The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-15 00:00:00

INLAND BONDING WAREHOUSES.

Mr. HADFIELD asked the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, whether itwas the intentionof her Majesty's Govern-
ment to establish inland bonding warehouses m. England
and other parts of the United Kingdom ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the subject was under consideration.
TITLES TO LANDED ESTATES BILL.

The house went into committee on this bill.
Mr. SLA..NEY expressed his approval of the provisions
of the bill.

Mr. MALINS expressed his strong disapprobation of
the bill, which he considered quite unnecessary. Since the
passim g of the Encumbered Estates Court Bill it appeared,
from the statement of the hon. and learned member for
Ennis, that there had been only two applications in Ireland
for judicial declaration as to title of an estate, and on inquiry
into the subject, he found that practically there was
only one such application. Therefore, reasoning from the
operation of the measure in Ireland, it would be evident
that such a bill as the present was not a requirement of the
time, and he contended that it introduced a dangerous inno-
vation into the law of the country to bind the rights of any
absent parties by judicial declaration. The insertion of
advertisements in a newspaper, and posting placards over
an estate, as was proposed, would not provide sufficient
safeguards, because it could not be expected that a man
would always be looking into such advertisements, or
employing agents to see that no placards were put up on
his estates to guard against his property being taken pos-
session of by another party without his knowledge. Th ere
was no analogy between landed property and other descrip-
tions of estates, and any attempt to' equalise its facility of
transfer would inevitably fail. It was inherently impos-
sible that they could effect the same simplicity in the trans-
fer of land as in that of a ship or similar property, and
it could not be doubted that at an events
it would be many years before the bill could
come into practical operation. If, however, the measure
did come into operation, that operation would be most mis-
chievous to the interests of the community. He arrived at
that conclusion from his practical experience, and it was his
sincere conviction, but if he could be satisfied that he was
in error, he would be only too happy to give the bill hie
support.
/tlr. HEADLAM supported the bill. The principle of
this bill was to impose on the registered owner the onus of
proving his title, and though there were difficulties to con-
tend with in reducing the principle into practice, they were
not unsurmountable. (Hear, hear.) The advantages of
the measure far exceeded any disadvantages to which it
could possibly give rise, and it would introduce a
change that would be of great benefit, namely, that they
would have an experienced conveyancer investigatfaig a
title with a greater degree of accuracy than was
provided for by the existing system. (Hear, hear.)
He contended that though the effect of the bill would
be to enhance the value of band, because it would render
the title more secure, still the benefits of its provisions wens
far outbalanced by any drawback such as that in question.
Mr. BOWYER objected to the because it proposed
to create a court whose decrees would affect persons not
before it, an anomaly which did not exist in any country in
the world. If this bill did not make a bad title a good one,
it did nothing, and a person having a bad title I
would not go the court, but rely on his possession. In
the case of a person having a good title, he
would not go to the court, so that really she
bill in nearly all cases would be inoperative. An y
person acquainted with the subject must know that=
it would be quite impossible to render the transfer of land in
England as easy and simple as other property.
Mr. HADFIELD said there were weighty objections to
the bill. 'Unless they were prepared to give parties in pos-
session full power over the land, they must continue con-
veyances. The bill would be wholly inapplicable in 19
eases out of 20 to titles in the northern counties, where a
peculiar holding prevailed, estates being conveyed on a
ground rent for ever. The profession generally were of
opinion that this bill, so far from lessening, would increase
the expense of conveyances.
Mr. WALPOLE expressed great confidence in the opi-
nion given by Mr. Malin& But the whole of his objections
amounted to this—that it was new to have a judicial decla-
ration of title, and that the bill would either be inoperative
or mischievous. But his learned friend knew that the sys-
tem of fines and recoveries was no other than a judicial de-
claration of title. The court proposa, before giving a title,
would see that it was properly established, and would hear
all the objections before declaring the title. Everybody
knew that when a title was carefully examined by a solici-
tor and a conveyances there was hardly a case, he believed
there was not a case, of such a title having been set aside.
The probability was, that where this was done by a court
the results would be equally conclusive. But it was said
the bill would be inoperative in certain cases, on account of
Parties not wishing to come to the court. But, assuming
the bill to
pass, purchasers would insist on having a judi-
cial declaration of title, so as to protect them from future
disturbance. If the bill enabled parties to keep their title
clear when it was once made clear, it was no objection to
say that it would not be generally applicable. It was said
there could bo no such similarity between land and stock,
and shares and ships, as to enable them to be dealt with in
the same way. Supposing that a colony were established
where allotments of land were given to some colonists,
shares in railroads to others, and ships to others—would
it not be a wise regulation to give all the advantage
of being able to register their titles and Pass them to
others ? An objection had been raised to the bill
on the ground that it would interfere with settle-
ments.
But did not the same conditions apply to mune,
in the funds and other investments ? The object was
to be able to deal with land without being obliged to give a
history of all the marriages, births, settlements, and every..
thing that had occurred for the last 60 years. It was for
their advantage that
you should no longer continue a sys-
tem by which it was required that, though a title was inves-
tigated this year, it should be again investigated next year,

and that you should dispense with a necessity that could no
more be required with respect to land than it was required
with respect to stock. The objections of his hon. and
learned friend were so trifling as compared with the
advantages held out by the bill that he hoped • e house
would not be carried away by the authority of h s hon. and
learned friend to refuse their assent to one of t ie greatest
improvements in the law which had been propc sed for the
last two centuries. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. DEASY said that, having practical e xet rience of the
working of the Encumbered Estates Court in Ireland for
the last ten years, he entirely approved of the principle of
the present measure, and his only objection was that it did
not follow out in extenso the measure which had been
passed last session for Ireland. The great advantage of that
measure was, that when an application had been made to
the court, the court made the sale compulsory; and the
sale being effected, that it administered tke purchase-
money. Having the power to distribute 110 money, the
court m Ireland was enabled to compensate persons on
whose rights injury had been unintentionally inflicted. He
approved of the bill as far as it went, but he believed it
would be necessary to extend it before long.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that it was ex-
tremely gratifying to him to find that the amount of criti-
cism put forward against the bill by his hon. and learned
friend (Mr. Malin) was so small, and that the objections
made were so easily answered. His hon. and learned friend
must have entirely forgotten the existence for ten years of
the Encumbered Estates Court in Ireland when he said
that this bill was founded on an entirely new principle.
His honourable and learned friend remarked that only
two applications had been made since the passing of the
act of last session for indefeasible titles. Considering
that the court had to frame new rules to carry out the act,
and considering the time required to bring a title before the
court, his surprise was that even two were ready in time to
have a declaration of title made. His hon. and learned friend
accused him of departing from the repprt of the commis-
sioners. He believed that if the commissioners had before
their minds what occurred since the report was made—that
they would go as far as they had in respect to Ireland—they
would not have been indisposed to go as far as he did in the
first of these bills. The second bill was recommended by
them. The bill did not apply to copyholds. No, because
copyholds couldbe registered on the cuurt roll, and although
that might not be the best system, it was not desirable to
interfere with it. It did not apply to settled estates. Not to
settled estates which were not intended to be sold, but where
there were trustees with a power of sale it would enable them
to come forward to establish a title, and having established a
title; they might, by virtue of their powers of sale, sell any
part of the estate and give an indefeasible title. It did not
apply to leaseholders. No, because it was thought better to
deal first with the fee-simple estates. But if in practice the
measure prove successful, as he hoped it would, he trusted
that it would be extended to leaseholds. (Hear.) His hon.
and learned friend said they ran a risk of injuring absent
parties if they gave an indefeasible title. That objection had
been considered when they were framing the measure. His
hon. and learned friend referred to a conveyancer who said
that in his experience there were very few cases in which the
sale of an estate was ultimately prevented in consequence of
a defective title. Well, if that was the case when the transac-
tion was conducted by a private conveyancer, was there not
greater security for absent parties when so much publicity
was given as would be given under this bill ? In addition to
this, the bill allowed any person who thought he had a good
interest in an estate, however evanescent, to put a caution
on the books of the court, which would ensure him a notice
when an application was made to the court. His hon. and
learned friend said, and said truly, that there was a differ-
ence between landed estate and railways or stock. But what
his hon. and learned friend had to prove was, not that they
were dissimilar, but that they could not be transferred
by one and the same means. (Hear, hear.) His hon.
and learned friend mistook the effect of the caution. No
purchaser who saw a caution on the books would be obliged
to look at the deeds. All that he would require was that the
caution should be removed, and the moment it was taken off
the estate could be transferred. His hon. and learned friend
had recourse to what were known as arguments of terror.
He said that if there was a flaw in a title it would be exposed
before the public, if he went to have it registered. But if
a person sold an estate now with a defective title he was
liable to be made a party in a suit for specific performance,
and it was published to all the world. But was a man who
had a good title to be refused a declaration by the Court
because another person had a bad title, as to which such a
declaration could not be given ? His hon. and learned friend
said that if the bill passed the owners of land would use up
their eyes in reading the advertisements. There was very
' little fear of that, for notice would be brought home to the
persons interested, and if any persons were afraid of being
overlooked they could register a caution, which would
insure notice being given to them. His hon. friend the
member for Newcastle asked how the bill would affect
mineral property. Of course it would be the first duty of
the Court to consider the title to the property underground
as well as to that above ground. The hon. member for
Sheffield asked how the bill proposed to deal with property
subject to fee-farm rents. The answer was that any person
who came for a declaration of title would have it in a form
stating that he was not the proprietor of the land, but of
the land subject to a fee-farm rent. He was aware that one
section of solicitors had not only expressed some doubts
about the bill, but published their opinions in a paper which
he supposed had reached the hands of many hon. gentlemen.
But still a greaternumber ofsolicitors throughout the country
—and gentlemen of large practice—expressed their approval
of the principle of the bill. A deputation of the Incorporated
Law Society of London, comprising some of the most eminent
solicitors of England, were good enough to say to him that
their council considered the bill, and approved of its gene-
ral principle, and they further gave him permission to state
that if the House of Commons approved of the bill, its
effect on their professional emoluments should not stand in
the way of its passing. (Hear, hear.) That was very
creditable to these honourable men. He believed that the
upright and honourable manner in which the transfer of
estates had been conducted by the country solicitors was
the reason why the evil of the existing system was not
more severely felt. But the Legislature adopted the worst
plan for remunerating the solicitors, because; by requiring
that they should be paid for the length and cumbrousness
of the work, they supplied a motive to them to make the
proceedings of a transfer as cumbrous, as intricate, and as
difficult as possible. Such an anomaly having grown out
of the system itself it was not surprising to find objections
to any alterations which would affect their profits. He
should be sorry to find that a measure, however useful to
the public, should have an injurious effect on them, but he
believed the increase of business under the bill would fully
compensate the solicitors. But he made provision in the
bill that for the business done in the registration of land
solicitors should in future be paid, not on the principle of
the length or cumbrousness of the proceedings, but on the
principle of ad valorem. He thought that principle would
be more sound and more safe than the principle heretofore
adopted. (Hear, hear.) They did not want what was re-
quired in Ireland ten years ago, namely, a ready mode of
getting rid of encumbered estates. The hon. member for
Cork said he would not object to giving this power of
granting a title in case of an enforced sale, as the money
would remain in- court to answer all claims,; but the bill
provided for an equivalent security, as there was a provi-
sion that the indefeasible title should not be granted until
after a certain time. The hon. and learned members for
Wallingford and for Sheffield had declared the measure
would not succeed. Of course it was impossible to predi-
cate the result, but anticipations of that sort were seldom
realised, and whatever might be the result they had the
satisfaction of knowing that they were following a course
which had already proved successful.
Lord J. RUSSELL was not one of those who appre-
hended the danger of property being sold in the absence of
the true owners. He believed the statement of the right
hon. member for the University of Cambridge was correct,
that, in general titles were good • he would, however, draw
a different inference from that drawn by the Solicitor-Gene-
ral ; he considered the result would be that very few appli-
cations would be made to the new court. He would wish to
know on what grounds it had been determined to erect a
new court, with a staff of judges ; a constant complaint of
late years had been the number of conflictinc, jurisdictions,
but it was now proposed to add a new court.° He thought
the business might at first have been entrusted to the Court
of Chancery, or some of the Courts in Westminster-hall ;
if after two or three years it was found the business was too
great for the existing courts, the then Attorney or Solicitor-
General might fairly come down and ask the house to esta-
blish a new court.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL had endeavoured to
answer all the objections made by previous speakers, but he
had not anticipated that of the noble lord ; it was true that
after a certain delay and expense most titles were esta-
blished, but the evil was, that when it was necessary to
deal with the title again the same expense had to be in-
curred. Of course it was a matter of speculation what the
amount of business in the new court would be, but when he
introduced the bill he had endeavoured to show why it was
necessary to establish a court. The judges of the Court of
Chancery were fully occupied in deciding litigious matters,
and could not devote themselves to the investigation of
titles. The matter had been fully investigated by a com-
mittee with reference to the Irish court, and the report was
unanimous in favour of retaining a distinct court. The
proposed salary was the lowest to obtain the service of com-
petent persons as judges, or rather as judicial conveyancers,
which would be a more appropriate-name for them.
Sir E. PERRY admitted that it was necessary to esta-
blish a new court, the evidence before the committee clearly
showing that none of the existing courts could discharge the
new duties. The Master of the Rolls, in his evidence,
stated it would be impossible for any of the equity judges
to discharge the duties.
Mr. MALINS said the right hon. member for the Uni-
versity of Cambridge had complained that his arguments
against the bill were weak. That might be ; but they were
the same as those urged in the report of the commission
signed by the right hon. gentleman. The right hon. gen-
tleman said the idea of barring claimants had been acted on
for years, and was as old as the system of making titles by fine
and non-claim. That system was found so iniquitous that it
'was abolished in 1834. [Mr. WALPOLE : Did any person
ever lose an estate under it ?) He knew of several in his
own experience. The report of the commission recommended
the establishment ofjudicial conveyancers, who would report
on ft title. No one, however, was to be precluded by their
repo:-t, but the state was for a small payment to guarantee
ancasye
of Ireland,titlethey apbpurotvitedwaosf.toßo
soon
netno jucebdadge b.
in
eensmomuedetwtoenthtye
years they would be able to decide how the system had
worked. With observationsthheLsoLehsaadidmitadmei. he begged to withdraw
theisfmr.oteioAnßwphwicht
gentle sgahidttbheats.tuhp
the hon. and learned ):?:wereed
from
no wh a
t
settle-
ments of money in the funds;' whereas it was very common
for a man to provide for his wife
and children from that
source, and in doing so he encountered none of the difficulties
which were connected with landed property. Why should
not the faoilities in the case of the public stocks. be extended
to land ? To say that there were differences between the two
was not a sufficient answer, there having
been in operation
for ten years .a court
w4lcienrehtstdealt with landed property
with signal success. was £20,000,000 had been
t have been
invested which would not have d invested, and the act
under which this was done one more than almost any
other act that had been passed to regenerate society in one
part of the kingdom -
About five years since a new system
kind of property which in-
volved remarkably Lainutfawas
adopted with regard to ;a ,
details, and now ships
had been could be
conveyed or mortgaged at a very ?mallexPense. t
said that the colonists would nit nnately adoptthe system
which prevailed here with regard to landed estates. No
• e habit of
doubt, like themselves, the colonists were in the
but that
•and faunmes ;colony
making provision for -.wives
tke institutions
would indeed be a curio,:ity whose love far
t lf to all
of the mother country wo..ild lead it to suhjeot
le•jeed to real
the pernlezities and embarrb. ssments which att •lis
was a growing
property in England. (Hear, -tear.) There
and a very natural desire among' all classes in this country
who by industry and economy wei:e enabled to save money
to invest in landed property, and lat;d could not be set free
for that purpose till parliament had p,.-ovided some means
by which, like funded and other property, it might pass
easily from hand to hand. He congratulated the Solicitor-
General on having proposed what he believed would prove
one of the greatest and most beneficial changes ever made
in this country.
Clauses 1 to 3 were then agreed to.
In reply to Mr. HADFIELD
The S LICITOR-GENghou, said held not propose