Commons Sitting of 2 April 1862

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o Judgments Law Amendment (Ireland); Debentures on Land (Ireland).
2o Sir John Soane's Museum.

MARRIAGES (IRELAND) BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid, he should oppose the Motion. It was to be regretted that a Bill of so much importance as regarded the social peace and happiness of the people of Ireland, had been allowed to be read a second time without any discussion. Nothing but the strongest sense of duty could have induced him to oppose a measure to which his hon. and learned
  412
  Friend (Sir Hugh Cairns) had devoted so much time and trouble; but the more he looked into the Bill, the more he disapproved of it. He had intended to move that it be referred to a Committee upstairs; but the more he considered the Bill, the more he was convinced that his objections to it could not be removed by simple, modifications. The existing Marriage Act for Ireland was not of very old date, and with much trouble had been brought into working order; and now that that object had been achieved a measure was brought forward, proposing to upset the whole system. With regard to mixed marriages, the Bill, like the present law, made their celebration a felony on the part of the priest, unless certain prescribed forms were adhered to, but no security was afforded that those forms would be observed; and no due precaution was taken to prevent the marriage of two persons, minors perhaps, who might profess to be Roman Catholic for the purpose of getting married by a priest, and on the next day might return to their former profession as Protestants. He saw no reason why the marriage law in operation in England, against which he had heard no complaint, should not be extended to Ireland. Such a proposal, he should contend, would be a much better proposal than that of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The Bill, while professing to simplify the marriage law of Ireland, established four different codes of marriage law applicable to marriages of persons of different persuasions. The whole subject was one of great importance, and therefore he had thought it necessary to give an opportunity to Irish Members to express their opinions on its principle. So far from its being an improvement of the law, it would be a blemish as respected Roman Catholics, whereas, as far as regarded Protestants it would only accumulate difficulties in the way of their marriage in Ireland.
  Amendment proposed,
  "To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. BAGWELLsaid, he thought that little good would result from referring the Bill to a Select Committee, seeing that the whole question of Irish marriage law was

  413
  considered in a Select Committee last year on the registration of births, deaths, and marriages in Ireland. The Bill would create a system in Ireland, which would be generally acceptable to the people, and there was no defect in it which could not be cured by a discussion in Committee of the Whole House.
  MR. GEORGEobserved, that Her Majesty's Government had been wanting in their duty in not taking up a Bill of so much importance as a Government measure. If the recommendation of the Select Committee of last year that duplicate registries of marriages should be kept, one at the place of marriage and the other at the Registrar General's in Dublin, were adopted, then there would exist that uniform registration of marriages which had so long been desired in Ireland. He would not, of course, resist the Motion for going into Committee on the Bill; but he was bound to say that, as it stood, it did not carry into effect the resolution at which the Committee upstairs had arrived with respect to the mode of registration by a large majority, and would fall very far short of the expectations of the community at large.
  MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he fully concurred with the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken in the opinion that the Government had failed in their duty in not dealing with the question. He was prepared to give the right hon. Baronet the present Chief Secretary for Ireland credit for the best intentions; but he must at the same time say that he had, in framing the measures which he had submitted to Parliament in the present Session, made choice of the very worst system on which they could be based—owing, no doubt, to his want of experience of the country and of legislation. It was held out to the English public and the world that Ireland had a bonâ fide representation in that House; but he denied the fact. They were generally governed by inexperienced gentlemen, holding the office of Irish Secretary, who, having set their foot in Ireland for a fortnight, fancied they knew more of the country than those who had passed their whole lives in it. He might be asked why, under such circumstances, he remained in the House at all? His only reply was, that at that moment it suited his family and personal convenience. So far as the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Belfast was concerned, he did not wish to oppose it, though it was not one which he could altogether approve. In
  414
  accordance with the recommendations of the Committee, he was for a general register by one set of officers, and not for legislating piecemeal, and having marriages registered by one set of officers, and births and deaths by another. His view was that births, deaths, and marriages should be registered by the clergy of the different denominations. He was disposed to have proposed the omission from the Bill of the registration of Roman Catholic marriages; but that would probably be jumping out of the frying-pan into the fire, by handing over the registration of those marriages to the pet police of the right hon. Gentleman.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he thought they might discuss the clauses of the Bill in Committee with advantage, and thus succeed in passing a measure which would be acceptable and useful in Ireland. The hon. and learned Member, who, as usual, imported the police into the question under discussion, was mistaken in supposing the Government had been wanting in their duty in not proposing a measure dealing with it. The facts of the case were that the Bill had been brought in early in the Session by the hon. and learned Member for Belfast, when he himself had intimated that it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill on the subject; that Bill, out of respect for the hon. and learned Member for Belfast, he proposed not to lay on the table until the measure of which he had given notice had been produced. That being so, the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded to a second reading, and met with such universal approval that nobody opposed it; and he could not help thinking that it would not, under those circumstances, be well for the Government to interfere with the views of the Irish Members. The remarks, therefore, which had been made by the hon. and learned Member for Cork as to the inexperience of Irish Secretaries were not very appropriate on the present occasion, seeing that he himself, in the course he took, had merely deferred to a distinguished Irish Member, and consented to leave the matter in his hands. Of that Bill itself he must say that he thought some of its provisions required very considerable amendment. It would, for instance, he thought, be impossible to work with advantage a system in accordance with which the clergy of all denominations of Christians in Ireland—of which he believed there were no less than sixtyfour—should be called upon immediately to send a register to the Registrar General

  415
  in Dublin. There was, at the same time, no reason why the Bill might not be so improved in Committee as to render it a measure of great utility to Ireland.
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, if he thought that when they went into Committee upon the Bill there was the slightest chance of their labours ending in a satisfactory manner, he would readily assent to the Motion; but it was impossible that the Committee could adopt the Bill as it now stood. The hon. and learned Member for Belfast had done what the House had objected to last Session, namely, mixed up in his Bill two things which were entirely distinct—the religious celebration of marriages, and the registration of the evidence of marriages. It was admitted on all hands that numerous important alterations would have to be made in the Bill; but as these had not been printed, it would be utterly futile to go into Committee on the present occasion. He, however, thought that it would be discourteous to the hon. and learned Member to oppose the Motion, and he would suggest that they should go into Committee pro formâ, and postpone the discussion upon the clauses until after Easter.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that he would admit that the law of marriage in any country, but more especially in a country in which considerable differences in religious belief prevailed, was a subject with which it was most difficult to deal satisfactorily. In dealing with it, the late Government had proposed to embody their views in one measure, which he held was the right course to adopt; and when called upon to consider the matter in his capacity of law officer of the Crown, he had come to the conclusion that it was expedient to procure, if possible, a registration of the fact of marriage, and that by attaining that end the difficulties which stood in the way of Roman Catholics establishing their pedigrees or their right to property in the courts of law would be removed. The attempt, he might observe, was constantly made to put in evidence the certificate of the Roman Catholic priest as proof of the marriage; but that was worth nothing, inasmuch as no Act of Parliament imposed upon him the duty in that respect which was imposed on clergymen of the Established Church. In the case of Malone and O'Connor, for instance, the decision was that the certificate of the priest could not be received as legal proof. Now, as the Roman Catholics formed a large portion of the community in Ireland, it was
  416
  but fair that their rights should be secured in like manner as those of other people. Well, the late Government, as he had already said— and it should be borne in mind that they had law officers in the House— introduced a Bill with a view to meet the difficulties of the case, while another, based on the same principle, had been introduced by the right hon. gentleman the Member for the city of Oxford (Mr. Cardwell); and these two measures having been before the House, the subject was referred to a Committee. Nothing could be more fair or impartial than the manner in which the investigation of the Committee. —which was presided over by the right hon. Gentleman, who was one of those short lived Chief Secretaries for Ireland who came and went like birds of passage—was conducted. Well, they proposed a Resolution in accordance with which the desirability of allowing a certificate to be sent up by the parish priest at once to the Registrar General in Dublin, and giving him a small gratuity for doing so, instead of establishing an expensive machinery for the purpose, was advocated. That Resolution had been passed, and when Irish Members agreed in regard to legislation upon local affairs, their opinions ought to be respected, and it would be utterly impossible for the Government to conduct the government of Ireland if they did so in violation of those opinions. It was not, however, he would admit, fair to throw the blame of what had since taken place with respect to it on the right hon. Baronet the present Chief Secretary, or to find fault with him for not having done that which his predecessor ought to have accomplished. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had not the assistance of the Irish law officers, and, though he did the best he could, it would be hardly fair to ask him to take up such a subject as that under consideration. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford, as Chairman of the Committee, ought to have proceeded with the Bill, but he left his office and left his Bill. If Ireland was to have a system of registration at all, the hon. and learned Member for Belfast deserved the thanks of the House for taking up the clauses as recommended by the Committee of last Session, and incorporating them in his Bill. It was, no doubt, extremely difficult for a private Member to deal with so large and important a question as the marriage law of Ireland, but his hon. and learned Friend represented a large constituency. His hon. and learned Friend had been blamed for attempting to provide for

  417
  each denomination of Christians. It would be his duty in Committee to take care that no additional difficulty should be cast upon the Established Church in the celebration of marriages. If the Presbyterians were satisfied, and if the rights of the Established Church were properly respected, there would only remain the question touching the Roman Catholics. He agreed that the clauses dealing with mixed marriages would require mature consideration in Committee. Meanwhile, he might remark that the proposal in the Bill lo enable a parish priest to marry a person not of his own persuasion was accompanied by the provision that the priest could celebrate such a marriage only in the way prescribed by the Act. If that provision should be thought not sufficient to guard against mischief, it would be their duty to amend it in Committee. It was quite clear that the Irish Administration could do nothing; and therefore he thought the House could not do better, while attending to all the suggestions that could be made, than endeavour to pass the Bill of his hon. and learned Friend.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he was sure that the House had only one desire on the subject—to take the first opportunity of getting rid of a difficulty which had been felt in Ireland ever since the establishment in England of a system of registration of births, deaths, and marriages, twenty-five years ago. He gave the fullest credit to the Government of the Earl of Derby for their attempt to overcome that difficulty. The present Administration had also endeavoured to settle the question. When he was Chief Secretary, he introduced a Bill for the establishment of a uniform system of registration. At the request of the Irish Members that Bill was referred to a Select Committee, though he objected to that course, because he saw that it would be fatal to the Bill passing during the session. For the first time in the history of Ireland the Committee appointed to consider it exhibited a perfect concurrence of opinion among all religious denominations that there should be established a registration of marriages in Ireland. The Committee did not go into the registration of births and deaths, but it really solved the whole question, because the only difficulty was about the registration of marriages. That was a golden moment for settling the question, but it was near the close of the session, and just as the Committee was about to terminate its labours, a Resolution was moved in the House
  418
  which gave to the clergy of the different denominations in Ireland, who were to make the entries in the register, a remuneration five times the amount paid to the clergy in England and Scotland for the performance of a similar duty; and whereas the remuneration in England and Scotland was paid from local rates, it was proposed in the ease of Ireland to place the charge upon the Consolidated Fund. No Member of the Government could have ventured to recommend to the House the adoption of such a proposition, when it was not intended to extend the same advantage to England and Scotland, and, as most of the Irish Members left town soon afterwards, he thought it would not be right to proceed with his Bill in their absence. Such was the reason why he withdrew the measure at the end of last Session. The House was now asked to consider a Bill dealing with the whole subject of the law of marriage in Ireland. That law required amendment in three particulars, two of which were of great importance, and all of which were dealt with in the present Bill. One was, that there was no register of marriages in Ireland. The second was, that as the law now stood, and as no one wished to perpetuate it, a marriage celebrated by a Roman Catholic priest between two persons, one of whom was and the other was not a Roman Catholic, was invalid, and the priest who celebrated it was guilty of felony. It was also proposed by the Government last session to remedy that evil, and, with the assistance of the late Lord Campbell, a Bill for that purpose was introduced and passed through the House of Lords. But just as that Bill was about to approach the House of Commons the hon. and learned Member for Belfast moved the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the law of marriage in Ireland. To that Motion, which was seconded in an eloquent speech by the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University, the Government gave willing assent, and the Bill altering the law of marriage, which they had prepared and were ready to proceed with, was suspended pending the sittings of the Committee. It happened, however, that the Committee was not appointed at all; and he understood that the hon. and learned Member; for Belfast, after communications with the I Irish Members, which his great influence with them and his knowledge of Ireland entitled him to hold, thought the better

  419
  course would be to introduce a Bill on the subject at once. The third particular in which the existing law was defective, though not of general interest, was of considerable importance to certain classes of Protestant Dissenters in Ireland, who felt that their interests were overlooked when Parliament passed the Irish Marriage Act in 1844. Upon all the three points a remedy was proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Belfast; and, since the subject had fallen into such good hands, it would not have been decorous on the part of the Government not to have given it a fair and candid consideration, and, as far as possible, their support, and to have insisted upon introducing a measure of their own. He contended that the Government had taken the course which it was their duty to pursue. The hon. and learned Member for Belfast had incorporated in his Bill precisely those registration clauses to which he was able last session to give his assent; but not that giving fivefold remuneration to the clergyman who made the registrations, having left it to the House to say what, in its wisdom, was the proper remuneration. He hoped the House would not dispute as to who was to have the credit of carrying a measure on that important subject. Let them rather rejoice that there was a prospect, by the concurrence of all parties, of remedying that which had long been a defect in Irish legislation— namely, the want of some certain means of establishing by evidence the legitimacy of children and the right of inheritance.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he hoped the House, without indulging in further discussion, would go into Committee at once. Not a single objection had been urged against the Bill which might not be disposed of in Committee.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, the reason given why the House should not go into Committee —that there were various Amendments to be made in the Bill—was a very singular one. He should not have been surprised to find that a Bill consisting of between 100 and 200 clauses, contained a great deal which might be amended in Committee; but what were the facts? The Bill was prepared so far back as July last year; it was introduced at the very commencement of the present Session, no attempt had been made to hurry it forward; the second reading was unopposed, and up to that day not a single Amendment had been put upon the paper. He had every reason for believ-
  420
  ing that no violent opposition would be offered to the details; but the fact that Amendments might be proposed was certainly no reason for not going into Committee. Several objections had for the first time been urged against the Bill. One was, that there ought to be established in Ireland a comprehensive, simple, and uniform scheme, applicable to all denominations and all parts of the country alike. In the justice of that observation, as far as theory was concerned, he entirely concurred. He agreed that in the matter of a contract which was one of the most important into which a person could enter, there ought, if possible, to be a uniform system adopted by the State as regarded publicity and notice, leaving each denomination to super add its own religious forms. But, unfortunately, he could not legislate upon that principle, nor did he believe that any Government in the present day could do so. If it could be done, it ought to be done by the Government; and if done at all, it ought to be done for the whole three kingdoms together. To the establishment of such a system in Ireland there were many insuperable practical difficulties. The Established Church had a system of licensing through the medium of surrogates, which prevailed not merely in Ireland, but also in England; and was it to be expected that the members of the Church would surrender the whole of their privileges in order to merge themselves in the general body of the community? Some members of the Irish Church, it was true, had shown themselves willing to do so, but it was one of the fundamental articles of the Union between England and Ireland that the practices of the Church in both countries should be the same; and, consequently, Parliament could not touch the practice with respect to licensing in Ireland without altering it in England also So with regard to the Presbyterians. Their system of licensing was established in 1845, and they were satisfied with it in the main. It would be vain to ask them to abandon it. The Roman Catholics also had a system with respect to the law of marriage between Roman Catholics alone which they would object to see changed. He maintained, then, that if the three most powerful Churches in Ireland were to combine, as they would be sure to do, it would be utterly impossible for any Government, far less any independent Member, to carry a comprehensive, simple, and

  421
  uniform scheme in the face of such an opposition.
  Another objection was, that the Bill; abolished the marriage law in Ireland, and substituted a different code for it. The Bill did nothing of the kind. It contained a great many clauses, but most of them were mere re-enactments of the old law, and the new sections were comparatively few in number. The hon. Member for Dublin City (Sir E. Grogan) had said that the marriage law was working in a satisfactory manner, and should not be interfered with. He did not think that statement would be seconded by any hon. Member in the House. For years past the cry had been that the marriage law in Ireland was in an unsatisfactory state, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had just pointed out the particulars in which it was most defective, and with which the present Bill at tempted to deal. He admitted that the marriage law as carried out under the superintendence of Dr. Ratcliffe worked satisfactorily, but that portion of the law related only to the Established Church, and with it he did not propose to interfere in the least.
  The next objection was one which had been made elsewhere—that the Bill laid down a different measure of law for different denominations. That objection arose from a superficial observation of the character and nature of the Bill, which did not propose to do anything of the kind. He had already stated that the Established Church and the Presbyterians had systems of their own by which two checks were provided—first, the check of the person who granted the licence, and then the check of the clergyman who celebrated the marriage. But when the Presbyterians obtained their system, in 1845, Parliament entirely overlooked the fact that it left all other bodies of Protestant Dissenters, which up to that time had enjoyed free; action in regard to the celebration of marriages, without any provision at all, throwing them into the office of the registrar, obliging the registrar to be present at the marriage, and leading to the certificate being signed and pleaded as if the marriage were celebrated by the registrar instead of a minister. It was mainly to remedy that: grievance—a grievance which was loudly complained of by the Protestant Dissenters—that he had introduced the present bill, and the way in which he proposed to deal with it might be briefly explained. The
  422
  Methodists had a central body—the Conference—and he proposed to put them upon precisely the same footing as the Presbyterians; but the various bodies of Congregationalists—Independents, and others—having no central authority, making it a matter of boast that every congregation was a separate Church, and that there was no necessary connection between one congregation and another, could not, without infringing their principles, appoint a licenser for the whole body. What the Bill proposed was, that the Congregationalists should give their notices to the district registrars, just as they would give them to the licenser if they had one; that they should get certificates of the notices having been received and duly published by the registrars; and that then they should be in the same position in which the Presbyterians and the Methodists were when they had given their notices to the licensing minister, and got his certificate. It would thus be seen that the variety was only in name, and that in substance the systems were the same. Coming to a different subject, he might mention that only one change was introduced in reference to marriages in the Established Church—namely, a residence of fourteen days, thereby adopting the provision in the Scotch Act. With regard to the provision repealing the Act of George II., the hon. Member for Dublin was of opinion that the result would be that the Roman Catholic priest would be allowed to marry Protestants; but that was a misapprehension of his hon. Friend. He (Sir Hugh Cairns) would be as much averse as any one to such legislation; but as he understood the provision in the Bill it would not have that effect. With respect to the registration clauses, he was quite ready to surrender them to the Government if it should be thought desirable to pass them as a separate measure. If the House went into Committee, as he hoped they would, he should propose to take only the clauses up to 44, which were re-enactments of the existing law, and postpone the new clauses till after Easter.
  MR. LEFROYsaid, when he came into the House that morning he was disposed to support the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Dublin; but after hearing the observations of his right hon. and learned Colleague (Mr. Whiteside) and the hon. and learned Member for Belfast, he should certainly regret that any step should be taken which would delay the

  423
  measure going into Committee. He, however, thought it would he much more desirable if the Bill were confined alone to the question of registration, and had not attempted to deal with the other difficulties arising out of the present marriage law in Ireland. He hoped that they would succeed in carrying a useful Bill through Parliament with good feeling and good temper, and that it would prove beneficial to Ireland.
  SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  House in Committee.
  Clauses 1 to 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Registrar General to appoint Clerks).
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he would move the insertion of the words "the Lord Lieutenant, or Registrar General subject to the approval of the Lord Lieutenant."
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSobserved, that in practice the Registrar General appointed subject to the approval of the Lord Lieutenant, but he had not the least objection to the words proposed being introduced.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he thought it was better to leave to the Registrar General the appointment of the Clerks.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 9 postponed.
  Clauses 10 to 18 agreed to.
  Clause 19 (Banns to be published on three Sundays).
  SIR ROBERT PEELsuggested the introduction of the word "holidays."
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the clause had better stand as at present, otherwise banns might be published on only one Sunday and two saints' days immediately following, so that a marriage might he celebrated within one week, instead of, as the intention was, in three weeks.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 20 to 26 agreed to.
  Clause 27 (Hours within which Marriages may be solemnized).
  MR. WHITESIDEinquired what was the restricted time in the Church in England?
  SIR ROBERT PEELreplied, that the hours were eight to twelve; but he approved of the clause in the present Bill, which extended the time till two.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he was quite satisfied to follow the English example.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he thought the penalty of felony for celebrating a marriage beyond the prescribed time was unnecessarily severe.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: The clause says "wilfully."
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 28 to 43 were also agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report progress; to sit again Wednesday 14 th May.

LAW OF PROPERTY AMENDMENT BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  Clause 1 (Implied or constructive Notice as affecting Purchasers for value and Mortgagees).
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for Reading (Sir F. Goldsmid) had given notice of a Motion for the omission of the clause; and, certainly, rather than that it should pass in its present shape it would be better to expunge it altogether. The clause as it stood would disturb and unsettle the existing state of the law regarding constructive notice, which was pretty well understood by those who had to investigate the title to property. It proposed to enact that where a purchaser for valuable consideration or a mortgagee had not direct notice of any instrument or incumbrance affecting the title to the property purchased, or taken in mortgage, but was sought to be charged by constructive notice, he should not he made liable by reason of any such instrument or incumbrance unless the court before which the question was raised should he of opinion that the conduct of such purchaser or mortgagee amounted to fraud, or unless the circumstances of the case were such as to satisfy the court not only that he might have acquired, but that in the exercise of ordinary care and diligence he ought to have acquired, the knowledge with which it was sought to affect him. Until there had been a judicial decision upon the words of the clause, nobody could tell what legal effect they would have; and he thought the Committee ought to pause before it substituted so vague a rule for principles already well known and defined. Moreover, the clause tended to favour the wrong party;

  425
  for in a case in which the question might be, which of two innocent parties should suffer from the fraud of a third, the operation of the clause might be to favour the more negligent at the expense of one who had used greater diligence, and was also prior in time. This did not seem to him to be a change in the right direction. He had, therefore, himself prepared an Amendment which, while it would mitigate the harshness of the present rule of constructive notice, would be free from the objections to which the clause as it stood was liable. He should propose that the latter part of the clause, beginning at the tenth line, should be omitted, in order to substitute other words protecting the purchaser or mortgagee from all liability on the ground of constructive notice of documents of which he knew nothing except from their being imperfectly recited in other instruments, unless the production of the documents so recited ought to have been required for the purpose of showing the title of the vendor or mortgagor.
  MR. MALINSremarked, that upon so abstruse a subject it would be impossible to discuss the Amendment unless it were printed.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he was willing to take any course the House might desire as to printing the Amendment; but unless the proposition were acceded to, he should feel bound to oppose the clause altogether.
  SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he could not agree that the law upon the subject was at all settled, and, even if it could be called settled, that it was not open to great improvement. Neither could he agree that the clause left any doubt as to what should be the real test of notice. At present, if a person purchased an estate, and his solicitor took all possible pains to investigate the title by laying the deeds before a conveyancer, who reported them to be satisfactory, and after the completion of the purchase it appeared that a certain prior transaction mentioned in the deeds was untruly described—money advanced not having been repaid as stated—the mention of that transaction was held to be constructive notice. It was to remedy that injustice that the Bill was framed. The proposed measure, or one similar, had passed three times the House of Lords. and was recommended by the highest legal authorities in that House. He did not believe that the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Solicitor General would effect any improvement in the law,
  426
  and that the public interest would he best served by passing the Bill as it came from the House of Lords. The principle of the clause was to remedy an injustice to which innocent purchasers were liable, and he could not see what better test of notice could be provided than was afforded by the words of the clause.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDstated, that he should oppose the passing of the clause unless the proposed Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend were assented to. High authorities in the House of Lords having been referred to, it might be well to consider how the House of Commons had dealt with preceding clauses of a similar nature. In I860 a clause to the same effect was objected to by the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary of War, Mr. Deasy, and others; and the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge, who had charge of the Bill, requested that the clause might pass pro formâ, undertaking to consult, the Attorney General. The clause was struck out without further observation, and the inference was that the opinions of the Attorney General were unfavourable. Last year the same clause in substance came down in a separate Bill from the Lords, and that Bill was reported against by a Select Committee. That Committee was not obliged to reject the Bill; but it might have amended it if it had considered it desirable to do so. The present Bill would have the effect of unsettling the law, and rendering it more obscure. Lord Cranworth had laid it down, and Lord St. Leonards had adopted the doctrine, that the question of notice was not whether the purchaser might have obtained knowledge, but whether his not obtaining it was an act of gross and culpable negligence. That decision was intelligible, but this clause would only create difficulty and uncertainty by using other words—"in the exercise of ordinary care and diligence." The law was now defined, but the Bill would unsettle it, and give rise to litigation from a belief that a different rule had been sanctioned by Parliament.
  MR. MACDONOGHsaid, the Bill came down from the House of Lords commended by the highest authority. The object of the Bill was to protect purchasers for valuable consideration, and to produce such a Bill Lord St. Leonards said had been the object of his life. The most serious evil and inconvenience with which this Bill proposes to deal is that of constructive notice. It was not enough that courts of equity had postponed the registered to the

  427
  unregistered deed—that they have fixed an innocent person with the consequences of actual notice to an agent, who deceives that innocent principal, but they have held an innocent purchaser to be affected by constructive notice with which they first fix that agent: that is, the courts have imposed on a purchaser for value the penalty of loss of property in cases where there was a total abstinence of frauds—where neither principal or agent had actual notice of the prior title, and where the entire question is this— Was there constructive notice of the prior equitable right?" Judges are how singularly unanimous in the opinion that the doctrine of constructive notice ought not to be extended In "Hare v. Lord Egmont," Lord Cranworth thus expresses himself—
  "It is highly inconvenient for courts of equity to extend the doctrine of constructive notice: that where a person has actual notice of any matter of fact, there can be no danger of doing injustice, if he is held to be bound by all the consequences of that which he knows to exist. But when he has not actual notice, he ought not to be treated as if he had notice, unless the circumstances are such as to enable the court to say, not only that he might have acquired, but also that he ought to have acquired, the knowledge with which it is sought to affect him—that he would have acquired it but for his gross negligence in the conduct of the business in question."
  He thought the clause was clear and definite, and therefore he should advise the Committee to adopt it, for it would establish the rule that constructive notice should not be allowed to operate if fraud had not been perpetrated by a purchaser or gross negligence: had not been committed by him. The doctrines of law and equity on this point would then be concurrent.
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, he should support the hon. and learned Member for Reading if he pressed his opposition to the clause to a division. The clause either made a change in the law or it did not. In the first case it was unnecessary; in the second case it would be mischievous. He could not pretend, on the moment, to pass an opinion on the effect of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Solicitor General.
  MR. MALINSsaid, when the clause was before the House in previous Sessions he had been successful in causing its rejection; it now came in an altered shape, but the mischief still remained. The object of it was simply to carry into effect the law as it was laid down in the case of Hare v. Lord Egmont. As Lord St. Leonards had given the clause his high sanction, and the other Law Lords assented to its principle, and as it would do
  428
  no harm, though it would lead to no good, he would withdraw further opposition.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he would not press his Amendment until hon. Members had had an opportunity of seeing it in print. If, therefore, it was the pleasure of the Committee to pass the clause, he should move his Amendment upon the report. It was remarkable enough that no one could tell the Committee whether the clause altered the law or not; and, with great deference to noble and learned Lords who were said to have endorsed this provision, he should feel bound, if a division were called for, to vote against the clause.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the law was not materially altered by the clause, which would not, if adopted, create confusion, because it was expressed in the very words of the decision which the courts now recognised and acted on. Out of deference to the high authorities from whom it had emanated he should support the clause.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, the effect of the clause would be to embarrass the judges, and to produce Chancery suit after Chancery suit. Whatever its effect might be, it professed to be something more than a declaratory clause; it would not tend to prevent the alleged vacillation of the judges, and it would lead to the utmost uncertainty.
  Question put, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 56; Noes 45: Majority 11.
  Clause 2.
  MR. MALINSwould move the omission of the clause. It provided that in every case in which a clergyman was made a bankrupt under the Act of last Session, and the sequestration enforced against the living at the time of the bankruptcy, the sequestrating creditor should lose the advantage of his sequestration. He did not see how it was possible to maintain such a provision.
  SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, the clause would certainly introduce a new principle; and if the sense of the Committee generally should seem to be opposed to it, he would not put them to the trouble of dividing upon the subject.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he could not support the clause. A sequestration creditor should not be placed in a worse position than a creditor under an execution.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he feared that noble Lords, when considering the Bill, had devoted their entire strength to the first clause, and then, finding the dinner hour

  429
  had come, left the remaining clauses to their fate. The clause ought not to be retrospective in its character. He thought a sequestration should be placed on the same footing as an ordinary execution, and cease the moment the debtor was declared a bankrupt, so as to become part of the general stock to reimburse the entire body of creditors.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he thought that legitimate objection had been taken to the clause.
  Clause negatived.
  Clause 3 struck out.
  Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
  On the Motion of Mr. Hadfield, clauses added—
  A. "Judgments, &c., not to affect Lands until memorandum thereof, deposited in Court of Common Pleas, at Westminster."
  B. "Certain Provisions of Acts 2 & 3 Vict. c. 11, & 3 & 4 Vict. c. 82, to apply to such Judgments."
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered on Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 69.]

SIR JOHN SOANE'S MUSEUM BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR GEORGE GREY,in moving the second reading of this Bill, said that it; had been introduced for the purpose of enabling the trustees of that museum to lend certain objects of art to the Commissioners for the Royal Exhibition.
  MR. TITEsaid, that the trustees of Sir John Soane's Museum had very unwillingly consented to lend the objects in question to the Commissioners for the Royal Exhibition. They had, in fact, only been induced to adopt that course in order that the collection of Hogarth's pictures might be shown in a complete form at the Exhibition.
  SIR PHILIP EGERTONsaid, that as a trustee he could corroborate the statement that the trustees had reluctantly given their consent to the Bill which authorized the removal of the Hogarth pictures from the Museum to the International Exhibition. He would, however, express a hope that the example thus given would not be lost upon the trustees of other institutions.
  Bill read 2o, and committed for Tomorrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock.