSLAUGHTER.
Mr. ADAMS obtained leave to bring in a bill to enable
coroners in England and Wales to admit to bail persons
charged with the offence of manslaughter.
TOLLS ON METROPOLITAN BRIDGES.
Mr. ALCOCK moved "That an humble address be pre-
sented to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously
pleased to direct that further instructions be given to the
Royal Commissioners appointed to consider the best means
of abolishing turnpike tolls within six miles of Charing-
cross, to the effect that they will also take into consideration
the best means of abolishing the tolls on the bridges within
the same area." He would only say, in support of the mo•
tion, that we really stultified ourselves by our conduct as
regarded our bridges. Waterloo -bridge, which was one of
the finest in.the world, had been built for 40 years, and yet
during that period it had been'shut fo the public by a toll.
Southwark-bridge, another frog bridge, in a quarter where
additional facilities for traffic were much needed, was also