Lords Sitting of 22 February 1859

COMPULSORY PREPAYMENT OF INLAND LETTERS.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that before proceeding with the business on the Paper, he wished to call the attention of the noble Lord the Postmaster General to the recent regulation rendering compulsory the prepayment of inland letters. It was only an act of justice to the officers of the Post Office, and especially to Mr. Rowland Hill, to say that he knew of no department of the public service, the duties of which were more efficiently discharged, and that the new arrangement had not been adopted without mature consideration, yet he could not help regarding the change now adopted as being in the highest degree inexpedient. There had been no loss to the revenue from letters hitherto posted unpaid. On the contrary, there had been some small gain to the revenue from the double charge made for them. It had been said in another place that, although there was a double charge, it fell not upon the man who committed the fault, but upon the person to whom the letter was sent. This, however, was a matter between correspondents, and might safely be left to be arranged between them.
676
It would be seen, by reference to the pamphlet published by Mr. Rowland Hill, that in his original proposal it was intended, not merely that there should be an absolute refusal to deliver unpaid letters, but also those that were insufficiently paid. The fact, however, that this part of the plan had never before been acted upon, led him to imagine that the several Postmasters General, who had held office since that time, had some good reasons for not following it, or probably that Mr. Rowland Hill himself had, in this respect, altered his opinion. It had been said that the new rule was established to prevent Valentines and annoying letters from being posted unpaid; but this sounded very much like a joke. No doubt some people were pestered by receiving unpaid Valentines, but the annoyance of these few persons was not to be compared with the inconvenience sustained by the public at large from the new Post Office regulation. It had also been said that the colonial postage must, in many cases, be prepaid, and that as no inconvenience had been suffered from this rule there was no reason why the same rule should not also be applied to inland letters. Now, he was himself responsible for the principle as applied to colonial postage. The accounts between the colonial post-offices and the General Post Office were extremely inconvenient, and it was desirable that each country should keep its own share of the postage. There was, however, an important difference between letters abroad and those at home. Foreign and colonial letters were not written in a hurry, and correspondents knew the period when they must write. But the writers of inland letters were frequently compelled to write at a moment's notice, and these letters might refer to matters of life or death, or to affairs of the last commercial importance. Not being able to see what advantage was gained by the new rule that could countervail the great inconvenience to the public, he thought the change highly inexpedient. That very day he had been told by a medical friend, that two days ago three letters of importance passing between him and his patients were opened and returned to the writers. He had no doubt that the Post Office clerks were much too busy to read these letters, but their Lordships would see the unpleasantness of such occurrences.
LORD COLCHESTERsaid, he was glad to have an opportunity of removing some wrong impressions that prevailed on this

677
subject. He had been told that what had been done was illegal, and that there was an Act of Parliament which made it a punishable offence to detain a letter. It would, however, be found that by the Act 10 & 11 Vict. the Postmaster General, with the consent of the Treasury, was authorized to refuse to forward letters that were not prepaid. This power is now exercised as to all letters above a certain weight; to all registered letters, and to all late letters, that is, letters posted within half-an-hour of the dispatch of the mail. Also to all letters to the East Indies, to the West Indies, and to the South American States; it is proposed to extend it to all inland letters. By this means the money accounts of the Post Office will be simplified, and the deliveries of letters by the postmen accelerated. The public will be released from much annoyance, for it should be borne in mind that circulars of various kinds, foreign documents, and valentines were sent unpaid through the Post Office to a very great extent, and thus great inconvenience was caused to the public, and much trouble and delay to the Post Office officials. This was so well understood that many people had given orders that unpaid letters should not be sent to them, in consequence of the annoyance to which they were exposed, and thus occasionally letters of importance were refused. He had caused a search to be made for any opinions that might have been formed by former Postmasters General on this subject, but had not been able to find any having reference to the inconvenience of the system now proposed. It is enforced in the United States of North America, and in most of our Australian Colonies who manage their own post-offices. All new arrangements caused some inconvenience and trouble at first, but he had no doubt that in time the system now introduced would be found to work well, and that no real inconvenience would accrue to the public.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, it was no doubt a matter of great importance to save trouble and expense to the Post Office, but he must say he thought with the noble Duke that the change which had been made was open to serious objection. He thought the less letters were opened and returned to the writers the better, and he should very much prefer that those which were unpaid should be charged additional postage on delivery. He hoped his noble Friend would reconsider the question.
EARL GRANVILLEremarked, that he did not think his noble Friend the Postmaster General had answered in a very satisfactory manner the question of the noble Duke. There was no reason why letters containing property should not be prepaid; but with regard to letters generally the option should be left with the writer. It had been said that the change was made for the benefit of the public, but, so far as he could gather, it seemed only to have been made for the convenience of the Post Office. There could be no doubt that it would cause very great inconvenience to the public. He had conversed with a great many persons on the subject, and he did not think he had met a single person who approved of the change. He had no doubt that the feeling of disapprobation prevailed very strongly among the middle classes, and still more so among the working classes. In some places it was an absolute impossibility to find a penny stamp on Sundays, and consequently many instances might occur in which letters could not be posted. [Lord COLCHESTER: The Post offices are open for a certain number of hours on Sunday.] He had certainly seen it stated that applications had been made for stamps on Sunday, and that they could not be obtained. He had merely taken the opportunity of expressing his concurrence in the views laid down by the noble Duke on the subject, in order to show that it was the general wish of the House that the noble Lord would reconsider the question.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that so far as he was personally concerned, he should be glad if the present arrangement were to remain in force, because he received a great number of letters, anonymous and otherwise, not paid, and they gave him no small annoyance. He continually received letters from suitors in the Court of Queen's Bench, and from all kinds of persons, and they were very seldom indeed paid. All writs issued by the Court of Queen's Bench were in the name of John Lord Campbell and in the form of a letter, and as he was supposed to be the writer of these letters he was continually receiving answers to them. So far as he was concerned personally, therefore, he ought to be satisfied with the change; but on public grounds he felt himself compelled to join in the recommendation of the noble Duke, that the new order should be rescinded, and the former arrangement restored.

THE GALWAY ROUTE TO AMERICA.

  QUESTION.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY,after stating that this noble Friend Lord Clanricarde had given notice of the following Motion:—
  "To move for a copy of the contract entered into last summer by her Majesty's Government with Mr. Cunard for the conveyance of mails to and from the Continent of America, and copies of all previous contracts entered into by her Majesty's Government for a similar object from the year 1839 inclusive; copies of any communication from the Admiralty or Post Office departments to the Treasury relating to those contracts; also, copies of any tenders for the conveyance of mails to any part of America from an Irish port, received within the last two months by Her Majesty's Government; and of any letters or memorials from individuals or from public bodies in support of such tender, or in favour of the despatch of American mails from any port in Ireland; and also, a copy of the Report made by the Commissioners lately instructed to examine the capabilities and requirements of the port and harbour of Galway"—
  inquired whether any contract for the conveyance of the American mails viâ Galway had been entered into?
  THE EARL OF DERBYreplied that Her Majesty's Government had not at present entered into any definitive contract for making Galway the port of departure for the mails. A proposition, however, had been submitted to the Treasury by one of the Atlantic steam companies for a regular fortnightly service from Galway to some port in North America. That proposition was under consideration upon the terms submitted by the company; but the Lords of the Treasury had, of course, reserved to themselves the power, before any arrangement was concluded, of making the fullest inquiry as to the extent of the benefits to be obtained from such communication, and the solvency of the company. Security would also be required for the carrying out of the conditions of the contract in the adequate manner in which it was now performed by the Cunard Company.

  THE SALE AND PURCHASE OF LAND.
  LORD ST. LEONARDS, pursuant to notice, proceeded to draw the attention of the House to the Report of 1857 of the Commissioners on Registration of Title with reference to the Sale and Purchase of Land. It seemed desirable, he said, first to know how the matter now stood. Perhaps there was no other country in the world whose law of property was at once so liberal, so large, and yet so circumscribed by the law itself, as the law of
  680
  England, as regarded both the enjoyment and the transmission of real property. A man might appoint portions for his children and a jointure for his wife; he might divide his estates among his family; he might so settle his property as that it should go to the whole of his issue while his issue should endure. No man could set such a settlement aside, and nothing was better understood than the right to make it. Once strike at the authority of the settlements of their Lordships' estates, and a fatal blow would be dealt at the House itself. One great object of the law of England in allowing great latitude in the disposition of property was that it should be kept in the family. The law of primogeniture was not a thing forced on the people of England, but it effectuated their intention where they left the law to operate. This is proved by their actual dispositions. What man ever left his real estate amongst all his children? The eldest son is in general selected, just as the law provides for him in case of an intestacy. If a law abolishing primogeniture had passed a century ago, their Lordships would not not now be here with the wealth and power which properly belong to them. Any pretence of only providing for cases where the owner himself is silent is the common plan of getting in the thin end of the wedge and then the rest follows. There was this excellency of the law of England, both as regarded real and personal estates, that it provided a devolution of both real and personal estate which accords with the habits and wishes of the people. He hoped never to see the day when any blow would be struck at settlements as they now stood. A great many attempts had been made, and very properly made, to facilitate the sale of land and to simplify titles; a Bill which he had introduced with those objects was now in the other House of Parliament, and if passed it would save tens of thousands a year to the landed interest. He had last Session offered to their Lordships a Bill for shortening abstracts of title and shortening the time of limitation as a bar to outstanding or unknown claims as against a purchaser which he believed would have saved the landed interest £200,000 a year, and, he asserted emphatically, would really have damaged no one; but the House would not shorten the time of limitation, and rejected the measure. Whatever plan might be adopted for the purpose of simplifying titles, it should always be borne in mind that a man must make out a title, and a

  681
  good title, before he could ask to participate in the benefits proposed to be given to him by that kind of legislation. It was not a mode in which bad titles could be turned into good. Before quitting that branch of the subject he wished to point out the difference between real property and personal property, because some persons thought that there was no distinction between them, and that land ought to be transferred as easily and as simply as stock or a £100 bank-note. He denied that there was any analogy between the two kinds of property. The title to land must be as fixed and stable as the land itself, but other property was not of a nature to admit of so fixed a title. Take, for instance, 3 per cent stock; that was only an engagement on the part of the Government to pay so much money until the debt was redeemed. There was nothing tangible about it—nothing but a piece of paper. One estate was net quite the same as another, but £1,000 stock was as good as another £1,000. If a man has £1,000 stock he can from time to time sell a portion of it to meet his engagements; but if he has a real estate he cannot so readily sell off a field or a farm, and therefore he mortgages the whole, and thus the title becomes involved with incumbrances. There was an essential difference between the two classes of property. There is also a marked distinction not simply between the quantities of interest in real estate but between the qualities of that interest. If a man has the legal interest, without the intervention of a trustee, he may lease, mortgage, or sell his estate, and himself transfer his legal estate; but if his estate is vested in a trustee, although he has the equitable or beneficial interest, the legal estate is in the trustee, and he alone can transfer it. Our ancestors struggled long to prevent the separation of the legal estate from the actual ownership; but in modern times it is not so important, because the trust appears on the instrument vesting the legal estate in the trustee, and it is rarely that any mischief arises. This separation of the legal and equitable estates their Lordships would presently find bears powerfully upon the measure now before them. There had been many schemes propounded with a view to facilitate the obtaining titles to land, and nothing could be more desirable than such an object. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) had been the pioneer of all modern improvements in that direction,
  682
  his great speech delivered thirty years ago in the other House having laid the foundation for most of the subsequent improvements. That speech was followed by the appointment of a Commission, who made an elaborate Report, which was succeeded by an equally elaborate Bill, in which the question of a general registry of deeds was brought before Parliament. That measure was not passed, but the question came before Parliament five times between 1830 and 1834. It then slept for a while, and then was again revived in that House, but was not approved. A subsequent reintroduction of the subject led to a Commission, a Report, and a Bill, which passed the House and was sent to the other House. When the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cranworth) succeeded to the Great Seal he also introduced a measure upon this subject. He (Lord St. Leonards) had been for thirty years a consistent opponent of a general registry, not because he objected to it in itself, but because he was convinced that the evils arising from it would more than balance the benefits to be expected from it. He had opposed it when out of Parliament with his pen, and when in the House with his voice and his vote. The Bill, however, passed their Lordships' House; but when it reached the House of Commons a great change of opinion had taken place, and they would not even look at it. Another Royal Commission was issued, and they unanimously rejected the idea of registration of deeds. The proposition of the Commissioners of 1857 was a registry, not of deeds, but of title, and they were of opinion that it was fitting and desirable that power should be
  given to grant an indefeasible, or, as it was called, a Parliamentary title. They thought that upon a man submitting his title to a primâ facie examination he should be put upon a register as owner of the fee simple, but that he should not thereby acquire an indefeasible title, but that his title should remain subject to all the charges and equities attaching to it at the time of registration. The Commissioners, however, thought that there might be cases where, under certain circumstances, a Parliamentary title might be conferred, and they proposed that when it had been shown that a title was good the owner might obtain a warrant upon payment of a small premium to the country. Thus the country would open an insurance office for granting titles upon payment of

  683
  money. If the plan of the Commissioners of 1857 was adopted, there would be two sorts of registered owners—one without an indefeasible title, and the other with a Parliamentary title to be binding on all men. They also thought that registration should not be compulsory; but that, once on the register, you must remain there for all time. He should now proceed to put their Lordships in possession of the grounds upon which the Commissioners based their objections to the granting of a Parliamentary title to the land. They said:—
  "It would, we think, be oppressive either, on the one hand, to require claimants out of possession to come forward and make assertion of their rights in order to avoid losing them, or, on the other, to put the persons in possession to the defence of their rights as against any stale claims or assertions of right that might be set up. We do not think that, in order to pass from our present system to a register of title, it would be necessary to create a jurisdiction in Commissioners applicable to all land, whether incumbered or not, similar to that of the Incumbered Estates Court in Ireland, by which an absolute or Parliamentary title to the land, subject to leases or tenancies, should be declared. On the contrary, we concur in the opinion that to make a judicial or quasi-judicial examination of title an indispensable preliminary to admission to register would greatly narrow the benefits of registration."
  Such were the views of the Commissioners on the subject; but there was one other passage in their Report to which he wished briefly to call their Lordships' attention. It was as follows:—
  "We think that a compulsory investigation of title, though only required as a preliminary to registration, would be highly objectionable, and we do not recommend it. It would involve, as has been pointed out in the evidence before us, the necessity of having every title to every acre of land thoroughly investigated by a competent judicial tribunal. It would be distasteful to landowners, who would be very reluctant to disclose their titles, and it would occasion the bringing forward of many stale and ill-grounded claims, would give rise to litigation, and would, when completed, be of no practical benefit to any, except to those who contemplated selling their estates. It is also to be borne in mind that many persons in quiet possession of land have bought it under special or restrictive conditions of sale, which have precluded them at the time of their purchasing from calling for strict or proper evidence of the title, and have limited them to some short period of the title in their investigation of it. It would, we think, be highly unjust to call upon persons in such a situation for strict and technical proof of their title, such as alone any public authority charged with certifying titles ought to be satisfied with."
  The two passages which he had just read pointed out, he thought, very forcibly the difficulties by which the whole question
  684
  was beset. The first point to be considered, in case an indefeasible title were granted, was by whom it was to be conferred. The Commissioners were entirely opposed to the creation of a new Court for the purpose; nor could they be more indisposed than he was himself to the adoption of such a course. The legal tribunals of the country had within his own time so much increased in number that it was extremely inexpedient, unless some urgent necessity for doing so could be shown to exist, to augment them to any greater extent. He was, however, at the same time bound to say that if an indefeasible title were to be given, it appeared to him the Government was right in confiding the duty of granting it only to competent hands, and he should, under those circumstances, offer no opposition to the constitution of the proposed new Court. Indeed, one of the grounds of his objection to the measure of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cranworth) last Session was, that the Court of Chancery had so large an amount of business to dispose of that it could not satisfactorily discharge the additional duties which, under the operation of the Bill, it would be called upon to perform. He also observed that he saw no reason why, if an indefeasible title could be granted by a particular Court on the occasion of the sale of real property, it might not be conferred, although an immediate sale should not be in contemplation. With respect to the question of a register, he could only say that any register which should be established ought, in his opinion, to be metropolitan. The Commissioners had, it was true, in dealing with the subject, recommended that it should be both metropolitan and local. They would give to the metropolis its own register, and would also have one constituted in each of sixty or seventy localities throughout the country. The reasons, however, which had induced the Commissioners to make such a proposition, and which were based upon the supposition that an indefeasible title to land was not generally to be granted, would have no existence if the Bill of the Government were passed into law. In fact, it would be impossible, under the operation of that measure, to spread throughout various districts, as it were, a network of persons possessing that degree of knowledge and experience which, in order to carry its provisions satisfactorily into effect, it would be desirable to secure. Now, no such diffi-

  685
  culty stood in the way of carrying out the proposal of the Commissioners, and he could not help thinking that it would be better, under the altered circumstances of the case, that the scheme of the Government on the subject should be withdrawn than that it should go beyond the establishment of a metropolitan register; but the Government should be prepared for a determined struggle to obtain local registries. As to the indefeasible title itself which it was proposed to give, he did not know how it could be granted with perfect safety; but he should briefly draw their Lordships' attention to the precautions which were adopted by Her Majesty's Ministers in order to guard against its being rashly and wantonly confirmed. The measure of the Government in the first place proposed that any person desirous of securing such a title should make application with that view to the Court.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, he must beg leave to call his noble and learned Friend to order. No course could, in his opinion, be more inconvenient than that which the noble and learned Lord was pursuing. He had given notice that he proposed to call the attention of the House to the Report of the Commissioners on Registration of Title, and, instead of confining himself to that subject, had proceeded to comment upon a measure which had been introduced in the other House of Parliament, but which had not as yet been laid upon their Lordships' table. It so happened, indeed, that he had himself seen a copy of that measure, and so, perhaps, had his noble and learned Friend, while it must, of course, have been brought under the cognizance of his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack; but it was probably not seen by any other Member of the House, and under those circumstances he believed that nothing could be more irregular than the attempt then made by his noble and learned Friend to enter into an examination of its provisions.
  LORD ST. LEONARDScontinued:—He did not think he had been guilty of any irregularity in taking the course which he had adopted; but, in order that his noble and learned Friend might not be shocked, he should suppose that certain propositions had been made by the Commissioners in question, and should proceed to comment upon them. The public mind ought to be prepared for the measure, and to be enlightened with regard to it, and he should have thought that nothing would have been
  686
  more desirable than to lead the country to talk over the matter, and to consider the great change in the law which was proposed. Thus, for example, it would be well to remember the great caution which must be shown in granting an indefeasible title, and the delay which would necessarily ensue from the exercise of that caution. A person who desired an indefeasible title must apply to the new Court, must furnish it with an abstract of title, or, in other words, with evidence of ownership, and must prove to the satisfaction of the Court that he had been in possession for at least five years. This would occupy, say two months. If the Court entertained that application, it would then be necessary to publish advertisements, and to post notices round about the property in question to apprise people that the owner had applied for an indefeasible title. That would occupy some two months more, and the Court would then, he supposed, address themselves to a solid, serious investigation of the title, and if they approved it they would make a provisional order that it should be deemed indefeasible at the end of twelve months, unless meanwhile an opposing claimant came forward. Here, then, would already be sonic sixteen months of delay. At the end of the twelve mouths all parties interested would, by new postings and advertisements, be invited to attend, and if a final order were made in favour of the title that order must not operate until the expiration of three months longer, in order to give claimants an opportunity of appealing. Thus nineteen months would be consumed before a final and operative order was obtained. But an appeal was given to the Court of Chancery, which would perhaps occupy three months more, and after that there might be an appeal to the House of Lords, which could hardly occupy less than fifteen mouths; so that, if no impediment were presented, an indefeasible title could only be acquired at the end of nineteen months, while if the right of appeal were made use of the process might occupy some three years. When, too, they remembered that the new court had the power of sending issues to be tried in a court of law, it was evident that the investigation, working itself into litigation, might be from first to last longer and more complicated than under the old system. In instancing these difficulties, he must not be considered as finding fault with the plan which had been submitted, but only as showing what were the obstacles in the way of doing that

  687
  which the Legislature were now attempting to do. And what was really proposed? Why, when an indefeasible title was applied for, every man was to be called upon to come forward and oppose it. Fancy the alarm of an owner who found notices posted up at his gate inviting everybody who thought be had a claim to appear at such a time and such a place to prefer it, or otherwise to be for ever barred from doing so! This would be to rouse the sleeping lions who lurked round many men's estates, and to call forth every imaginable kind of claimant, and just advert to the position of a man whose title has been rejected. Then it should be remembered that while the Bill would empower the owner to make every claimant come forward and make his claim, or else be for ever barred, there was no power by which the claimant could make the owner enter into litigation. Thus the whole subject was surrounded with difficulties—difficulties which might possibly be softened, but of which, at all events, it was right that their Lordships and the country should be thoroughly aware. But now, suppose that a man had acquired through the Court an indefeasible title. The main difficulty would then begin. No one must appear on the register unless as an owner in fee simple. Now, there would always be an ambiguity as to the character of the man who was put on the register as the first proprietor, because be might be the mere nominee of some one else, and might have no interest in the estate, or he might be the owner; but this the register would not show. Suppose a man became an owner in fee simple and was so registered, he might then wish to make a settlement of his estate according to the every-day practice; but in such a case he must come off the register, because, under the settlement, he would merely be tenant for life. Some other person must then be named as the registered owner, and that nominee would have the right to sell the entire estate if he chose to do so. The owner of a vast estate would hardly like to have John Doe or Richard Roe registered as the absolute owner of it. The scheme is to separate the legal and equitable estates, and always to have a legal owner of the fee on the register, although he may not have any beneficial interest in the estate. This is said to be demanded by the spirit of commerce, but the spirit of commerce would not require their Lordships, and other landed proprietors, to sacrifice their settle-
  688
  ments in order that land might be transferred like stock; nor is there any analogy between this case and the case of a feudal tenant, who was obliged to perform his services for his Lord. The real owner's settlement would confer only an equitable estate, and those who took under it could not sell or lease, or do anything, except by virtue of their equitable title. The legal fee would always be vested in the registered owner. In case of encumbrances and settlements a man interested in them must take care that there were caveats and inhibitions, or he might lose his property, and it might happen that through the carelessness or dishonesty of a clerk a caveat or inhibition would not be registered. Under such a system a man would not have that enjoyment of his property which he now possessed. At present, if a man make an ordinary settlement of his estate he is really unaware, although only tenant for life, that he has settled it, for he still has every possible enjoyment of it. We can but enjoy our property during our lives, although we may have the fee simple in it. And now the law protects such a settlement. A man may sit at home at ease, without inquiry and without danger; but if his estate is on the register, he must allow some other person to appear on the register as owner of it, and he must be on the watch against misconduct, and ascertain that by caveats or inhibitions that he is so far secure that if his nominee attempt to sell or mortgage notice will be given to him, and he may come forward to protect his rights. Of course he could not, as now, grant legal leases or the like, for he would have only an equitable estate. No man with a good title need go to the new Court; no one with a bad title can, or, at least, ought to succeed there. No estate in settlement, or about to be forthwith put in settlement, could have any benefit from it. Having gone thus far into the question, he would say no more than that the question was one of great importance as affecting the station and property of individuals, and he had had but one object, which was to assist in pointing out the dangers which surrounded the proposed Court and Register.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, 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, and as it seemed to him with the concurrence of their Lordships, on the great inconvenience of anticipating mea-

  689
  sures which were to come before the House at some future time, and of inviting a general discussion which could lead to no practical result; 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 appeared to be not only inconvenient, but highly 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 indemnifying himself for the loss of the opportunity which he would have had of addressing their Lordships if those measures had been originally introduced into this House. Upon this point he would merely observe that it was thought a proper division of labour in respect to the Government measures that a certain portion should first be originated in their Lordships' House, and that another portion should be originated in the other House; and he thought he had undertaken a task quite sufficient for himself in introducing the Bankruptcy Bill and the Bill for winding up joint-stock companies. His noble and learned 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 commented on when they came before their Lordships, and his noble and learned Friend would then, probably, 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 them as perfect as possible. He did not under- stand whether his noble and learned Friend stated that he was not opposed to every system of registration. [Lord St. LEONARDS: I am not opposed to every system.] He was glad to find that his noble and learned Friend so expressed himself, because he had collected from his noble and learned Friend's works, and from that valuable book lately published—which, as it was intended, 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
  690
  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, hut was a question of expediency and of social policy, on which many of their Lordships were quite as competent to decide as his noble and learned Friend. With respect to the remarks made in reference to the Report of the Commissions on the registration titles in 1857, he trusted that all their Lordships who took interest in the subject would read that Report carefully, because they would find that its recommendations had been embodied in the measures proposed by the Government. And who framed that 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 any two lawyers who joined in that Report, they might be considered to constitute an equal authority with his noble and learned Friend. Upon that Commission were his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, Sir R. Bethell, and other lawyers of considerable eminence, together with practical 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 carefully considered before the Bills, to which allusion had been wade, 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 appeared to be confused together. There might be a registration of title without a Parliamentary title, and a Parliamentary title without registration. If Parliament determined, however, to follow the plan pursued with such success in Ireland, and to give a Parliamentary title in England, then, as a complement to such a measure, it would be necessary to have a registration 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

  691
  and learned Friend. And he trusted that their Lordships 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 observations of his noble and learned Friend merely because he thought it not consistent with his duty to give an answer to his noble and learned Friend at the present moment.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that whatever might be the inconvenience and irregularity of the course taken by his noble and learned Friend, he rather rejoiced that he had not waited until the Government Bill came before their Lordships, because his noble and learned Friend's statements were of the greatest importance in elucidating the subject, and preparing the minds of Members of both Houses for its due consideration. He wished that every person both in that and the other House of Parliament had heard the speech of his noble and learned Friend, and he trusted that he would adopt the course pursued by the Solicitor General on this subject, and take care that an accurate account should go forth of the very valuable statements made by him.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, that some misconception appeared to prevail upon the Bill which he had the honour of introducing into their Lordships' House in 1853, relative to the registration of assurances. Their Lordships passed that Bill, and it went down to the other House, but it was an error to say that it fell stillborn there. It was read a second time and referred to a Select Committee, and that Committee recommended a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole subject. The Government appointed a Royal Commission at the end of 1853, which made inquiry, and at the end of 1857 prepared the Report to which his noble and learned Friend had called the attention of their Lordships. In consequence of that Report and during the recess he directed his attention to the subject, and a Bill was framed by the late Government which he laid upon their Lordships' table in the first week of the Session of 1858. He would admit that this Bill did not meet with much favour in the other House, but, although it differed from the measure of the present Solicitor General in many particulars, it was, in its main features, substantially the same, giving an indefeasible title upon the sale and transfer of land. With respect to the subject before their Lordships, he certainly did not
  692
  understand the many allusions made by the noble and learned Lord in his speech, probably because he was not fully acquainted with the provisions of the Bill that had been introduced in the other House. He had certainly looked at the Bill, but not sufficiently to have been enabled to form any conclusions as to it.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that if he had been opposed to the Bill in all respects, he should still wish the statements and opinions of his noble and learned Friend upon the subject to go forth to the public, and he hoped that he would adopt the course he suggested.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.