§ The Solicitor Generalhad to bring forward a series of measures for the purpose of making certain alterations in the laws relative to Real Property, but he would occupy the attention of the House for a very short time. He regretted that so little attention was paid by hon. Gentlemen, generally, to subjects of this nature, although they were of the greatest importance. In the two last Sessions of Parliament he had brought forward similar measures, but without success. Often, after he had given notice of his intention to proceed with these bills, when the day came, there had been no House. At other times, when the Order of the Day was read, it served as a signal for a general dispersion. He hoped that the attention of the House and the country would now be directed to this subject, and that the public would no longer have to complain of the conduct of their Representatives in not getting rid of the evils to which the present state of the law of property exposed all classes. Since the reign of Charles 2nd no alterations had been made in the laws relative to real property in England; and all the grievances which then existed still continued—even aggravated by the changes which had taken place during that interval in the state of society. He had now to move for leave to introduce five bills; which, if carried, would, he trusted, remove a few of the evils now experienced. The first of these was, to 656 abolish fines and recoveries, and to substitute, in place of the present system, a more simple proceeding, by virtue of which, what was now effected circuitously, and at great expense, would be done by a simple deed. He need not tell the House that the present system of fines and recoveries was a serious grievance to the landed interest. The whole machinery was unnecessary, and ought to be got rid of. At present fines and recoveries caused an enormous and unnecessary expense. Before a fine could be levied, or a recovery suffered, there were nearly twenty offices—through which proceedings were to pass; and there were danger, delay, and expense, in each. It was his intention to propose that that should be done by a simple deed which was now done by the tedious and expensive process of fine and recovery. It was true, that the plan which he proposed to substitute was not altogether approved of by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, (Mr. O'Connell) than whom there was no man more profoundly versed in the law of the country. He trusted, however, that, on consideration, that hon. and learned Member would be induced to support the Bill intended to be introduced on this subject. He hoped that by the manner in which this Bill was framed, they should get rid of a great blot on our system of law. The next Bill was, to regulate the law relative to the limitation of actions and suits relative to real property. The statutes and usages now in force upon this subject were barbarous in the extreme. The period of limitations varied in different suits, and not according to the nature of the property. The limitation was sometimes sixty years, sometimes thirty years, sometimes twenty years, and sometimes six years, and, in some cases, there was no limitation at all; for instance, in cases of advowsons, and property of that nature: and thus, families, which had been in possession of property for generations, were liable to be suddenly deprived of it. It was his intention to propose that there should be a general limitation of twenty years; and that possession for that time should confer a title. The next Bill he had to introduce had for its object the amendment of the law of inheritance. As the law now stood, the father could not inherit through his son. This appeared to be a great absurdity; but it had been 657 justified on the ground that if the law were otherwise it would be against the principle of gravitation, which was always to descend, and not to ascend. Again, a brother could not succeed another brother in an inheritance, if that brother was only of the half-blood. Thus a father might have two sons by different mothers, and leave his family estate to the elder; but the younger son would not, in the case of the death of his brother, succeed him in the possession of the property, but it would, in preference, go to a stranger, or escheat to the Crown. It was, therefore, his intention to propose that a father should be able to inherit from the son, and the half-brother from the half-brother. The next Bill which he wished to introduce had reference to the law of dower. As the law now stood, a wife was entitled, on the death of her husband, to one-third of any lands, of which he had had an estate of inheritance at any lime since the marriage. This part of the law, however, was constantly evaded or rendered useless by the modern practice of marriage settlements. But the law of dower, also, from its operation, tended to impede the sale of landed property. The practice now was, on the purchase of land, to bar dower; and if this was not done, the purchaser became liable to the payment of it. He meant to propose that the law of dower should only take effect on the land the husband died seized of. When he had first proposed this Bill in a former Parliament, he had been desirous that it should take immediate effect; but in consequence of the opinions then expressed, he had framed his Bill in such a manner as to preserve all vested rights. By way of compensation to the woman, be intended to propose that she should be entitled to dower out of equitable estates, whether the husband had entered and was actually seized or not. The last of the series of bills was, to apply to the law of curtesy. By the existing law, the husband had the whole estate of the wife, if there were a child of the marriage, but not otherwise; and if the wife had children by a former husband they were excluded from any participation in their mother's property. Now, he proposed that the husband should be entitled to curtesy, whether there was a child born of the marriage or not, and that if the wife had children by a former husband, the property of the wife should be fairly divided between 658 the issue of the former marriage, and the second husband, as tenants in common. Such were the measures which he had now to propose. He trusted that the House would agree with him, that the evils which he had pointed out admitted of an easy remedy; and that it would also support him in carrying into effect the alterations which he had suggested. There was one subject more to which he wished to allude. The House was aware that he had laboured hard to carry a measure for effecting a general registration of deeds. He had intended to have brought forward that subject once more; but as he was now connected with the Government, and some difference of opinion appeared to prevail as to the propriety of carrying such a measure, the Government were anxious to leave the question entirely to the consideration of the House, without its being brought forward as a Government measure. He had reason to believe, however, that many members of the Government approved of such a measure, and would give it their support. His hon. and learned friend, the member for Southwark, had given notice of his intention to move for leave to bring in a bill for this purpose; to such a bill he (the Solicitor General) would afford his cordial and zealous support, and it was his anxious hope and expectation that it would be carried by a large majority of the House. He was sure that such an alteration of the law as was proposed, on this subject, would be attended with the greatest public benefit, and to no class would it be more beneficial than to the landed interest. He would, therefore, move for leave to bring in a bill to abolish fines and recoveries, and for the substitution of more simple modes of assurance in lieu of them. Also, for leave to bring in a bill for the limitation of actions and suits relating to real property, and for simplifying there medies for trying the rights thereto. Also, for leave to bring in a bill for the amendment of the law relating to dower. Also, for leave to bring in a bill for the amendment of the law relating to the estate of a tenant by the curtesy of England. And, also, for leave to bring in a bill for the amendment of the law of inheritance.
Mr. O'Connellwished to know if the proposed Bills were to be applicable to Ireland as well as to England.
§ The Solicitor Generalsaid, there was 659 some difficulty in the matter; there was a difference in the statutes of limitations of the two countries.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, there certainly was a difference. He hoped, however, that these Bills would be extended to Ireland, as they would be most beneficial in their results. As to the one affecting the statutes of limitations, some express arrangement might be entered into upon the subject of them.