Sitting of 11 February 1859

MINUTES
. NEW MEMBERS SWORN.—For Banbury, Bernhard Samuelson, esq.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o Ecclesiastical Commission; Title to Landed Estates; Registry of Landed Estates.

PATENT LAW.

  QUESTION.
  MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he wished to know whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce any measure for the improvement of the working of the Patent Law Amendment Act (1832), or to reduce the Stamp Duties payable on Letters Patent for Inventions, especially the £50 payable before the expiration of the third year, and the £100 payable before the expiration of the seventh year, of the patent right, which falls due next autumn.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, it was not the intention of the Government to make any alteration in the Patent Law. It was in contemplation to alter the site of the Patent Office, and this would greatly facilitate the business. It was not at present the intention of the Government to reduce the stamp duties now payable upon patents. The present duties of £50 and £100 were part of a system intended to facilitate the taking out of patents, the patentee only having to pay the larger sum after a certain term of years, by which time it could be ascertained whether the patent was likely to be remunerative. The period when the payment of £100 would have to be made was now approaching, and it was not the intention of the Government to make any alteration in this respect.

LUNACY LAW (SCOTLAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, he rose to ask the Lord Advocate if he intends, during the present Session, to introduce a Bill amending the Scotch Lunacy Act of 1857.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, it was his impression that the Statute to which the hon. Member alluded required Amendment. The first report of the Lunacy Commissioners under that Act was expected to be received in a week or ten days, and that report would doubtless throw light upon the working of the Act, and the amendments that were required. If the hon. Gentleman would repeat his question after the Commissioners' Report had been presented he would give him a more decided answer.

THE BRITISH MUSEUM.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he had to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Her Majesty's Government had come to any determination as to the enlargement of the British Museum, or the arrangement and distribution of its heterogeneous collections?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the arrangement of the British Museum was still under the consideration of the Government.

  IRISH SPIRITS.—QUESTION.
  MR. HASSARDsaid, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if it is his intention to propose that any reduction shall be made in the Duty now payable upon spirits manufactured in Ireland?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Government had no intention whatever to propose any reduction in the duty on Irish spirits. The House, he was sure, would be glad to hear that they had most satisfactory accounts from Ireland that the rise in duty which took place last year had not occasioned any increase whatever in illicit distillation.

  BARRACK MASTERS.—QUESTION.
  MR. WARRENsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether any or what steps are being taken towards improving the condition of Barrack Masters, with reference to the revised scale of pay recently prepared in the Barrack Department?
  GENERAL PEELsaid, that steps were being taken to improve the condition of the Barrack Masters, and several schemes with that view were undergoing consideration.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON MILITIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DENTsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has any idea when the Royal Commission will make their report upon the Militia; and whether it is his intention to disband any of the Regiments at present embodied and to call out others, before receiving that Report?
  GENERAL PEELsaid, as he was not a member of that body, he had no idea when the Royal Commission would present their report. It was, however, no part of the Commissioner's duty to point out what regiments should be embodied or disembodied, and therefore he had no intention to wait for these reports.

  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.—QUESTION.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he rose to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce any measure during the present Session, founded on the Report of the Select Committee on Railway Accidents?
  MR. HENLEYsaid, there was no doubt a geat deal in that report well worthy of consideration, but the Government had not thought it desirable to introduce any measure solely on that report. If any legislation concerning railways should take place it would then be their duty to consider whether those valuable suggestions could not be embodied in the measure.

  LETTERS NOT PREPAID.
  On the Motion, That the House at rising adjourn till Monday next,
  MR. RICHsaid, that according to notice he rose to call attention to the Order of the Postmaster General of the 27th of January last, directing, in effect, that after the 10th of this month all letters which are not prepaid shall be opened by the Post-office authorities; and to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what provisions had been made thenceforth to guard the inviolability of letters sent through the Post Office. In bringing this question forward, he wished to guard against derogating, in the slightest degree, from the deep obligation which the country owed to Mr. Rowland Hill for having effected one of the greatest reforms of this century, in establishing penny postage. He assumed that the Order emanated from the noble Lord at the head of the Post Office, and not

  251
  from the gentleman to whom he alluded, and he could not but feel that it was by such orders, either from indiscreet friends or covert enemies, that great social reform was most liable to be endangered. The purport of the Order was to open every letter not to a certain extent prepaid, and to send it back to the writer. Hitherto the practice had been to leave it to the option of the person to whom unpaid letters were addressed to refuse them or to pay double postage. If that was not a sufficient check to any growing neglect of pre-payment, the Post-office authorities might have doubled or quadrupled the penalty, and if they had no such power, the House would readily have assisted in such a practical remedy. But, instead of that, this Order was issued, by which every person, who through his own inattention or the inattention of his servant, or the default of adhesiveness in the Government stamps, posted a letter without pre-payment, was subject to have it opened and read, at least so far as to discover it writer, to whom it was then returned. He could not conceive the motives that induced the Postmaster General to issue such an Order. Was it that some hon. Gentlemen had not yet disabused themselves of the notion that the Post Office was an engine of taxation? For his part, he always thought that this Government monopoly was for the special convenience of the public, in order that the people might feel the greatest security in the transmission of their letters, combined with the least cost consistent with their rapid and proper delivery. The present order sinned against nearly all those principles. He doubted even that it would be economical. It might simplify the accounts a little if all letters whatever were pre-paid; but this was clearly impracticable, for the Order itself showed that the Post-office authorities dared not refuse to convey letters upon which a certain amount of postage had been paid; they had not yet drilled the public into running about with balances in one hand and a letter in the other to measure the exact amount of postage before consigning it to the letter-box. Colonial and foreign letters would also protect us from this Procrustean uniformity. At present rather more than 2,000,000 of letters were not pre-paid, and about one-half of these were accepted at double postage. Therefore, substantially, payment was made on every letter, and the Post Office lost
  252
  nothing, but if all unpaid letters were confiscated this recompensing double payment would cease, and there would be a loss of £6,000 or £8,000 a year, allowing even that some of these unpaid letters come back again. This would more than counterbalance any economy in the office. It was not, however, a question of a few thousand pounds in the revenue of the Post Office, but of the just claims of the public to accommodation. It was suggested to him that the Post Office was bound by law to transmit every letter posted with a proper address, and especially had no authority to open any except "dead letters." If that were so there was an end of the matter; but whether or not, he thought he should show that this Order would cause such grievous inconvenience to the public that it must be rescinded. Nothing, it might be said, could be easier than to put a postage stamp on a letter. True; but it was just in these easiest and most ordinary transactions that every one of us not only was liable, but was certain occasionally to fall into errors, and it was both folly and tyranny to legislate on the assumption that rules and regulations could put an end to them. What could be more absurd—more improbable—than that thousands of people should put letters in the Post Office without directing them. And yet such was the hurry of business and the occasional pressure on men's minds, that according to the Postmaster-General's report, more than 7,000 letters were annually put into the Post without any direction at all, many of them containing money or checks. In two years, letters containing £18,800 in money, and £1,236,000 in bank post bills, checks, &c., were posted in letters, either without any direction, or so incorrectly directed that they had to be returned to the Dead-letter Office and there opened, in order, if possible, to restore them to their writers. He believed that he was correct in estimating the revenue the Post Office obtained from the inability to decypher the names either of the writers of such letters or those to whom they were sent, at not less than £9,000 a year. Most of these were posted by merchants and bankers, or their confidential clerks; and if men of business habits could thus, with every inducement and appliance to regularity, be unable to guard themselves against such apparently unaccountable negligence, how could it be expected that the general community

  253
  should be constantly accurate and precise in the still minor matter of fixing on a postage stamp? The lower orders were those who benefited most by the penny post, and who now contribute largely to the postal revenue; but if restraints of this nature were put in force they would be aggrieved and driven to evasions where-by that revenue would suffer considerably. He could imagine many cases where, from no postage stamp being at hand, letters must either be not sent at all or be put into the post without being prepaid. Mistakes also occurred in moments of emergency, when the mind was so intent upon the subject of the letter that it could not attend to these minutiœ. Such letters were precisely those which often most needed an immediate answer; but long after the bill for which the letter was meant to provide had been protested, or the parent to whose sick bed a son or a daughter had been summoned was dead, the emergent, all-important letter would be returned with a cool printed notice, that as no postage stamp had been affixed it had not been forwarded. There was another consideration of great importance. The sanctity of a seal had hitherto been regarded as inviolate. The letters of the highest or meanest person in the realm could not be opened by the highest or lowest authority in the Post Office. It was felony to do so. As long as letters bore on them a direction they were forwarded to every corner of the realm where it might be supposed the receiver was to be found, and, when all efforts had failed, they were consigned to the Dead-letter Office, and then opened, in order, as it was found impossible to discover the ostensible owner, the person addressed, that they might be restored to the next presumptive owner, the writer. Hitherto the Post Office had gone to great expense and trouble in thus dealing with such letters for the convenience of the public, but by this order that principle of action was to be reversed, and the public was to be put to all manner of inconvenience in order to carry out some fantastic and pedantic uniformity in the office itself. Was there to be one central Dead Letter Office in London? or were they to be scattered about in different districts? If the first, the inconvenience casused by the detention of letters from Ireland, Scotland, and other remote parts of the kingdom, would be very great; if the latter, the expense would be increased, and there
  254
  would be a scattered, and therefore less responsibility. At present there was an active and constantly working supervision over all Post-offices. If an overcurious Post-master or other of the very miscellaneous thousands to whom, in some stage or other of their transmission our letters were entrusted, ventured to open them—and they seldom, except for fraudulent purposes, went so far as to purloin them. Opening and resealing them as carefully as they could before they sent them to their destination, the receiver would find that the seal had been tampered with, he would complain to the Postmaster-General, and sharp inquiry would ensue. But now, when a letter had been opened, either from dishonesty or curiosity, nothing would be easier than to rub off the postagestamp,—the Government glue was not particularly adhesive; it was only the other day that a letter had come to him with the stamp hanging to it,—then the letter no longer would be forwarded to its destination, and nothing would be known, or suspected, of its having been previously and surreptitiously opened. Thus an important check over the sanctity of letters would be destroyed altogether. And, moreover, there was the broad dangerous fact that this order, if not founded on a disregard for the sanctity of the seal, still tended, plainly and directly, to undermine it. He hoped, therefore, to hear that this measure had been suspended, and that the Post Office authorities would be contented gradually to educate the public to affixing the stamp to their letters by charging double, or even higher, postage on unpaid letters. But, if some assurance of this sort were not given, or if it were not shown that the alarm which he felt on the subject was groundless, he should feel it his duty to take some further steps in the matter.
  SIR S. NORTHCOTEsaid, the observations of the hon. Gentleman might lead the house to believe that this change had been made for the benefit in some way of either the Government or the Post-office, but he begged to assure the hon. Gentleman that the reverse was the fact. The main object of the change was greater convenience to the public, and not at all that which the hon. Gentleman appeared to suppose. The hon. Gentleman had, in fact, by his observations shown that the change could not have been introduced for the benefit of the revenue, for, in his opinion, it was erroneous to assume

  255
  that the Post-office revenue could benefit by it, inasmuch as the warrant would put a stop to the posting of those unprepaid letters for which 2d. was till now received by the Post Office. Further, by the warrant the fines on the receivers of insufficiently paid letters would be less than heretofore, and also in some cases the fines upon the senders would be less. On these grounds he (Sir S. Northcote) trusted the House would believe that the change had not been introduced for any Treasury purpose. The hon. Gentleman paid a very just compliment to Mr. Rowland Hill, but with regard to this change he seemed inclined to make a distinction between Mr. Rowland Hill and the Postmaster-General. There could be no doubt that in all cases of this nature the head of a department was personally responsible for every change made in his department. The hon. Gentleman had insinuated that this measure was probably not approved by Mr. Rowland Hill, but he begged to assure him that it was part of Mr. Rowland Hill's original penny postage plan, that all letters should be prepaid, and that this particular measure was advocated by Mr. Rowland Hill, not because it would diminish the labour of the Post Office, but because it would accomplish that great object which the Post Office should always keep in view—namely, the transmission of as many letters as possible from the persons by whom they were sent to those to whom they were sent, which object had not hitherto been attained for reasons which he would endeavour to point out. Hon. Gentlemen were aware that, by the law which had been in force hitherto, in the case of an inland letter posted without prepayment double postage was demanded from the persons to whom it was sent. The hon. Gentleman imagined that if the fine for neglecting to prepay inland letters were doubled or increased a stop would be put to the sending of unpaid letters. But he (Sir S. Northcote) did not think that such would be the result of increasing the fines on neglecting to prepay. Besides, under that plan the wrong person—namely, the person to whom the letter was sent, instead of the person by whom it was sent, would be punished. In fact, the plan suggested by the hon. Gentleman was like the practice of some schoolmasters in bygone days, who, when a book was thrown at a boy in school, punished the boy at whom it had been thrown, when they could not ascertain who had thrown it. The whole mischief of the system
  256
  hitherto arose from the double payment demanded from the persons to whom unpaid letters were sent. Persons in business were very much pestered by unpaid letters. Many of those letters were sent merely for the purpose of annoyance. In fact, about one-third of the letters that reached the Dead-letter Office were simply for the purpose of annoyance. A great proportion of these letters were valentines. Hon. Gentlemen should understand that with regard to valentines the mischief was very serious, because they were, in a vast number of cases, not merely offensive as far as the language contained in them was concerned, but also the things enclosed in them—namely, soot, dead animals, glass bottles. The number of valentines every year that pased through the Post Office was about 800,000; of these 800,000 about 60,000 were rejected, and they were consequently sent to the Dead-letter Office. The way in which many people protected themselves against this annoyance was by giving orders that no unpaid letters should be taken in. Those persons consequently rejected many worthless letters; but they at the same time rejected some very valuable letters, which they would wish to have received. Now, the view of the Post Office was that, by rendering compulsory the prepayment of all letters, they could put a stop to the sending of insulting and offensive letters, for which the senders did not choose to pay. The number of unpaid letters hitherto had been 2,500,000 every year, but large as that number was, it amounted to only a small proportion of the whole of the letters that passed through the post offices of the United Kingdom in a year. The total number was 523,000,000, and of the 2,500,000 of unpaid letters, about sixty per cent. consisted of advertisements or letters of an annoying character. He thought, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman and the House would perceive that the warrant had, instead of inflicting a grievance upon the public, put a stop to a system by which several persons were greatly annoyed, and that it had not been issued for any revenue or official purpose, but simply with a view to the greater convenience of the public. But the hon. Gentleman had said that this compulsory prepayment might be productive of greater inconvenience than convenience. On that point he (Sir S. Northcote) would set the practical opinion and experience of persons in the Post Office against the opinion of the hon. Gentleman, with regard to letters

  257
  on which prepayment was compulsory—namely, all colonial and a considerable number of foreign letters. He might also adduce the experience of Spain and the United States of America. During the last four years prepayment had been, and now was, compulsory in the United States, without causing any inconvenience. With regard to letters to the Colonies and elsewhere, prepayment had been found to cause but trifling inconvenience; while other cases quite as weighty as those to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, might be put, but he was not without hopes that all of them might be met. If the Government should find that the warrant worked in a manner contrary to that which they intended, the House might feel assured that the warrant would be repealed or altered. There might be some momentary inconvenience felt, until the public became perfectly aware of the change. That was the first day on which the system came into operation, and however widely the knowledge of it might have spread, it could not be expected that the public generally understood the working of it. He begged, however, to inform the House that the number of unpaid letters received by the Post Office that very day was only one-third more than the usual number before the issuing of the warrant. The hon. Gentleman had called in question the legality of the warrant, but on that point he would refer him to 10 & 11 Vict., c. 85, s. 3, in which he would find a provision that the Postmaster General, with the authority of the Lords of the Treasury, might direct that letters should not be received at the Post Office without being prepaid. This change, therefore, was in fact in accordance with the existing law. With regard to the objection that the warrant would subject the contents of more letters than heretofore to exposure in the Dead-letter Office, he might state that not an instance had yet occurred in which an improper use or exposure had been made of any of the letters that reached that office. It was the duty of a small body of clerks, who were properly selected, to open those letters, simply for the purpose of ascertaining the name and address of the senders; and, considering the great number of the letters that reached the office daily—6,000—and the small number of clerks in the Dead-letter Office, it was evident that it was impossible for them to read the contents of the letters. It was a mistake to suppose that the postmaster,
  258
  in every neighbourhood in which unpaid letters might be posted, could open them and inform himself of their contents, because those letters would be immediately sent to the Dead-letter Office in London (and in the cases of Scotland and Ireland, to the Dead-letter Office in Edinburgh and Dublin), where only they would be opened, and forwarded by the next mail to the senders. At present, the person by whom the unpaid letter was sent was compelled to pay a double charge. But for the future all that would be abandoned, and all the inconvenience that could occur would be some slight delay. The difficulties with regard to persons in poor-houses and others, he believed, would now be less than under the former system. If, however, it should be found that an alteration ought to be introduced with regard to the letters of those persons, no delay should take place in introducing such alteration. The matter was one affecting the interests of the whole community, and he trusted the new plan would be found to work for the public convenience.

  AUDIT OF ACCOUNTS.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he rose to ask the right hon. Member for Radnor (Sir George Lewis) to inform the House why the Commissioners of Audit Account of the Expenditure on the Army and Navy in the year ending the 31st of March, 1856, was £1,156,509 more than the Treasury Account of the said Expenditure presented to this House? There was £6,000,000 sterling voted on the credit of accounts furnished by the Treasury, but the statement of expenditure only amounted to £4,200,000. He had applied to the Treasury for information on this point, but had been unable to obtain any satisfactory answer. It might be said that the accounts were furnished to the Audit Commissioners; but the accounts of the Treasury were not sent to the Audit Commission for seven or eight months after they were made up, and the report of the Audit was not supplied to the House of Commons for several months after that. The course of proceeding in this respect was most unsatisfactory—they voted away the money of the public without having any account of the mode in which it had been expended. He would call the attention of the right hon. Baronet to the fact that in the year alluded to £1,140,000 had been expended without the House having any knowledge of the mode and objects for which it had been

  259
  paid—and what was still more extraordinary was, that neither the right hon. Baronet nor any Member of the Government appeared to have discovered the fact. He wished to impress upon the Government the necessity of making arrangements for furnishing the House with an accurate account of the public expenditure. To such knowledge the House was in every way entitled, and if more care were devoted to the communication of it the discrepancies to which he had called attention would not have occurred.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he hoped he should not be considered as interfering with the duties of the Secretary of the Treasury in answering the question which had just been proposed. His hon. Friend (Mr. Williams) seemed to have thought that as he was responsible for the administration of the finances for the year in question, it was his duty to answer the question; but the matter was so simple that it was immaterial from which side of the House the answer was given. It was impossible that the two sums to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, should coincide in any year. If any previous year were referred to, and the corresponding returns were examined, it would always be found that there was a material difference between the two sums, and the case would be the same in any future year. The reason was, that one was the account of the issues from the Exchequer during the year, the other the appropriation account of the expenditure for the year, made about a year and a half afterwards, when accounts from foreign stations have been received, and when the expenditure for the Army and the Navy has become precisely known—the Treasury account was a cash account, simply exhibiting the expenses of the Army and Navy during the year, while part of the issue might be in respect of the expenses of the previous year. If he might employ a familiar illustration, he would call attention to the fact that in estimating the expenditure of any private family they would look, not merely to the payments made within the year, but to the expenditure incurred within the year, and which, however well regulated the family, would not be defrayed till the following year. It was impossible, therefore, that the two sums to which the hon. Member referred could ever coincide.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he thought the House might learn from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman
  260
  what sort of Returns were laid before them. The fact was, that the Treasury accounts, so far as they related to the expenditure, did not give the real expenditure of the year—they gave it up to the time they were made—but, if any one wished to know the exact sum, he must wait twelve or fifteen months. The quarterly accounts of expenditure were really of no value as showing what was the actual expenditure for that period, and the House would do well not to rely too much upon them.

THE NEW GOVERNMENT OFFICES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. TITEsaid, he rose to put the Question of which he had given notice—to ask the Chief Commissioner of Works, what steps have been taken by the Government with reference to the rebuilding of the Foreign Office in Downing Street. It would be in the recollection of the House that last Session a Select Committee was appointed in reference to the reconstruction of the Foreign Office, He sat on that Committee, and the evidence before it showed this state of things:—In 1856 a suggestion was made by the House itself, that all the government offices should be associated together in one large block of buildings, and that there ought to be a public competition on the largest scale for the furnishing of designs for the building so proposed. It was also proposed that certain premiums should be offered for the best designs, amounting to considerable sums. In consequence of the advertisements which were issued upon that suggestion 220 designs were sent in, 200 of which were of the Italian style of architecture, and 10 of the Gothic. A Commission was then appointed to inquire as to what parties were entitled to the premiums. There was one professional gentleman upon that Commission (Mr. Burn), an architect of great eminence, who thoroughly understood the subject under consideration. The remainder were, no doubt, eminent men but not technically conversant with such matters. The Commission, after some time, called in further professional assistance in the persons of Messrs. Angell and Pownall, two architects of great experience. After some consideration of the question the number of competitors was reduced from 220 to 70 in the first instance, and afterwards to 40. The premiums were awarded. After considerable discussion the select Committee of 1858 had recommended the purchase of a large mass of property to fur-

  261
  nish the site of the Foreign Office, and it appeared that part of this site was now to be occupied by the new building for the Council of India, and that the cost of this site alone would be £500,000 or £600,000. The House would see the importance of the question. Thus the Committee found that £110,000 had been expended in procuring so much of the site of Downing Street as was cleared, and a portion of the ground in Fludyer Street. The Committee, moreover, recommended the expenditure of another £100,000 to extend the site to Charles Street, and the whole area would be about double the size of the new Custom House. It was further recommended that the Foreign Office should be erected upon the end nearest the Park, occupying a portion of the Park equal to 130 by 110 feet. The façade of the building here towards the Park would only show one-third of its length; it would therefore be necessary to take down the State-Paper Office, and part of the property in Duke Street. At the other end, up to Charles Street, there was a block of buildings between Parliament Street and King Street, which should be secured in order to open the façade, and which would cost about £150,000 more; in addition to which the houses in Duke Street would cost £50,000. This, therefore, was a work of very great importance. The former Chief Commissioner of Public Works declared distinctly that the Government would not be bound to employ the architect who obtained the premium. No doubt that was so, but, notwithstanding, it was the impression of the profession and the recommendation of the Committee, that the architect to be chosen should be taken from the successful competitors. It subsequently appeared before the Committee that the gentlemen to whom the first premium was assigned for the design for the Foreign Office had not been recommended by the professional advisers of the Committee. In their list they stood sixth; but all the lists agree in the award of the second and third premiums, which, in fact, ought to have been the first and second. Thus the Committee passed over the gentleman who had obtained the first premium for the design, so that ultimately there remained but two gentlemen upon whom the discussion turned. The first premium was awarded to Messrs. Banks and Barry for a design of great merit, mainly in the Italian style of architecture. The next in order was Mr. Scott, for a design commonly called Gothic—a
  262
  design also of great merit, and one which had been worked out with great skill. It was of the Gothic style of the north of Italy, but different in character to what we were generally acquainted with in London. A considerable discussion arose in the Committee upon this matter, many of the Members believing that there would be considerable incongruity in an arrangement under which a mass of building would be erected in a style of architecture not corresponding with those in the neighbourhood. It had, indeed, been suggested that the genius loci required that there should be a harmony between the new public offices and the Houses of Parliament and West-minster Abbey; but it had been urged, with much force, that neither of those buildings could be seen in juxta-position with these new buildings, and certainly the carrying out of Mr. Scott's design would be both inconvenient and expensive. There could be little doubt that the Italian style would be more suited to the wants of common life, and that Gothic would be very inconvenient. Every hon. Gentleman who had served on Committees of that House would, he thought, agree with him, that the simple method of drawing down the sash of a window was a better mode of ventilating a close room on a hot day than more complicated arrangements, however ingenious. The Committee on this matter had made a report, which, however, was not very decided on many important particulars. They had recommended that the architect should be chosen from the list of competitors, and left the other questions mainly to be determined by the Government. Since then he had learnt, semi-officially, through the usual channels of information, that Mr. Scott had been appointed the architect, and that a Gothic design had been chosen. He also understood Mr. Scott had also been chosen architect for the new building for the Indian Council, which was to occupy the part of the site east adjoining the Foreign Office, but not agreeing with the building in which the British Parliament assembled, nor with any of those in the neighbourhood of the proposed structure. He (Mr. Tite) ventured to think that the style designed by Mr. Scott was both inconvenient and expensive. The Committee generally, however, seemed to entertain a contrary opinion. The Committee made their report accordingly, as he had stated. It, however, recommended that the architect should be chosen out of the general competitive body, and that the remaining question should be

  263
  left in the hands of the Government. The Duke of Buccleuch was now about to rebuild Montague house in Parliament Street, which was to be in a plain, Italian style, and to be faced with stone. The style, therefore, of the proposed block of Government offices would not harmonize with that of the buildings on the side nor front of it. Now, he would suggest that, in these cases, the competing architects should be preferred in the order of the merit which characterized their designs; and Mr. Barry, the son of Sir C. Barry, but in no other way connected with that eminent man, felt that he had not been quite fairly dealt with. No doubt the Government had had no intention to cast the least reflection upon an able and honourable man; yet, the fact was, that Messrs. Banks and Barry had been set aside, and a competitor below them on the list had been selected to carry out this work. Another point worthy of attention was this:—Mr. Scott, from whose merits he would be the last to detract, was unquestionably as competent to erect an Italian building as a Gothic one; and if it were the pleasure of the House or the Government to give him instructions to that effect, that gentleman could have no difficulty in introducing Italian features and Italian arrangements into this plan. This subject, involving, as it did, a probable expenditure of between £500,000 and £600,000 for the purchase of the site alone, in addition, possibly, to a similar sum upon the building, was one of great public importance. What he wanted was a comprehensive plan adapted to the situation proposed—for if the south side of Downing Street were to be Gothic, what was to be done with the north side? If the House, in their ordinary legislation made a mistake, it was easy to bring in a Bill to alter and amend it; but not so if we recorded our mistakes in costly monuments of granite or marble. He had, therefore, to ask the noble Lord whether, as far as their present instructions go, the Government propose to execute these buildings in the style to which he had referred.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: In answering the Question of the hon. Gentleman, I think I cannot do better than recall to the recollection of the House the exact position in which the subject stood when the change of Government took place last year. That position was, in fact, a complete dead lock. It then appeared to me, as it also did to the House, that the best
  264
  mode of meeting all the difficulties of the case was to appoint a Select Committee thoroughly to investigate all the complicated details connected with the question. That Committee sat for a considerable period, examining all the most material witnesses they could find, with the view of arriving at some definite and satisfactory conclusions on the whole subject. Their Report was not ready until the middle of July, and it was impossible to ask the House to take any steps then, in consequence of the late period of the Session. However, I devoted a good deal of time during the recess to the reconsideration of the whole subject, and to an examination of the report and evidence. In that Report the main points to which the Committee refer are four. They first recommend that one of the successful competitors should be appointed architect of the new Foreign Office. They next express an opinion that as far as the style of architecture is concerned there is no material difference as regards economy, commodiousness, and public utility between the rival styles., In the third place, they recommend that in any plan that may be adopted care should be taken that the plan selected should be so arranged as to be in harmony with any more general concentration of public offices. Lastly, they recommend that purchase should be made of the plot of ground to which the hon. Member has referred between Charles Street and Crown Street. In consequence of that last recommendation of the Committee I directed notices to be given in November last for the purchase of that plot of ground, and a Bill will be brought before the House in a few days with that object. It then became my duty to consider what recommendations should be made to the Treasury and what steps should be taken to bring the subject in a certain and definite shape before Parliament this Session. The Committee recommended, and I agree with them, that the architect should be selected from the successful competitors. As far as appears from the Report of the Committee, the first three prize men stand upon an equality. The Committee also reported in respect to commodiousness and public utility there was no preference between the contending designs of what may be called the national or foreign styles—the Gothic or the Italian. That being the case I had to decide which of the three prizemen should be the ar-

  265
  chitect employed, and which of the contending styles should be adopted. I say it with all deference to my hon. Friend that the decision on that point was arrived at, not by the Government, nor by me, but was governed, in point of fact, by the site on which the Foreign Office was to be placed. A few days after I had made my recommendations to the Government, I received an intimation from my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India that it was highly expedient that ground should, if possible, be found in the immediate neighbourhood of Downing Street for his department. Upon due consideration we found a piece of ground adjoining that proposed for the erection of a Foreign Office, which afforded sufficient space for the new Indian office. My noble Friend in council decided that this ground should be purchased of the Government, and that the erection of the Indian Office should be confided to the same architect to whom it was proposed to entrust the building of the Foreign Office. Thus, if the House should sanction the proposed arrangement, there will be uniformity of design, and these two offices will make one great whole. The new Indian Office will occupy the space which, under a former arrangement, was to be occupied by the War Office, with this agreeable difference, that the whole expense will be defrayed out of Indian instead of Imperial resources. These preliminary points having been decided by the Government as far as they could be, it now became my duty to desire Mr. Scott to put himself in communication with the authorities of the Foreign Office, and to make a plan adapted to the altered circumstances of the case. I am in daily expectation of receiving the drawing and plans, and the course I propose to adopt is one which, if the House should sanction it, will, I think, tend to promote the public convenience, and be consistent with due economy. I propose, as soon as I have seen and approved these plans, to submit the working drawings and sections to the competition of some of the most eminent contracting building firms. When I have received tenders from them, it is my intention to place in the library of the House of Commons, for the inspection of every Member, the matured plan and design of the architect, and the estimate—not the estimate of the architect—but the estimate at which the contractors guarantee to complete the building, so far as the building itself is concerned. I believe that if the House
  266
  will co-operate with the Government in this course they will see this long-vexed question settled in a way which will be satisfactory to the public, that a Foreign Office will be erected worthy of the country, and at an expenditure not disproportioned to the importance of the department.
  SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that the noble Lord having declared that when he came into office he found this question at a dead lock, and such a declaration was calculated to convey an impression that there had been a want of activity on the part of the noble Lord's predecessors in office. [Lord J. MANNERS disclaimed the imputation.] He therefore felt bound to state the cause of this dead lock. In 1856 a Committee was appointed by that House to consider the whole question of the public offices, and in consequence of their recommendation he, with the sanction of the Government, introduced a Bill for acquiring certain property upon which two new offices might be erected, and which property the present Government now proposed to purchase, with the exception of the ground at the back of the Irish office, which he thought ought also to be acquired. The Bill thus introduced went through a Select Committee, and it afterwards went through a Committee of the whole House, but as the Bill was very much opposed by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who now were about to bring forward a similar measure, he was compelled to withdraw it. No fault could be found with the late Government for the delay, but if blame were due to any one it was with those hon. Gentlemen who would not allow the Bill of the late Government to proceed, and who were now about to bring in a Bill nearly identical. Last year another Committee was appointed to consider the reconstruction of the Foreign Office. The Committee were unanimously of opinion that if any design were adopted it should be one of the designs that had gained the first three premiums at the great competition of 1857, when the plans were exhibited in Westminster Hall. But the noble Lord had not given any particular reason why he had passed over the first and second premiums and given the erection of the new Foreign Office to the architect who had gained the third prize. He would admit that if it were to be decided that a Gothic building should be constructed in the midst of buildings that had nothing Gothic about them, no architect could be

  267
  found who understood that style of architecture better than Mr. Gilbert Scott. But he thought the noble Lord should state the reasons why he bad rejected the plan to which the first and second premiums were awarded, and adopted that to which only the third place was awarded by the judges. The noble Lord had said that he would place that plan in one of the Committee-rooms for the inspection of Members, but he (Sir Benjamin Hall) thought that it would be only fair to hang up by the side of it the plans of the two other architects in order that hon. Members might see the three designs. The House might also form its own conclusion as to the effect of a Gothic building placed near the Treasury Chambers and Whitehall, with which it had nothing in common.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, that the right hon. Baronet had asked the noble Lord at the head of the Board of Works why he had passed over the first and second prizemen, and given the execution of the work to the third; but if the right hon. Baronet would look at the tables at the end of the blue-book he would see obvious reasons for that selection. On the list of judges of the designs exhibited there was only one professional gentleman, who was the person chosen to rebuild Montague House; and there were two professional assessors. This judge and the assessors separately drew up their two lists of awards, and it was seen upon them that prizemen No. 1 only gained the sixth place for the Foreign Office, and that he did not compete at all for the War Office; and No. 2, Messrs. Banks and Barry, appeared as first prizemen for the Foreign Office, but for the War Office they appeared nowhere on one of those lists, and only fifth on the other; whereas on both lists Mr. Gilbert Scott was second for both buildings. These lists were overruled by the nonprofessional majority of this judge, who likewise, in opposition to the object of the competition, refused to give more than one prize to any one competitor. Thus the lists of Mr. Burn and of the assessors remained the only tests of comparative excellence. According, then, to the award of the professional gentleman, who must be supposed to know more of the matter than amateurs, however skilful, the sum total of merit in the competition rested with Mr. Scott, as second for both the War Office and Foreign Office. On this award, no doubt, was based the decision of the Government. Just at that moment the question of building an Indian Office
  268
  came on, and it was decided that it should be placed on the site and on the footing which the War Office was intended to have occupied, and Mr. Scott having obtained the great sum total of merit among the competitors for that building, if he had not been selected as the architect of the Indian Office as well as the Foreign Office, it would have been a miscarriage of injustice, and a great injury to a most distinguished man. If the House reversed the decision of the Government, the matter would be placedin a most ridiculous position. The Minister for India proposed, out of his own pocket, to build an Indian Office on land bought out of Indian revenue, and he had appointed Mr. Scott the architect, as he had a right to do; and if that gentleman was deprived of the building of the Foreign Office, you would have him building the Indian Office, and next door to it there would be another architect building the Foreign Office, perhaps in a different style. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite) said that Mr. Scott's
  designs were Italian Gothic, and not English Gothic, like the style of the Houses of Parliament, and then he spoke of the inconveniences of the latter style, illustrating them by the inconvenience of the windows. It was the fact of such inconvenience which had induced Mr. Scott to choose Italian modifications of the Gothic style, and the hon. Gentleman must recollect that Mr. Scott produced figures before the Committee which proved that by the adoption of this style the windows of the proposed Foreign Office would be wider than those of any other public building in London. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Marylebone, (Sir B. Hall) said, that a Gothic building would be incongruous with the Treasury; but had the right hon. Gentleman forgotten his great plan of carrying a block of buildings down to Great George Street, where they would amalgamate, not with the comparatively small mass of the Treasury buildings, but with the great Palace of Westminster and the Abbey? All forms of Gothic were but phases of the same style, and in the present instance there would not be a greater incongruity than existed between the Palace of Westminster and the ancient Abbey. The hon. Member for Bath thought he made a great coup in appealing to Sir Charles Barry's evidence before the Committee with regard to incongruity of style being a defect; but in answer to questions put to him, Sir Charles Barry said that if he were going to erect

  269
  a great building in close proximity to St. Paul's, it would not necessarily lead him to adopt the Italian style; and when he was asked if he would put a large Gothic building in St. Paul's Churchyard, he replied that he was not prepared to say that he should not. So much for Sir Charles Barry's opinion with regard to incongruity. He (Mr. Hope) trusted that the noble Lord (Lord J. Manners) would not be deterred by the slight opposition which had been manifested from going on with a plan which had received the general approbation of the leading journals, and of all thinking men. If the noble Lord exhibited the other designs with Mr. Scott's in the library of the House it would be very generous in him, but it was not necessary. The Committee had referred the selection of the architect out of the three prizemen, not to the House again, but to the Government, and the Government would only do their duty if they refused to shirk the responsibility which had been cast upon them.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he felt bound to express his regret that Gothic architecture had been adopted for the style of public buildings in this metropolis. The disadvantages of it could not be better illustrated than by the place where the House of Commons were then assembled. Gothic architecture gave at the maximum of cost the minimum, of accommodation, and, at the same time, a degree of darkness which, in London, was most inconvenient. The noble Lord talked of the Gothic as the national style of architecture; but he would remind him of the names of Wren and Inigo Jones, and the style of architecture they adopted. The Gothic was an European style of architecture, and it was a mere revival introducing it into civil edifices. It had beauty and merits in the period when great ecclesiastical monuments were raised, and was eminently characteristic of the spirit of that age. But the day was gone by for it. It was a barbarous style. We did not live in an age of darkness. We wanted more light, and he thought our public offices especially wanted both light and ventilation in more senses than one. He could not hear the question discussed without recording his protest against the use of Gothic architecture in public edifices. It was a style peculiar to a sect of which the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Beresford Hope) was a distinguished representative, but it was antagonistic to the taste and feelings of the English people.
  GENERAL THOMPSONasked, whether it might not be wise to postpone the question of pulling down their barns and building greater, until after the Bills with regard to India had been brought in? There might be some from other parts of the world too, and if public opinion were taken as a guide, they might be just upon the eve of a European war; and if so, it would be difficult for England not to take a hand in it. Now, private families generally looked ahead, and did not spend money when immediate difficulties might be supposed to be coming upon them. The Government said they could not accede to the wishes of the people and remove the tax on paper, which amounted to little more than £1,000,000 a year; but they could remove the income tax to the amount of £11,000,000 a year, and they now came forward with a plan which he felt sure would be considered very ill-advised in point of expenditure. He spoke for certain poor men among his constituents, who he knew would grumble audibly if he did not raise his voice at such a period.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON:—I have never heard a less satisfactory explanation, both as regards the selection of the architect and the choice of the style in which the Foreign Office is proposed to be built, than that given by the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Public Works. The reason last assigned, that of the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Beresford Hope), for the choice of Mr. Scott was, that he was always second in all the trials which had taken place, that he was second competitor for the Foreign Office, and second also for the War Office, and that therefore he ought to be put first; on the principle, I suppose, that the two negatives make an affirmative. It certainly is a new doctrine. What would be said if it were applied to horse-racing, and the horse which ran second in two heats were held to be entitled to the cup? Then, again, Mr. Scott was chosen because he was second competitor for the Foreign Office and for the War Office; but it now appears that there is to be no War Office, and the Foreign Office alone is to be built; and therefore Mr. Scott is reduced in point of claim, and we are told that he has been chosen to build a Foreign Office because his plan for that building was second-best. With regard to the Gothic style, we are told that it has been adopted because it is the national style, suited to Teutonic nationalities, and all that sort of thing. If that theory

  271
  of nationalities is to be carried out in our public buildings, the noble Lord the Secretary for India, in building his new office, should be lodged in a pagoda or a taj-mahal. That would be adapting the national style to the department over which be presided; and as Mr. Scott cannot be expected to be well acquainted with that style, the noble Lord should invite, as most competent for the purpose, the aid of some architect from India to decide as to what will be best for an Indian office. In my opinion no satisfactory reason has been given why the architects, whose plans were better than those of Mr. Scott, should have been set aside, and Mr. Scott selected. I quite agree with my right hon. Friend (Sir B. Hall) that if Mr. Scott's plans are to be exhibited, it will be more fitting that the plans of the other architects which were adjudged to be better should also be exhibited at the same time. I quite agree with the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Coningham) in his protest against the selection of the Gothic style. In my opinion it is going back to the barbarism of the dark ages for a building which ought to belong to the times in which we live. And what, let me ask, is the reason alleged? It is said it is the intention to fill up the entire space between Downing Street and Westminster Abbey with buildings, all of which are to be Gothic, and that therefore it is desirable to begin with a Gothic Foreign Office. This is, in my mind, a reason against the proposal; for if the choice of a Gothic Foreign Office is to involve the necessity of an immense block of Gothic buildings down to Westminster Abbey, it seems to me we are beginning the first step of a course which we shall all have cause to deprecate, and which, instead of being an ornament to London, will create a black spot in the metropolis. Then, as to the principle of "congruity;"—it is said you should have a Gothic building because you intend to expend £5,000,000 in covering the ground between Downing Street and Westminster Abbey with buildings belonging to that style of architecture. But if the principle of congruity is to be applied to the future, why not apply it to the present? The neighbourhood of Downing Street is full of buildings of totally different styles of architecture. The State-paper Office, a most convenient fire-proof building, which cost the public £50,000, is, we hear, to be pulled down; and the mania for pulling down is to extend not only to it, but, in order to complete the "congruity," we
  272
  should have to Gothicise the Horse Guards, and apply Gothic exteriors to all the buildings in the neighbourhood. At present all the buildings in connection with the public departments and Downing Street are in different styles—in fact all the principal buildings in London are various in their architectural types. There are the Treasury buildings, the Horse Guards, the Admiralty, the Banqueting House—one of the finest specimens of architecture to be found anywhere—these are to be contrasted with a building which after all does not answer the description of the noble Lord who talks of a "national style," for it appears not to be English Gothic, but, as stated by the hon. Member for Maidstone, Italian or Lombard Gothic. I have not had the advantage of visiting those climes lately, and therefore I do not exactly know what the peculiarities of Lombard Gothic are, but it combines, I suppose, all the modifications of barbarism. Look, too, at that street of palaces, Pall Mall, where the clubs vie in splendour with each other; take St. Paul's and Somerset House, and I venture to say that they are handsomer, in their respective styles, than either Westminster Abbey or the new Houses of Parliament. The Houses of Parliament are no doubt very beautiful, but I think it was a great mistake, both in point of expense and accommodation, to make thorn Gothic. I had nothing to do with making them so—but I think we made what was certainly a handsome mistake both in point of cost and utility. Then why, let me ask, are we to be doomed for ever to erect buildings in a style totally inapplicable to the purposes for which they are intended? I hope, however, that the decision of the noble Lord is not irrevocable, and that he may be induced to modify his views. I find, upon reading the Report of the Committee, that Mr. Scott has studied the Greek and Italian style of architecture as well as the Gothic; and if it is finally determined that he is to be the architect, as he is a person of great talent, I have no doubt he may be able to make as handsome a design in the Latin or Grecian order, as this Gothic one which the noble Lord favours. If Mr. Scott be the architect, I hope he will be told to put a more lively and enlightened front to his buildings, than that which he contemplates, and that we may see them in harmony with the other public buildings of the metropolis, either of Greek or Italian architecture, and that the noble

  273
  Lord opposite will not insist upon erecting a Gothic Foreign Office in Downing Street.
  MR. BENTINCKagreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Bradford (General Thompson) as to the inexpediency of spending large sums of money under present circumstances on ornamental architecture. Without going into the question of the probability of war, the state of Europe was such as to make it probable that our naval and military expenditure must be greatly increased; our naval armament was insufficient, and in the Royal Speech there was an announcement that a large sum would be needed for the reorganization of the navy. Until the country was put into a perfect state of defence it was the duty of Parliament not to sanction the expenditure of a single shilling that could be spared on such purposes as this. More especially was this their duty if there were any truth in the painful rumour that, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought forward his budget, the House would be called upon to supply an inevitable deficiency.

THE NATIVE PRINCES OF INDIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. VERNON SMITHrose to ask the Secretary of State for India whether any reward or mark of honour had been conferred upon those Native Princes or their Ministers who have proved faithful to Her Majesty during the late Indian mutiny. The subject to which his question referred was one of great importance to the future Government of our Indian Empire, for a good understanding with the Native Princes would be the safest defence against the recurrence of such disasters as those from which we were now suffering. In the debate upon his Motion in July, 1857, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks stated that all the Native Princes were against us, and he (Mr. Vernon Smith) ventured to assert that the Rajah of Patteala, the Maharajah of Gwalior, and others were and would be faithful to us. The Maharajah of Gwalior took a great interest in our favour, and it was owing to his exertions and those of his minister that the revolted Contingent, for four critical months, was prevented from attacking our forces. We had to thank God that our Native troops in the Presidencies of Madras and Bombay did not revolt simultaneously with those in Bengal. That they did not do so was very much owing to
  274
  the conduct of the Nizam, and particularly to that of his minister (Sala Jung), who exposed himself to personal risk in putting down a mutiny, and himself arrested a mutineer in the front of the army. Besides these, there had been numerous other cases in which Native Princes and their ministers had seconded our exertions for the suppression of the mutiny, and had cordially supported our cause. It was therefore in his (Mr. Vernon Smith's) opinion most expedient, not only from motives of gratitude, but in order to secure the future well-being and tranquillity of India, that some token of our approbation—that some reward—should be given to these men. He hoped that hereafter we were to govern India by the sympathy of the Native Princes, carrying them along with us in the conviction that we were administering the government better than it had been by their predecessors for ages. If we were to do so we must show that we were willing to bestow upon them rewards and honours similar to those which we conferred upon men of our own nation who were eminent in our service. Upon Jung Bahadoor he believed that some reward had been bestowed, but it would also be wise to restore to him some territory in Oude which had formerly been separated from Nepaul. It was no great thing for which he was now asking, because it was remarkable with how little acknowledgment the Native mind was contented. A simple letter from the Sovereign put Runjeet Singh in a state of joyous exultation; and in the same way a Queen's Letter, or some similar mark of honour, would be esteemed an abundant reward for the services which these Native Princes had rendered to our cause. He had no reason to suppose that the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) would be backward in adopting this course; but if it had happened that, from the difficulty of selection, or the embarrassment arising from the great amount of business which had been east upon him, he had been unable to attend to this matter, he hoped that he would understand that this question was put, not with a view of embarrassing him, but in order to show that public opinion would support him in conferring these rewards. It was not the province of a Member of Parliament to suggest to the Crown what honours should be bestowed, or upon whom, but he hoped that he might, without exceeding his province, state what he conceived the public would sanction, and without specifying the

  275
  instances for its application, what, as a general rule, he thought would stimulate the Natives to assist us and be highly beneficial to our Government in India. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by asking his Question.
  LORD STANLEY: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman opposite has put this question to me, and has called the attention of the House to the subject to which it refers. I agree with him that at the present time hardly any subject can be of greater importance to the Government of India, and I fully concur in what he has said, that the whole course of recent events has confirmed the view of that school of Indian politicians who have always maintained the importance of keeping up the independence and dignity of these Native States as against the modern theories of annexation; and have contended that we should find them our most faithful allies and supporters in times of difficulty and danger. The subjects of rewards to our Native allies has not escaped the attention of the Government in this country. Two despatches, one dated the 28th of July, from the late Court of Directors; and the other the 31st of December, addressed by me to Lord Canning, have been sent to the Government of India, naming certain Native Princes as specially deserving of reward, and calling for a general report from the authorities as to the claims of others. That general report we have not yet received, and I need not tell the right hon. Gentleman, or the House, that in a matter of this kind it is impossible for us, in this country, to act without previous consultation with the local Government in India. Rewards, however, have been given to several persons. To the Rajah of Patteala, by a cession of territory worth two lacs of rupees a year, and something besides; to the Rajah of Jheend, territory worth one lac; to the Rajah of Nubba, territory worth one lac; and to the Rajah of Chirkaree some land of which the value is not known. The Guicowar has received a remission of the tribute or subsidy of three lacs of rupees annually, which he was bound to pay for the support of a force of irregular cavalry. That subsidy has been remitted with the sanction of Government, by the advice and upon the representation of Lord Canning. The cases of Scindiah, Holkar, and the Nizam are specially mentioned in one—I think in both—of the despatches to which I have referred. That of Gwalior is at
  276
  present under consideration. With regard to Nepaul, the House is aware that a distinguished mark of honour has been conferred upon the able minister of that State. It has also been in contemplation to show our sense of the assistance which we derived from the Government of Nepaul in the manner suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. A correspondence has taken place upon that subject; but in a matter of this kind much discretion must be left to the authorities in India, and I have not yet heard whether any final arrangements have been made with regard to it. I can only remark, in conclusion, that I am as fully impressed, and I believe that the Government here and the Government in. India are as fully impressed as the right hon. Gentleman can be with the importance of not destroying the grace and the value of these gifts by deferring them until a time when the memory of the services for which they are the rewards shall have passed away.

WRECK OF THE "CZAR" STORESHIP.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BUXTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he had received any explanation of the conduct of Commander Dunn, of Her Majesty's steam sloop Virago, who saw the Czar screw storeship go ashore off the Lizard at 2·15 on Saturday, January 22, but continued his course without making any attempt to succour the crew (twelve of whom perished, besides the master and his wife), upon the ground, as he alleges, that he thought very little assistance could be rendered. He did not doubt that the conduct of Commander Dunn would turn out to have been perfectly right, but he thought that the matter ought to be thoroughly cleared up, in order that merchant captains might not be able to allege the example of a commander in Her Majesty's navy as a reason for neglecting to assist a ship which was in peril.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that he was not surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have wished for some explanation of the circumstances which attended the wreck of the Czar and the melancholy loss of life which accompanied it, and with the permission of the House he would state the facts which were immediately reported to the Admiralty. The Czar went ashore in the middle of the day upon a rock very close to the Lizard Point. At that time Her Majesty's steam-sloop Virago was between ten and eleven miles directly to the

  277
  eastward and leeward of the Lizard, and the persons on board of her distinctly saw the calamity which had befallen the Czar. The weather was then very bad, it was blowing a gale, and the sea was very heavy. In addition to the usual responsibility resting upon the commander of a ship, Commander Dunn was responsible for the safety of 200 of Her Majesty's troops, whom he was conveying from Cork to Plymouth. Under these circumstances, and seeing another steam vessel much nearer to the Czar than he was, and steaming towards her, he deemed that it was his duty not to attempt to render her any assistance, but to proceed at once to Plymouth. These circumstances were at once reported to the Admiralty, and he was bound to say that the impression of the Board upon receiving the statement was that it was not satisfactory; that the duty of an officer in command of one of Her Majesty's ships to render assistance to a wrecked vessel, if it was possible, was so imperative, that Commander Dunn would have exercised a sounder judgment if he had at least made an attempt to succour the Czar. In consequence of this being the impression of the Board of Admiralty, orders were sent to Plymouth that there should be a court of inquiry into the circumstances. Three very experienced and able captains held that inquiry, and arrived at the conclusion that although any attempt to render assistance to the Czar would have been attended with serious risk, the attempt should, nevertheless, have been made by Commander Dunn, though, according to the evidence, it would have been attended with no good result. That was the opinion of the officers who made the inquiry; and he was hound to add that the Board of Admiralty had concurred in that opinion, and had communicated to Commander Dunn that, while recognizing the responsibility and difficulty of his position, they thought he would have acted with a sounder judgment if he had at least made the attempt to rescue the crew of the Czar.
  Motion agreed to: House at rising to adjourn till Monday.

TITLES TO LANDED ESTATES.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: —Sir, I rise to move for leave to introduce a Bill to simplify the title to landed estates in England. The subject is one the importance of which is now admitted by every one. The evils which are complained of,
  278
  and the complexities which have to be simplified, are unfortunately now no new topic. Looking back to the history of the law of real property in this country, it may, by a broad line of demarcation, be divided in substance into two periods. Up to the time of the Commonwealth you were occupied in endeavouring, by means of legal fictions, to make the severe and simple forms of feudal law bend themselves to the advancing interests of commerce and to the wants of the people. Examples of this process may be found in the introduction of the fictitious system of fines and recoveries in this country, and in the various purposes which the complicated contrivance of uses and trusts was made to serve. Then, when about the period of the Commonwealth, you had succeeded by those fictitious means in getting rid, to a very considerable extent, of the severity of feudal tenures, a new period commenced, which has continued to the present time, during which the great effort has been to get rid in turn of those complex systems of legal fiction which had been useful up to that time in lessening the severity of feudal tenures. Of the work of the latter period examples are to be found in the constant and repeated efforts made after the year 1660 in this House to establish registers, sometimes successful, sometimes unsuccessful,—successful as to parts of the country, always unsuccessful as to the whole. You find examples of the same course of action in those most useful measures by which you got finally rid of the system of fines and recoveries altogether, and in the last reign the number of measures introduced with the view of limiting the various claims which formerly hung over landed estates, and thereby to a certain extent simplifying their transfer. It, is remarkable during the period I have mentioned how uniform has been the complaint of the injury to landed property itself, occasioned by the complexity of the title on which it was held. Upwards of 200 years ago, or thereabout, I observe, Sir Matthew Hale, writing of a property which he had purchased, said, "he would willingly give one year's purchase more for it could he be sure thereby to have a good title." That was a moderate "bid" for a simplification of title to landed property. Shortly after that—namely, in 1669, a Committee of the House of Lords was appointed to inquire into the question of the tenure of land, and a sentence from their Report, I think, is worthy the attention of the House. Lord Essex reported to the House:—

  279
  "That, after serious debate and examination of several persons of the Committee of Trade and Merchants, the Lords' Committee had come to the conclusion that one cause of the decay of value of lands was the uncertainty of titles of estates, and recommend that there should be a Bill of Registers for the future."
  The value of land was very much depreciated at that time, and the other House of Parliament came to the conclusion that the complexities of title had very much to do with that depreciation. I find that about the year 1703 the register of deeds was introduced into the West Riding of Yorkshire; and whatever may be our opinions of the advantages of that institution the grounds on which it was established are at least deserving attention. The Act by which the register was established recites—
  "That the West Riding is the principal place in the north for the cloth manufacture, and most of the traders therein are freeholders, and have frequent occasion to borrow money on their estates for managing their trade, but for want of a register find it difficult to give security to the satisfaction of the money lenders—although the security they offer be really good—whereby trade is much obstructed and many families ruined."
  This measure, therefore, affecting land as it did, was a measure introduced in the belief that commerce as well as land had suffered from the want of simplification in the title to landed property. Coming down to more modern times, I find in 1846 another Committee of the other House of Parliament addressed itself to the subject, and they reported—
  "They are convinced that the marketable value of real property is seriously diminished by the tedious and expensive process attending its transfer."
  Then, in 1856, a Royal Commission having been appointed to take the whole question into consideration, I find in the Appendix to their Report, to which I shall afterwards have occasion to refer, witness after witness addressing himself to the injury sustained by landed property, and to the actual loss consequent on the difficulties incident to its transfer. I take, as an instance, a statement made by an auctioneer in London, of eminence in his profession, and of great experience in dealing with landed estates. He says—
  "The effect of the present state of things is unfairly to depreciate the value of all fee simple property by obstructing and impeding transactions; whereas, if the principle acted upon in the Incumbered Estates Court in Ireland in regard to titles, and their confirmations was rendered universal—although it is not essential or requisite to
  280
  establish a similar court, under the circumstances in which property is placed, in England and Wales or Scotland—every estate would sell for at least three years' more purchase, a much larger amount of capital would be invested in landed and other real property, and circulated in improvements by its becoming unfettered and capable of immediate application."
  This estimate is a larger one than that of Sir Matthew Hale. He was willing to give one year's purchase, but the auctioneer offers three.
  Now, Sir, passing from this short preliminary view of the question, I think it desirable to define precisely the evils of which complaint is thus made in general terms. They may be said to be two. The first is the length of time which at present must elapse between the making of a bargain and the completion of the purchase. We know how the purchase of all other kinds of property is completed. If you buy stock you do not require to be told how many hours are necessary in which to make the transfer. If you buy railway shares, in like manner you have your purchase completed and your money paid in a few hours afterwards. Perhaps the most extraordinary facility of transfer obtains in the case of ships. In five minutes, and at an expense less than 5s., you may make a contract for, and actually transfer such a ship as the Himalaya or the Great Eastern. It ought never to be forgotten by the owners of shipping property in this country that, whatever may be their position in other respects, they have this singular advantage: they can transfer their property as they please and as often as they please without any fiscal duty; they are not subjected to the difficulties of making out title to which owners of landed property are subjected: and their ships will pass more easily than stock or shares. The mode in which the transfer of a ship is effected is by a document of a simple form, and by the entry upon a registrar that the transfer has taken place. But compare that with what is done in the case of landed property. You buy an estate at an auction, or you enter into a contract for the purchase of the estate. You are very anxious to get possession of the property you have bought, and the vendor is very anxious to get his money. But do you get possession of the property? On the contrary, you cannot get the estate, nor can the vendor get his money until after a long lapse—sometimes no inconsiderable portion of a man's lifetime—spent in the preparation of abstracts, in the compari-

  281
  son of deeds, in searches for incumbrances, in objections made to the title, in answers to those objections, in disputes which arise upon the answers, in endeavours to cure the defects. Not only mouths, but years, frequently pass in a history of that kind; and I should say that it is an uncommon thing in this country for a purchase of any magnitude to be completed—completed by possession and payment of the price—in a period under, at all events, twelve months. Sir, the consequences of this were stated in the Report of the Commission to which I have already referred, in words so apposite that if the House will permit me, I should desire to read to them. The Commissioners state in their Report:—
  "When a contract is duly entered into, the investigation of the title often causes not only expense but delay and disappointment, sickening both to the buyer and seller. The seller does not receive his money nor the buyer his land until the advantage or pleasure of the bargain is lost or has passed away."
  Unquestionably, Sir, that is one and a very great evil under which we labour. But that is not the greatest evil. I can well imagine that the purchaser of an estate would be content to submit to delay, and even to some considerable expense, if he were assured that when the delay and expense were over upon that occasion, at all events, he would have a title as to the dealings with which, for the future, there would be no difficulty. But, unfortunately, that is not the case. Suppose I buy an estate to-day. I spend a year, or two, or three years, in ascertaining whether the title is a good one, I am at last satisfied. I pay the expense—the considerable expense—which is incurred in addition to the price which I have paid for my estate, and I obtain a conveyance of my estate. About a year afterwards I desire to raise money upon mortgage of this estate. I find some one willing to lend me money provided I have a good title to the land. The man says. "It is very true that you bought this estate, and that you investigated the title; but I cannot be bound by your investigation of the title, nor can I be satisfied by it." Perhaps he is a trustee who is lending money which he holds upon trust. He says, "My solicitor must examine the title and my counsel must advise upon it." And then, as between me, the owner of the estate, and the lender of the money, there is a repetition of the same process which took place upon my purchase of the estate, and, con-
  282
  sequently, the same expense is incurred as when I bought it; and for the whole of that I, the owner of the estate and the borrower of the money, must pay. Well, that is not all. Months or years after all this is completed, from circumstances, I find I must sell my estate altogether. I find a person willing to become a purchaser. The intending purchaser says—"No doubt you thought this was a good title when you bought this estate, and no doubt this lender of money thought he had a very good security when he lent his money; but you are now asking me to pay my money. I must be satisfied that the title is a good one. My solicitor must look into it, and my counsel must advise upon it." Then again commences abstracts, examinations, objections, difficulties, correspondence, and delay. I am the owner of the estate, and I must pay substantially for the whole of that, because, although the expense there is paid in the first instance by the purchaser, of course in the same proportion as that expense is borne by him in the same proportion will abate the price which he will give for the estate.
  It is not necessary to dwell longer upon these, which are the salient evils to which under the present system landed property is subject. The question arises, is it possible to remedy these evils? We all agree that if it can be done a great good will be accomplished. But how is it to be done? Well, of course, the first thing to do in such an inquiry is to direct our attention to precedents. What have we by us, up to this time, which will afford us a guide by which we may act, and can we proceed further in the same direction? I suggest that the House should look to the case of Ireland. What has been done in Ireland by the Incumbered Estates Court? I beg the House to observe what were the particular objects for which the Incumbered Estates Court was in the first instance established in Ireland. These objects were two, and they were perfectly distinct; and it is important that we should keep this distinction prominently before us. The first object was to obtain the means of enforcing the compulsory sale of an incumbered estate; the second to give to the purchaser a Parliamentary title. Again, I say these objects were perfectly distinct—the one might have been obtained without the other. To which of these objects was it that the objections originally taken to the institution of the Incumbered Estates Court were directed?

  283
  Unquestionably to the first—to the compulsory sale of the estate. To force a sale at a period of depression, it was said, was unfair to the owner of the estate, because if he were allowed to keep it until a more favourable period he might sell at a price so advantageous as to enable him to pay off the incumbrances and have a surplus remaining. But no objection was made to the Parliamentary title being given to the purchaser. Why? Because it increased the value of the property, and was, therefore, beneficial to the owner. The Bill passed; the value of the estates sold under it rose, and it finally became matter for consideration in this House and in Committees of this House whether a system which applied so well to incumbered estates would not apply equally well to unincumbered estates, and it was decided, and I think most wisely, that it was impossible not to extend the system to them. The reasons which induced the House to come to that conclusion can be stated in a word; they never were and never could be refuted. They were three—First, it was said that if you did not extend the system to unincumbered estates there would be a continuance of a practice already existing, namely, of owners putting fictitious incumbrances on to their estates in order to effect a sale. Secondly, it was said, with respect to the Parliamentary title, there was no magic in the estate being incumbered, for this reason—upon a sale the existence of an incumbrancer did not give any security that the title was one that ought to be confirmed, because, of course, the object of an incumbrancer, who perhaps was only a judgment creditor, would be to conceal and not to disclose the title; it was the Court that secured the title. Thirdly, if you had an estate but partly incumbered, and which the Court was always prepared to sell, so far as that estate was not incumbered you were really selling an unincumbered estate, and with regard to the margin beyond the incumbrance handing it over at once to the owner. You were, therefore, virtually doing that which you were asked to do by extending the power of the Court to estates entirely unincumbered. You accordingly determined to go at all events the length of selling unincumbered estates.
  But then a further question arose. Could you stop short at sales? Was that all the power that this Court was to possess—merely to sell incumbered or unincumbered estates? Must you not go somewhat further and give an indefeasible title irrespec-
  284
  tive of a sale? Must you not also give an indefeasible title to persons who do not want to sell, but who possessed, and were able to prove their title? Here, again, were three reasons for so doing advanced. It was said, in the first place, just as before you had fictitious incumbrances, now you will have fictitious sales. Any person desirous to get his title affirmed will invent a colourable sale for the purpose of setting the Court in motion in his behalf and participating in the benefits it conferred. Secondly, it was said, "There is no magic in a sale by which you obtain a security with regard to the investigation of the title, because, if you tell the purchaser, 'When your purchase is completed you will have a Parliamentary title,' he will say, 'If I am to have a Parliamentary title, I will leave the whole thing to the Court. I will not trouble myself to investigate the title." Then, in the third place, it was said, "If you confine it to the case of sales, what are you to do with the number of other cases of this kind? A man wants to mortgage, not to sell; or to let out his ground for the purpose of building on long leases in plots; or he wants, upon his marriage, to make a settlement of family estates. All these are instances where there would be no sale, and yet they are instances where, just as much as in the case of a sale, you would require to have all doubts about the title removed." The result was that the House adopted these arguments and came to the conclusion, by a Bill that was passed last Session, to arm the Court, which before was called the Incumbered Estates Court, and now is called the Landed Estates Court, with power to give indefeasible titles to all purchasers, and to any owner of an estate who could prove a right to its possession, while at the same time its power with reference to the sale of incumbered estates was continued.
  Now, the advantage of this system to the public in Ireland no person has doubted for many years past. But we must not rest satisfied with the fact merely that it is advantageous to the public; we must inquire, I think, whether any danger has accrued from the exercise of those powers to individuals. Fortunately we have ample materials for conducting and disposing of this investigation. A Commission was appointed in 1655 to inquire into the working, up to that time, of the Incumbered Estates Court. In 1856 certain Bills which were then before Parliament on the subject were re-

  285
  ferred to a Select Committee of this House for the purpose of again inquiring into the working of that Court. Upon that Committee sat many hon. Members who are still Members of this House; the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham), the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Henley), the Secretary for the Home Department (Mr. Walpole), and the hon. Members for Coventry (Mr. Ellice), and Devonport (Mr. Wilson), were all on that Committee. It was intended, when the Committee was appointed, that all the different views of the question should be represented in it. On the Committee were some strong advocates of the Incumbered Estates Court, some equally strong opponents of it, and others who held a middle position and were anxious that the evidence on the question should be fully heard. There was a full inquiry into the working of the system up to that time, and the result may be shortly stated in this manner:—It was found there have been sold by the Incumbered Estates Court properties to the value of £20,000,000; that the conveyances executed by the Court exceeded 7,000 in number; adding those that have since been executed, they are not less than 8,500. The amount of acreage that has passed through the Court, (allowing for certain cases in which the same estates have passed through twice), is about 3,500,000 acres; therefore, as the area of Ireland is, I believe, from 20,000,000 to 21,000,000 acres, the Incumbered Estates Court has sold about one-seventh of the whole area of that country. Now, in the course of transactions so numerous, and of such magnitude, it is not too much to say that not a single case was proved of injury done to any individual by the granting of indefeasible titles. Of course, I do not enter into the question whether injury may not have been done by selling, by the Incumbered Estates Court, a property that might advantageously been kept longer unsold; but I contend that the Court has never sold the estate of one man as the estate of another, nor land as part of one estate which was really part of another. The House will remember that there was the greatest anxiety on the part of the Committee to arrive at the truth in this matter; and it was stated by Mr. Commissioner Hargrave that there had been only two cases in which he had heard it alleged that a wrong had been done in investigating a title under a sale of land. The House will be curious to know what
  286
  those cases were, though I may say that both errors were discovered before the completion of the sale and the execution of the conveyance, and consequently in time to prevent anything wrong being done. One of the two cases was the right to thirteen acres of a bog, to which no physical boundary existed. A boundary line was assumed at an angle somewhat more obtuse than ought to have been taken, by which thirteen acres of this bog had been included more than ought to have been taken in. But the error was discovered before the conveyance was executed; and as it was agreed by common consent that no sum low enough could be fixed on as the compensation for this portion, the right to correct tile error was given up. The other case was this,—in the sale of the Martin Estates, in Galway, which were heavily mortgaged to the Law Life Insurance Company in London, the company were in possession of a particular town-land, and therefore claimed that it should be sold with the other parts of the estate. Before it was sold, however, some one appeared and satisfied the Commissioners that the particular town-land ought not to be included in the sale. There, again, the question of compensation arose; but the Law Life Assurance Company said, we are so satisfied with the price in other respects, that we do not care about this. Let there be no dispute, therefore, and leave the question of compensation out of consideration altogether. Now it is a most remarkable fact, there being on that Committee Members opposed to the system, and eager therefore to discover every defect that could be alleged against it, that not a single instance was adduced except those I have mentioned as having up to that time occurred. That I may be perfectly accurate, I ought to say that those who refer to tile evidence will find a good deal of discussion about Lord Blayney's case; but no question about tile title was there raised, the question being whether the Court had acted prudently in selling a large estate which was but slightly incumbered; it therefore had reference to the discretion of the Court only, and consequently would not come properly under our consideration at the present moment.
  Now to what is it to be attributed that in transactions of such magnitude, in sales and transfers of such importance, there has been such great safety? I think it may be attributed to three causes. First, it has been the invariable practice

  287
  of the Commissioners to investigate the titles, in every case, on their own responsibility. The second cause is, I think, to be found in the powers the Court possesses to call before it the parties and their agents to give evidence on any points that require clearing up. The third ground of the security is this, that it is in the power and it is the practice of the Court to issue advertisements of sales, and serve notices in every direction, about the laud to be sold; in fact, the security is in the publicity of every proceeding attending a sale by the Court. In these three considerations I find the explanation of the wonderful fact that in so many transactions there has not, practically, been a single error. Now, compare the facilities afforded by the Incumbered Estates Court, with what takes place every day in this country. Many thousands, even millions of money change hands on the faith only of an investigation of title by conveyancers. What means have these conveyancers to pursue their investigations? They have nothing to guide them but deeds or abstracts of deeds and comparisons of deeds and abstracts. They cannot examine witnesses or take evidence on oath, or publish advertisements, or issue notices on neighbouring holders; and yet, we all know that in practice, meagre as are the means at the disposal of conveyancers, such a thing is hardly ever heard of as a title passed by a conveyancer afterwards turning out to be a bad title. Such being the case, let us see whether any reason has been suggested why that which has worked so well in Ireland—the bestowal of an indefeasible title—will not be equally beneficial and practicable in England. The only reasons which I have ever heard assigned—and upon a question so important, it is right that we should candidly consider every argument that can be brought forward—the only reasons I have ever heard assigned for this supposed difference between the two countries are these:—First, it is said that in Ireland there is a register of deeds, which enables us with greater security to know the state of every title. Next, it is said that in Ireland there is an Ordnance Survey upon a large scale of six inches to the mile; and further, that in Ireland there is an uniform valuation of the whole country, and that these advantages being possessed by the landed Estates Court enable it to act with greater safety than any Court in England could do in a similar case. I will state frankly
  288
  what occurs to me upon these objections. With respect to the register of deeds there is a register of deeds in Dublin for the whole of Ireland, and there is no doubt that if such register comprised every deed which could affect the land, and if the non-registry of any such deed rendered such deed for all purposes invalid in Ireland, that would show a vast difference between the two countries. But in point of fact such is not the case. I find it stated that there is a large class of deeds most material to the titles to estates which are never to be found in the register in Ireland, and with regard to which the greatest errors would arise if the Court depended on that register. I take this statement from one of the local authorities on this subject:
  "An unregistered conveyance is valid against the grantor, and he is personally bound to its fulfilment. It is also valid against persons deriving under him by marriage, descent, devise, succession, probate, administration, survivorship, and execution, and all persons claiming under him by means incapable of registration."
  The result is, that any Court which should be content to say, "We will search the register, and take the title to be just so much and nothing more than we find there," would at once fall into the gravest errors, and the greatest injury would be inflicted upon all persons claiming in the manner just mentioned. Therefore, although I do not underrate the importance to the Landed Estate Court of this register, yet so far from admitting that where such register does nut exist, you cannot apply a similar system, as is carried on by that Court, I think it shows there is great danger indeed where you have a register which goes, to a certain extent, but not to the full extent, of being engendered a false security. I think that there is a better chance of a Judge, on his own responsibility, forming his opinion on other materials, being right, than of a Judge trusting to an imperfect register of this kind. With respect to the Ordnance Survey, I think that reason may be easily dealt with. It is not the practice in Ireland to sell by map, and I hope such a practice will never prevail there. Therefore, Ordnance Survey has nothing distinctly to do with titles. No doubt it is valuable in order to ascertain the boundaries of the estates, and the positions of other properties in the same locality. But it must not be forgotten that although we have not a survey here upon so large a scale, still we have accurate surveys to a considerable extent. Indeed, in six of the northern counties, Yorkshire and Lanca-

  289
  shire being included, the twenty-five inch is almost completed, and I trust that in time we may have a similar survey made of all England. But then, besides this, we have a large and valuable collection of maps in the Tithe Office, the preparation and completion of which has cost, I am told, something like £2,500,000. Then, as to the third point, the uniform valuation, I have never been able to see how a uniform valuation in Ireland can be of any use to the Landed Estates Court. Valuation may be of great use if you wish to ascertain whether you are getting the true value on a sale, but with respect to the investigation, it can be of no value.
  Now, as these are the only reasons I have ever heard advanced against the system prevailing in Ireland being introduced to this country, I have felt it my duty to state my views of them; and the conclusion I have arrived at is this, that they are not reasons which should deter us from following the example of Ireland, if in other respects we are agreed as to its propriety. But against those reasons we may set off that which is the case with regard to titles in England. We have, and I say it with no intention of disparaging the abilities of my learned brethren in Ireland, a better system of conveyancing here than prevails in that country. We have got titles here into better order. The accounts of rentals are better kept, and the details of the holdings upon different estates are better recorded than is the case in Ireland. This has been universally admitted, even by Irish landed proprietors, who have lamented the imperfect condition of the accounts of their own rentals. The result, then, appears to me to be, that there is no valid reason why we should hesitate to apply to this country one part, and one part only, of the system which was introduced by the Incumbered Estates Court. The part which I think we could with safety apply to England, is the part by which the Court is authorized to grant an indefeasible title. The part which I would be sorry to see introduced here—because there is no occasion for it—is that which enables the Court to enforce a compulsory sale of incumbered estates. The usual course of the law is sufficient to give incumbrancers opportunities to realize their securities whenever they are inclined.
  Sir, I have now, I trust, explained to the House the grounds upon which I have arrived at the conclusion, that we may
  290
  with propriety offer a scheme for conferring upon persons, who prove to be entitled to it, an indefeasible, or, as it is called, a Parliamentary title to their lands. I will proceed to state, as briefly as I can, the general outline of the scheme we propose, and which is embodied in the first of the Bills which I ask leave to introduce. We propose that any owner in fee simple of land, or any one who has power to dispose of the fee simple of land for his own benefit, and who has been in possession or in receipt of rent by himself or predecessors for a period of five years, may come to the Court which we propose to establish, and which I will presently describe, and apply to have a declaration affirming his title to that particular land. He will have, in the first instance, to supply to the Court an abstract of his title, and a description of the land he claims. It will be the duty of the Court to see that two things are done—first, that there is shown in the document submitted to them a primâ facie title; and next, that the petitioner shall declare his willingness and give a sufficient pledge to meet such costs as may be necessarily incurred in the further investigation of the title by the Court. When that is done, the Court will proceed by advertisements in the newspapers and by notices served on and in the vicinity of the land in question, to make public the application which has been made to them. It will be incumbent on the applicant to the Court, if he does not claim a clear fee simple, to state that he claims a title subject to certain incumbrances, and the Court may announce that the application to them is for a title subject to certain incumbrances. The materiality of this is, that we seek to offer the strongest inducement, and to make it the interest of the applicant to state truly any incumbrance to which his land may be subject. If he does so, the advertisements and notices will state it, and then there will be no necessity for the person whose title is thus saved to come and object to the declaration asked for. If, however, any incumbrance is withheld from the knowledge of the Court, the publication of the notice will enable the incumbrancer to appear; and we provide that the costs of such appearance, when the claim is proved, shall be paid by the applicant. The same course may be taken where two or more persons constitute the owners of an estate. We have fixed upon two periods in respect to which the Court shall be governed in granting declarations

  291
  of title, at the end of the first of which the Court may make a provisional declaration of title, and at the end of the second an absolute declaration. Those periods, although open to further consideration, are these—twelve months for the first, and three months for the second. We have selected those periods because we find, from a statement of Mr. Hargrave, that the average period in which a sale is completed, and the money distributed by the Incumbered Estates Court, is fifteen months. During that time publicity continues, and there exist opportunities for persons to come forward and make claims if they have any; and, considering we are dealing at once and for ever with a title, I do not think we ought to fix upon a shorter period. There are certain things which every title must be subject to, and which we do not propose to interfere with—tithe rent-charges and burdens of any description, and easements which can only be discovered by an inspection of the property, such as rights of water, and other matters of that description. So also with respect to leases. We take twenty-one years as the ordinary maximum duration of an agricultural lease, and in those cases in which there is a lease which does not exceed that period, and the tenant is in possession, we do not propose to interfere in any way with that lease or holding, and the title will, as heretofore, continue subject to every instrument of that description. These are all matters which can be ascertained by any person who may be desirous of doing so on the spot, and not matters as to which there will be any necessity of giving notice of title. Well, when the declaration of title is made, we propose that its effect should be as follows:—That it should be efficacious in substance, for the purpose of change of ownership,—that is to say, that it should be a declaration which will enable a valid title to be conferred on sale, or mortgage, or lease, or settlement of landed property—in short, on any kind of dealing described in law as taking place for valuable consideration. We do not propose that the declaration of title shall be indefeasible, so long as the land is really held by the person who obtained it, or from him by a voluntary transfer without value. We propose that, to serve the purpose of alienation for valuable consideration, it shall operate, and that it shall not come into action unless there is some purpose of that kind to serve. We further propose, that
  292
  office copies should be furnished by the Court under which the provisions of the Bill, if it should be passed into a law, will be administered, which documents will constitute the certificate of title of the owner of the land. We also propose that the same process should be pursued upon the occasion of a sale, if the vendor or purchaser should deem it desirable to receive from the Court a declaration of title of this kind: in that case, the vendor and purchaser will jointly apply, and there will be a conveyance by the Court to the purchaser. We, in addition, provide that in the case of any claim upon an estate which, from its nature, is reducible to a simple money claim, and which does not go to the possession of the land itself, the Court shall have the power to require that a sum should be deposited with it previous to the declaration of title or sale, for the purpose of meeting the charge, should the necessity for its payment subsequently arise. We propose, moreover, that this power of conferring a title on sale should apply to sales under the Settled Estates Act, and also to estates under the control of the Court of Chancery, the new Court in such cases having a discretion to decide whether or not an indefeasible title ought to be given. We also provide a safeguard with respect to declarations of title, to which it has not been thought necessary to resort in Ireland, and to which it might not have been necessary to have recourse there; but which, as it is simple in its nature, and may easily be put into operation, I think it would be undesirable not to adopt as a matter of precaution. It is, that if any person should consider that he has an interest in an estate—be that interest ever so unascertained or remote—which he may think would be likely to be overlooked in a declaration of title of this kind, he should be empowered to lodge with the Court a caution or caveat, setting forth the land to which his claim applies; the result of which proceeding world be, that when application was made for declaration of title, with reference to the land which was stated to be involved in the claim, the person lodging the caveat would be entitled to notice of such application. He will not thus, of course, have his title to the lands in question affirmed, nor will he obtain any right which he does not at present possess; but should he be apprehensive that his claim would be overlooked, he will have nothing to do but to lodge this caveat, and to state where notice is to be served on

  293
  him, in case application is made for a declaration of title.
  I have now stated the course which is to be pursued by the Court in dealing with this subject, and I shall therefore at once proceed to inform the House what course we intend to pursue in reference to the Court itself. I freely admit that it would be extremely desirable, if the thing could be done, to make use, for the purposes which I have just mentioned, of some of the existing Courts of the country. It is expedient to do so in order to avoid multiplying unnecessarily our judicial tribunals, and the expense which is consequent upon the increase of their number. At the same time, however, we have, after the fullest consideration, arrived at the conclusion that the duties which would have to be discharged under the operation of the change which we are about to ask Parliament to sanction are of such a nature that there is no Court at present in existence in England to which their performance could advantageously or conveniently be committed. The reasons why we think such to be the case are two-fold. In the first place, all our Courts have already quite as much business to get through as they can well transact, and could not therefore undertake the discharge of duties of a magnitude so great as would, under the operation of this new legislation fall upon them, with the hope of being able to deal with them satisfactorily. But there is a second, and perhaps a better reason for not imposing upon them this additional labour, than that which I have just mentioned. It is, that this new species of business which we propose to introduce is as different from any which our Courts of law are now in the habit of transacting as one description of business can be from another. The Courts which we already have are tribunals which are engaged in trying disputes between individuals—a plaintiff on the one side and a defendant on the other—and the duty of the Judges in these cases is to confine themselves within the scope of the circumstances which the parties to the suit lay before them. These Courts have before them the materials whereon to decide the issues raised: whereas the business with which the new Court would have to deal would be of a wholly different nature. It would be its duty to transact business such as that which comes within the province of a conveyancer in chambers, or such as that which is now transacted by the Judges of the Incumbered Estates Court in Ireland—
  294
  namely, the investigation of titles, the examination of abstracts, the endeavour to discover whether all that is material to the case under their notice has been brought to their knowledge, or whether a declaration of title could, upon such materials as they might have been furnished with, be safely granted. When the matter, therefore, is duly considered by the House, I feel assured it will be apparent to every hon. Member that business such as that which I have just been describing is not of a nature which renders it probable that it could be satisfactorily disposed of in the existing tribunals of the country, or which any of our Judges, accustomed to litigious suits and to decide in litigation between plaintiff and defendant, could undertake properly to discharge. We propose, therefore, that a new Court should be constituted to deal with this new description of business. It is, fortunately, one of the advantages of our scheme, that a beginning can be made without the necessity of incurring any very considerable expense, and without instituting any very large staff; although hereafter it may, no doubt, be found desirable to carry it out on a more extensive scale. But be that as it may, what we now propose is that a Landed Estates Court should be constituted, with a chief and secondary Judge. The qualification as to each of those Judges we propose should be this:—that he should be either a conveyancer in practice, and who has practised for ten years, or a person who has for a certain number of years filled the position of a Judge in the Lauded Estates Court in Ireland; for it may be found desirable and advantageous to the working of the new system, that some one of the functionaries who have presided in that Court should be selected to take part in carrying the scheme into effect. With regard to the salaries of the new Judges, what we purpose to do is not to place them on a par with the Judges who preside in the Superior Courts, but rather to regulate the amount of remuneration which they should receive with reference to the question of what might be considered a sufficient inducement for a conveyancer in good practice and in all respects efficient to accept one of those appointments. Looking upon the matter, then, from that point of view, we propose that the salary of the Chief Judge should be £3,000, and that of the second £2,500 per annum. We further propose that each of them should be provided with a secretary and a chief clerk,

  295
  chosen by himself, and that the new Court should, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, have the power to frame rules for the due regulation of the entire of its practice. We also propose that, as questions of law or fact may arise in the Court, and involve a species of litigation which would be foreign to its constitution, it should be enabled to submit such questions to the decision of some other tribunal. With respect to the financial arrangements connected with the Court, we hold that if our scheme should turn out to be successful it will be, as the Landed Estates Court in Ireland will be, to a considerable extent, if not altogether, self-supporting. It is, we conceive, considering the benefit to be conferred on the parties resorting to the Court, no unreasonable requirement to ask those who come before this Court to seek the boon of a simple and indefeasible title to their estates to pay a moderate sum in the shape of a percentage for the work which they call upon it to accomplish in their behalf. If that be done then will the Court be, to a certain extent, if not altogether, self-supporting, although of course it cannot be fairly expected that that will be the case during the first year of its existence.
  I have now, Sir, given an outline of the scheme which we propose and nothing more, inasmuch as I am sure it is the desire of the House that I should, upon the present occasion, confine myself to exposition rather than to argument or criticism. It may be said, however, that the plan which I have sketched is all very well so far as good titles are concerned, but that it is desirable to know what we intend to do with respect to those titles to which there is some objection. Indeed the noble lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston), in his usual playful manner, remarked, on the first night of the Session, that he supposed we were proposing to give an indefeasible title to all occupiers of land; to convert bad titles into good ones; and, as a consequence, to produce what, no doubt, would be regarded as a very popular measure. I can, however, assure the noble Lord that we have no plan in contemplation for turning a bad into a good title. What we do propose is this, and this only, that those who have a good title should be enabled to obtain a declaration of it. But it is important at the same time to bear in mind that this is not the whole of the measure now in contemplation. I believe that, in point of fact, there are very few
  296
  titles in this country which are not good. But there are titles which, though substantially good, are open to certain technical objections that are generally guarded against by the conditions of sale, and which, in strictness, are of a nature that prevents you from saying a title is absolutely good. Yet it is very rarely the case in regard to any one of these that the technical objection could not, by a little trouble and expense, be cured. At present there are no inducements for a man whose title is open to technical defects of this kind to have them removed; because their removal would occasion him expense, without any corresponding advantage upon a sale. But if you were able to assure the owner of an estate, that by some such arrangement as I have described, he could cure the technical defects which now exist, and then have a declaration title once and for all, I am much mistaken if numbers of titles liable to these objections would not be cured and made good in form as in substance, and be found to deserve the sanction of this Court. The course, therefore, which I anticipate will be taken under a measure of this kind is this—that those who desire to avail themselves of it, and have perfectly good titles, will at once obtain a declaration in their favour; while those whose titles are open to technical defects will do what is required to cure them, and so come in to secure the same advantage. And then we all know there must, sooner or later, come a time, with regard to the very worst titles in the country, when their flaws will be taken away even by long possession, if by nothing else, so that the period will arrive at which titles which are now bad will in turn also receive the benefit of this declaration.
  Sir, if the details of this Bill are found to be satisfactory, I need not dwell on the boon which it would confer upon landowners. There are so many ways of putting the advantages that will accrue from it that it would be tedious to describe them. You may obtain in this manner that which I believe many owners of land in this country have found to be a great desideratum—namely, the means, where small parcels of land are held under different titles, of consolidating those titles, and getting one general title for the whole. Whereas now in the case of building ground to be sold in plots of one half or one quarter of an acre, an abstract of title is required for each plot, and the expense of au investigation of the title has to be incurred

  297
  for each, you will, by this plan, get one title for all, and an office copy of the certificate of the title will be handed to each purchaser; while for the purpose of raising money on loan the advantage of such a title must be manifest on the slightest examination.
  The next question to which I wish to call the attention of the House for a short time is this—What will you do with the title when you have secured it? Will you allow it to be clouded over again and involved in process of years in those embarrassments and perplexities from which you have delivered it? or is there any way by which you can devise a simple and easy mode of transfer through a register; a register upon which you can put the name of him who has thus been declared the owner of an estate, and from time to time keep upon that register the name of some person who will at all times be able to dispose of, to transfer, and to deal with the estate, subject, of course, to any claims of other parties who may have a right to object to such a transaction? We have here, Sir, I am happy to say, a very large portion of our work done for us by those who have been in the field before us, and from whose judicious investigations and labours we derive very great benefit. I refer to the Report of the Royal Commissioner upon the Registration of Titles, which was presented to Her Majesty in the year 1856. With respect to that report I feel a difficulty in speaking in any terms which can justly convey to the House the very profound impression which its perusal has left upon my mind. I can only hope that those who take any interest whatever in this subject may either have found, or may yet find leisure to study that most valuable document. If we look at the names of the Commissioners, who took part in that inquiry, I think they will carry the greatest possible weight with the House on a question of this kind. We have, Sir, in the first place, the benefit, of your experience and counsels upon a subject on which that experience and those counsels are most valuable. We have the aid of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who addresses himself to this question with the energy and ability which he devotes to everything that he undertakes. We have the assistance of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir R. Bethell), than whom I may be permitted to say that, whether in office or out of it, there is no one who has
  298
  been more persevering or more energetic in his endeavours to effect a reform in this as in every other branch of law. We have the right hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe), the benefit of whose services on the Commission it would be impossible too highly to estimate; we have also the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond); the hon. and learned Member for Newcastle (Mr. Headlam); the present Chief Justice of the Common Pleas; the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland; a Gentleman formerly a Member of this House, Mr. Vincent Scully; a very eminent conveyancer, Mr. Lewis; Mr. Wilson, and a solicitor of very great experience and eminence, Mr. Cookson. We have adopted and we propose to the House a scheme founded, to a very considerable extent, upon the Report of this Commission. I say to a considerable extent, because we confine our plan of a register of titles to those cases in which a declaration of title has in the first instance been obtained. I venture to think that if at the time this Commission made their Report they had possessed the knowledge of that which has since been done by this House with reference to Ireland, they also might not have been indisposed to confine their recommendations in the same way, and after devising means of purifying the title once for all, have said that the registration should take its date from the purification of the title, and not to put the name on the register until a right and valid title should have been obtained. The difficulty of going further is this; that if you do not set out with an indefeasible title you will be obliged to register the title subject to all that may prevail in the shape of incumbrances or imperfections, extending, it may be, over sixty years or more. I must explain to hon. Members who may not have much considered this matter what is the precise meaning of a register of title. We are very apt at the first sound of the word to confound it with something perfectly distinct from it—namely, a register of deeds. Now, a register of titles has nothing on earth in common with a register of deeds. The objections to a register of deeds in this country are so manifest that hardly any person in the present day would venture to propose it. Those objections are of this kind:—To be worth anything a register of deeds must be made compulsory, and you must have it for the whole country. When you have got it, it will not simplify title in the least. It only puts on a formal

  299
  record the whole of that multitude of deeds and conveyances of the extent and complexity of which we already have so much reason to complain. You have to investigate and search just as before. In addition to that, you have to pay for searches in the registry, and also to pay in some shape or other the expense of placing the deeds upon it. Moreover, the cost to the country of the establishment by which a registration of deeds could be managed would be something which, I should think, none of us would like to contemplate. I believe the calculation is, that for this country you must have the materials for registering a thousand deeds every day. In the next place, a nugatory a very large portion of the dealings in land which turn upon the deposit of deeds. The last, and, perhaps, most formidable objection to a registry of deeds is, that it would involve a disclosure of the most secret transactions, settlements, family arrangements, and arrangements for the borrowing and lending of money, which I do not believe the country would for a moment tolerate. Therefore, I hope hon. Gentlemen will put aside all idea of a registry of deeds, and allow me to describe very shortly what I regard as a registry of titles. The best illustration we have of a registry of titles is furnished by the species of property to which I have already referred. Take the case of a ship, or of money in the funds. A ship is built, and John Smith is the owner of it. His name is put upon the register as the owner. When the ship comes to be sold, John Smith is the man to execute the conveyance, and if it is properly executed to another person, that other person in turn has his name placed upon the register, and the name of John Smith is removed. The register is the title to the ship. The deeds are immaterial. But then it may be said, "That is all very well in respect to a ship; but suppose there are complicated settlements and arrangements for the lending and borrowing of money, and that variety of traffic and transaction in regard to real property which every day goes on here. Do you mean to put all that on the register?" The answer to this is, that all that now occurs, both in the case of a ship and in that of Government stock, which, perhaps, offers a better illustration. There are settlements, mortgages, and intricate deeds, in respect of ships and stock which are behind the register alto-
  300
  gether; but still you have this great advantage, that as long as nothing is done to prevent the man whose name is on the register from making a transfer he can make that transfer, and the person who receives such transfer obtains a perfectly good and indefeasible title. And with regard to transactions which go on behind, the settlements or mortgages, if they are of a nature that leads the person interested in them to desire that there should not be a transfer, and those persons are entitled to require that the ship or the stock should not be transferred, means are provided, by what is called a caution or caveat or distringas, by which the transfer can be prevented, if there is reason to believe that the owner whose name is on the register is dealing improperly with the property. We propose, then, having once got an estate into such a position that it may receive a declaration of indefeasible title, to give to the person who has that declaration of title a power to put his name upon the register, and, once on the register, it must continue there. Whether the name is, or is not, in the first instance, to be put on the register, is at the option of the owner. We do not compel him to register, but if he does so, the name must continue on the register; and the name upon the register will always represent the right person (subject to the operation of the caveat) who is entitled to transfer. The same process will take place with regard to any subdivision of estates.
  It will now, perhaps, be desirable that I should describe how we propose to meet the case of dealing with the land which we have thus got fixed on the register, and I think it will be best to show, in the first place, what we do with regard to dealings which fall short of a transfer of the estate from one man to another. As to leases, I do not propose that the Bill should affect twenty-one years' leases when tenants are in possession. They will go on as at present, and will not be affected by registration. With regard to longer leases, we propose that the holder of such a lease should have a right to put on the register, when his title is once proved, a leaseholder's notice; not a registry of his lease, nor a description of it, but simply a notice of his name and address. Where this leaseholder's notice is entered, then, before any dealings with any estate cars take place, the persons so dealing will have notice, and the persons proposing to purchase will have notice, that he is a

  301
  leaseholder. With regard to mortgages, which do not involve the transfer of the estate, what we propose is this:—Many people who borrow or lend money do not care a straw whether or not the fact is published at Charing Cross; while, on the other hand, many are unwilling that there should be any publicity. We shall endeavour to meet both of those cases. We propose that there shall be a power of registering mortgages, just in the same way as there are now registered mortgages of ships. These registered mortgages will thus be the title to the mortgage charge; they will pass by transfer upon the register from one man to another, and be in themselves a sort of estate in the charge; and they will always appear on the register as a check upon any dealings with the property. That will meet the case of mortgages as to which there is no desire for secrecy. But we propose that mortgages may go on unregistered, as at present, and that any person who has a mortgage may simply protect himself by a mortgagor's caveat, which will reveal nothing, but will entitle him to notice before any dealings to his detriment can take place with the land, while it will also serve as a notice to any person who is about to deal with the land that this mortgagee has an interest in it. This will meet both the cases I have mentioned, ensuring, on the one hand, a benefit from publicity, since charges upon the land will thus be more easily transferred, while, on the other hand, it gives security by means of a caveat, which will entitle parties to the notice I have mentioned. So much for dealings with the estate which do not amount to a transfer. I pass now to those which have for their object the transfer of the estate—that is to say, to sales and settlements. Under this Bill any intending purchaser of an estate will have only to say to the vendor, "I will give you so much money for your estate as soon as you show me that your name is on the register, and that there are no caveats. If there are caveats you must settle with them, and when you have settled with them, transfer the estate to me and here is your money." As to settlements, when it is wished to settle an estate, the course will simply be to transfer it to the names of the trustees of the settlement; and we propose to adopt a most valuable suggestion made in the Report of the Commissioners—namely, that those trustees—the House will, perhaps, excuse me for enter-
  302
  ing here upon rather a technical point of law—should be tenants in common and not joint tenants—that is to say, that there should be no survivorship as between them which would enable the survivor to deal with the land or to part with it; but that the moment one dies there should be an incapacity to deal with the land until another is appointed in his place. That provision will keep up the number of trustees, and will, I hope, satisfactorily meet the case of a settlement.
  I have been speaking hitherto of transfers for valuable consideration. Here, as in the case of declaration of title, we propose that where the transfer is merely voluntary, and not for any valuable consideration, it should be dealt with according to the present law of voluntary dispositions, and that if there has been any fraud or impropriety, the transfer should not confer a title on the transferee.
  The only other point in the scheme is that of caveats. We propose that caveats should be of two kinds—caveats proper and caveats of inhibition. Any person who thinks he has a right to be apprised of any dealings in respect to an estate upon the register may enter a caveat, the effect of which will be that no dealings can take place until the lapse of a certain number of days after notice to the Cautioner—just as is the case in matters connected with stock. If the owner undertakes to satisfy the Landed Estates Court by proper security to the extent of the whole value of the estate that the caveat has been wantonly and improperly entered, he may then, without waiting the specified number of days, have it removed. So, also, the Court may order the caveat to be taken off after hearing the parties, and if it has been wantonly entered the person entering it will be answerable for any damage caused by the delay. Caveats proper, therefore, will be put on the register simply by individuals. Inhibitions will be of a more permanent and formal character. When there is a settlement for a great number of years, the inhibition will operate as a restraint upon sale, and will be put upon the register by the Court itself, if it thinks fit to do so, until the expiration of a particular time; as, for example, until the children under a marriage settlement come of age. These inhibitions will be placed on the register by the Court, and it will not be in the power of any individual to enter them.
  With this exposition of the measure, I

  303
  think the House will see that, if the machinery is fitted to work out the scheme proposed, these three advantages will be gained—first, perfectly unfettered dealings with the land, as at present; secondly, a clear title upon the transfer, speedily and simply acquired; and, thirdly, entire concealment of all transactions, such as settlements or mortgages, which it may be considered undesirable to disclose. The question then arises—Where do you mean to have this registry? We propose that it should be a metropolitan registry simply, and the reasons I have to assign, which I think will be satisfactory, are substantially those given by the Commission. In the first place it will be under the control of one central authority, the Landed Estates Court, and you will thus have a uniform and a safe mode of working. In the second place, a register of titles differs greatly from a register of deeds. In the latter case it is convenient to have the register as close to your door as possible; but in the case of a register of titles you only want to know one fact, and that may easily be ascertained in London. In the next place you have in the metropolis other registers, which must be searched on occasions of this kind—registers of judgment and of Crown debts—and no inconvenience has been found to result from their location here. Then again you have in London the same registries with regard to stock and railway shares, and no inconvenience accrues from the arrangement. In the next place, every solicitor in the country has an agent in London through whom he can make inquiries; whereas, if you have country registries, you will still be involved in the necessity of sending a considerable distance, and your solicitor will probably have no agent in the country whom he is in the habit of employing. Lastly, you will save a very great expense, because you will have only one establishment in London instead of a multitude in the country. With regard to the registry we propose also that it should be self-supporting, by means of moderate fees taken in return for the services which it will perform, such fees to be a matter of future regulation; and in this way we hope that very little charge will ultimately be imposed by the establishment of this office. I should add that, inasmuch as the register is to be confined to estates in respect of which there has been a declaration of title by the Landed Estate Court, and inasmuch as I have assigned a period of fifteen months to
  304
  elapse before there can be any declaration of title, it will not be necessary that the work of the registry-office should commence at once. I propose, therefore, that the operation of this Act should be fixed by Orders in Council according as it is found that the Landed Estates Court has made progress.
  I have now, Sir, gone through—at considerable, but not, I hope, at unnecessary length—the measures which I have the honour to propose. I venture to hope that they will be found on examination not ill-considered, or involving any principle which this House has not in substance already sanctioned. I do not desire to represent them as measures which all at once, or even in a limited time, will regenerate and make simple the titles of land in this country. On the contrary, I am persuaded that a system which introduces itself without compulsion, by degrees, and just and only in proportion as it is suited to the objects it professes to attain, is the system best adapted for the tastes, the prejudices, and wants of this country. I believe that we have now an opportunity, without any danger, and at a trifling expense, of introducing a system of this kind. I believe that to those landowners who are able to avail themselves of the system, it will result in an immediate and substantial increase of the value of their lands. I believe that it will likewise prove advantageous to the interests of commerce, because it will have the effect of making land the subject of speedy and safe bargain and traffic, which in this country it never yet has been. And I believe that if this House should on consideration—as I hope it will—think right to adopt these measures, we shall have the satisfaction of thinking that, without endangering any right—without suddenly interfering with any long-established practice, and without a costly array of officers or office—bearers, we have at last taken a step, and that neither a trifling nor unimportant step, towards removing that complication and expense, which has long been the reproach of the law relating to land in this country. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to simplify the Title to Landed Estates.
  SIR RICHARD BETHELL: I rise, Sir, in the first place, to express to the Government, who have had the good sense to see the value of this measure, and the resolution to bring it forward, the grateful thanks of

  305
  those who have so long desired the establishment in this country of a system for the easy transfer of land; and, in the next place, to express the great pleasure with which I have listend to the most admirable statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. He has treated it in a manner which evinced the most complete mastery of the subject, and whilst he abstained from entering too much into minutiæ and details, not fit at present to be brought before the House, the manner in which he has conveyed information to the minds of persons not versed in technical terms, must receive general approbation. I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on being a member of a Government which has had the good sense to see the importance of this measure, and the Government on the good fortune they possess in having so excellent an exponent of its merits. Some of his predecessors have not been so fortunate, In 1853 a Bill for the registration of deeds was brought down to this House, and I then took the liberty of stating to the Government, of which I was at that time a member, my objections to the measure. The result was that a Committee was appointed to consider its provisions, and the Committee considered it one which they could not recommend to the House, and they suggested a sketch of a more expedient and beneficial system similar to that which has now been proposed to the House. That plan was embodied in the Report of the Commission of 1856; and I must say that some objections which have been felt to portions of that Report appear to have been duly considered by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and will no doubt be removed or obviated in the measure now proposed to be introduced. It is not necessary that I should at present enter into the details of this measure. The first grand point is the establishment of a tribunal having power to investigate titles to landed estates, and to declare the validity of the title; and the necessity of such a tribunal is proved by the experience we have of the benefit accruing from the establishment of the Irish Incumbered Estates Court. The functions of that Court are exhausted in that declaration, and what is wanted is a competent machinery to continue from time to time a Parliamentary title:—in other words machinery is wanted which will enable the vendor to say, "Here is a certificate that I am able to dispose of my estate free from incum-
  306
  brance;" or if he wishes to sell it subject to a mortgage or annuity, to state it on the register, and then to go into the market armed with that certificate and without the intervention of any legal forms or the investigation of any title, to part with the land and receive the money. If this Bill should become law there will be an end for ever to the delay and expense attending the investigation of the parchment title. The difficulties that have led to the present complication of title will be easily understood, when I mention that one of the chief sources of those difficulties has been the unfortunate determination of Courts of Equity that trusts to be performed by trustees of land shall attach on the property itself. The great difference between landed property and personal property is this—that the latter may be held and transferred without reference to any equitable interest or any title under trusts affecting the property. The possessor, therefore, has absolute power of disposition, and that power with respect to personal property is unchecked, except by the process of caveat. But you will observe that the land will be much more protected under the provisions of this Bill, because no disposition can be wade of a registered estate without the consent of the Court or the approbation of the registrar; and then, if the notification of a lease or caveat, or the existence of an inhibition be on the register, it will be impossible that any danger can arise. Suppose an equitable mortgage is required, it can be raised on the estate with the utmost facility; for it will only be necessary to have a certificate that the estate is registered, and the production of that certificate, and its deposit at the bankers', will be sufficient for all purposes connected with the mortgage. No doubt, when the scheme is laid before us, it will contain a sufficient mode of creating encumbrances on the estate, to be afterwards completed by caveat, which will entirely dispense with any of the existing formalities in the transfer of landed property. There are one or two points on which I think it necessary to withhold my opinion, and I only now notice them in order that my hon. and learned Friend may turn his attention in that direction. One naturally looks with a great degree of jealousy at the creation of an additional court. We have already too many courts and too many conflicting systems of proceeding; but what I wish to draw my hon. and learned Friend's attention to is

  307
  the manner in which this tribunal, which of it necessity must have a limited jurisdiction, is to be connected with other tribunals, to which resort must be constantly had to determine questions that will arise, not only on the declaration of title, but afterwards. When caveats have been entered, or inhibitions put in, questions will constantly arise as to what conditions must be observed previous to the estate being released from the operation of that species of injunction. In what manner those questions are to be settled, or what superior tribunal they are to be settled by, my hon. and learned Friend abstains at present from mentioning, though no doubt one will be provided. There is another point of some importance to which I wish to advert, in order to warn my hon. and learned Friend of the great difficulty he will have to encounter, and I mention from the experience I had in respect to the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill. The great question arises on the interests of practitioners. I was willing to incur all the odium of establishing a metropolitan court of probate and registry of wills; but eventually I found myself compelled, mainly by the hon. Gentlemen who now sit on the other side of the House, to establish local registries as well; and I am afraid my hon. and learned Friend will be compelled to make a similar compromise in respect to this matter. I quite admit the superior claims of a metropolitan registry; but I have no doubt that great difficulties will arise on that subject. With regard to the other details of the Bill, they are so numerous and important that I will not at the present moment trouble the House by any observations upon them, all I can say is, that I am quite sure my hon. and learned Friend will concur with me in the propriety of giving considerable time after the Bill is printed to enable us to study them. The success of the measure will of necessity depend almost wholly upon the machinery being simple, economical, intelligible, and such as recommends itself to the country. It is of little consequence to the country at large by whom an important and useful measure is introduced; and I am glad that the measure now before the House has been brought forward by the present Government, because from their more intimate connection with the landed interest it will be more generally welcome, and will be accepted with greater confidence than if I had had the good fortune to have prevailed on the late Government to introduce
  308
  it. I assure my hon. and learned Friend that in all its stages the measure will receive the most cordial support from my hands, and I trust that so great a measure of legal reform, and one so well calculated to confer advantage upon the community will be successfully carried through both Houses during the present Session.
  MR. DOBBSexpressed his general concurrence in the measure. As the establishment of the Incumbered Estates Court and the Court of Registry in Ireland had been alluded to, he must add that he thought the operation of the Bill would be much assisted by the order and regularity which prevailed in this country. At the same time he quite admitted that the establishment of similar courts in Ireland had been productive of great good, and he had no doubt the same results would accrue to England from the measure now before the House.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, it must be a source of immense gratification to those who, like himself, took part in bringing about the recent change of Ministry, to hear from such a great authority as the hon. and learned Member for Aylesbury (Sir R. Bethell), that it was necessary to place the present Government in office in order to inaugurate an era of comprehensive and useful reforms. But he wished to draw the attention of the hon. and learned Solicitor General to one or two points. The Bill was divided into two parts. One was a measure attempted some centuries ago, to give to landed gentlemen a judicial title to their estates. But, unfortunately, at that time legislation was not quite so elaborate as it was at present. From that day to this the system of giving a judicial title to an estate had been a great desideratum, both for landed gentlemen and for those who dealt in money, but it had not hitherto been established. He hoped the present Bill would be sufficient to protect, on the one hand, the honest owner in the possesssion of his land, and enable him, on the other, to deal as freely with it as he could with other kinds of property. The second part of the Bill was intended to relieve the landed interest from one of those doctrines of the Courts of Equity which had proved so injurious to the country that all trusts followed the land into the hands of a purchaser for value. But, instead of going into that subject, he wished to ask an explanation upon a point which the Solicitor General had not made quite clear to his mind. According to

  309
  the law of England a title to land was not complete unless it were followed by possession. In that respect there was some difference between landed and other species of property; and, while he admired the great ability which the Commissioners manifested in their Report, he could not understand how they came to subscribe the paragraph in which they declared that they could not discover any distinction between land and other descriptions of property, such as stock, railway shares, and ships.
  MR. WALPOLE: There is no such phrase in the Report.
  MR. AYRTON: There was something very like it—that they could not recognize any distinction between the principles on which a person should deal with the one kind of property or the other. The Solicitor General was wrong in supposing that there was not a complete registry with regard to ships. No deed could affect a ship, nor could there be any interest in a ship, unless it was registered.
  MR. WALPOLE: It is not so now.
  MR. AYRTON: It was so until recently, and ships stood on a different footing from land, inasmuch as a ship was always a single thing, and could be identified at once with the deed relating to it. A trustee in possession of stock had not a material thing at all, but merely a right to sue the Bank of England. Both ships and stock, however, were in the exclusive possession of those who had the title. It was not so in the case of land. The legal owner of an estate in land, speaking gene rally, was not in possession of it. Property was held in trust for gentlemen for life, and a person might be in possession of an estate and in receipt of the rents although his name might not appear on the registry, but only that of the trustee, Now, at the end of twenty years, according to the existing law, the trustee merely as the registered owner would have no right whatever to the property, because twenty years' adverse possession gave an absolute title: and what he wanted to know was, how the Solicitor General proposed to connect the possession with the title if there were to be no investigation into all the intermediate interests in the land?
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he was happy to add his testimony to the great merit of the measure; but he was desirous of inquiring of the Government, whether they proposed to adopt the precedent of the Irish Transfer of Land Act. Under that Act a rate of charges for transfers of
  310
  land had been established which was out of all proportion, and was totally opposed to every principle of political economy. He hoped the same rate of charge would not be adopted under this Act. The rate of charge in Ireland was much too high, and the result was that charging 1 per cent on all property kept large estates out of the Court.
  MR. LOWEsaid, he had listened with great pleasure to the admirable exposition of this subject which the House had heard from the Solicitor General, and could only echo what had been said by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aylesbury, that the introduction of this measure reflected the highest credit upon Her Majesty's Government. By bringing it in they were doing all they could to benefit the landed interest, an interest with which they were supposed to be so much connected. That, however, did not diminish the credit to which they were entitled for it, because, looking to the past, it was quite possible that their efforts might not be appreciated quite so well as they deserved by those for whose benefit they were made. Having had something to do with these matters at other times, he wished to give an answer to the criticism of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton). That hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think that those who framed the Report of the Commission had fallen into a confusion of terms, in endeavouring to liken the transfer of land to the transfer of a ship, and that ships, stock, and land, were things so essentially different in their nature that the same principles could not be applied to them. As well might he contend that the same auctioneer could not sell the three. It was quite true that there were many obvious differences between these three things; but it was equally true that they were all capable of being represented before the public by a person clothed with all the attributes of ownership, for the purpose of transferring them, while the beneficial ownership did not appear before the public, and might be subject to any modifications which persons chose to impose. The system upon which ships were transferred was brought into operation by the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, two years before the Commission made its Report: the system had been completely successful, and from his experience at the Board of Trade he could state that it had given the greatest satisfaction to the owners of ships, With regard to stock, the system had

  311
  been in existence for 100 years, and therefore the Commissioners were not without grounds for thinking that this system of having one person to represent the ownership for the purpose of transfer, and leaving the beneficial interest to be arranged as parties pleased among themselves, had been well tested, and was well worthy of approbation. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Ayrton) had also asked how it was possible to connect the title on the register with the possession of land. How was a title shown by deeds now connected with possession? A man might produce deeds showing a good title; but how did that prove that the deeds had any relation to the land which they professed to convey? All lawyers knew that you must go to the land itself, and there pursue inquiries into the possession on the one side and the deeds on the other, until you brought the two to some point of contact. In the same way, after this Bill was passed, if it became law, a man would have to take what was shown on the face of the register, ownership, mortgages, caveats, inhibitions, and whatever was shown there, as a starting point, on the one side, and on the other must, with such assistance as he could obtain from the seller, pursue his investigations upon the land until he brought the ownership and possession to a point of contact, and satisfied himself that there was a good title. The difficulties, such as they were, were ejusdem generis, and could be easily removed in the same manner. There were no objections to this plan, which had not been thoroughly considered by the Commission in the course of its three years' incessant labour; and although he might not have replied to the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets so well as the Solicitor General would have done, he was anxious to show that even the least learned and least competent members of the Commission did not venture to launch a matter of this enormous importance, and dealing with such vast interests, without at least having given to it the consideration which it deserved.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he fully concurred in the observations which had been made as to the ability with which his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General had introduced this measure, and would promise that the Bill should receive his best consideration. At the same time he thought it right to state that the impression on his mind was, that rather too sanguine expectations were enter tained as to its results. He was a great advocate for simplifying
  312
  titles to and transfers of lands; and if it could be done, it would be a great benefit to the public. But great benefits had of late years been conferred in this way, and he could say that titles to land had been simplified and the laws relating thereto had been greatly simplified; still he admitted that these laws were very imperfect, and if it could be proved by experience that titles could be simplified, and that the new Court—call it by what name they might—could, by declaration, give the owner of land a title which should be conclusive when he sold, mortgaged, or otherwise dealt with his estate, it would be of the greatest possible benefit; but as this was to be confined to owners in fee who had been in possession for five years, and as no judicial declaration was to be finally made until the end of fifteen months, he was afraid that the measure would not be of so extensive application as might at first sight be expected. He was glad that the registration was to be a registration of title only, and not a general registration of deeds; but, as it was to be confined to titles judicially declared to be good, it would only apply to comparatively few cases. The Irish Incumbered Estate Court had now been in operation ten years. Suppose the case of a gentleman who purchased an estate which obtained a Parliamentary title in 1849 from the Incumbered Estates Court. If he wanted to sell that estate at the present moment, the title would commence from 1849, instead of going sixty years back, and that, no doubt, would be a simple and advantageous circumstance. But if there had been great dealings with regard to this estate—if there had been mortgages, charges of any kind, settlements, and wills, they must form a part of the title. So it would be with this Court. If A and B had £10,000 Consols standing in their names, and if they sold it to another man, he had a good title, although A and B might have combined to defraud the person for whom they held the stock in trust. But if in the books of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England they made provision for caveats, inhibitions, and notice of all deeds affecting Consols, where would be the simplicity of the title to stock? Unless the House determined to sever the legal ownership from the beneficial ownership—unless they conferred a title to land as they now did to stock—by no ingenuity could they get rid of a difficulty which was inherent in the ownership of land. So long as the law permitted, as it did, greatly to the public ad-

  313
  vantage, a system of estates for life, with remainder in tail, and portions for younger children, with other complicated arrangements, the house might continue to have glittering pictures of simplicity of titles to land, which would, however, only be simple for a time. A judicial declaration would enable the owner of land to commence with a good and short title, but after a series of caveats, inhibitions, and complicated settlements, the title to the land would, in the course of time, become just as complicated as ever. If, however, the Bill, upon an inspection of the details, should appear calculated to diminish the complications which at present existed, he would give his hon. and learned Friend his best assistance in perfecting the measure.
  MR. HADFIELDthought that if the Solicitor General loaded the title with all the equitable interests that might affect it, he would gain very little by this Bill. He had great doubts about making the office for all this business in London. In Lancashire the subdivision of property was almost infinite, and it was not so easy for country attorneys to commission their agents in London to make these inquiries as the hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to think. As it was to be optional for parties to come before the Court or not, he anticipated that very few landowners in Lancashire and Yorkshire would come into Court with their titles.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he was very much obliged for the suggestions which he had heard, and he could assure hon. Gentlemen that they should have the fullest consideration; but, with regard to several of the objections, they would find, on looking at the Bills, that they had no existence. He hoped the Bills would be the hands of Members on Wednesday morning next, and that the House would take the second reading on next Monday fortnight.
  Leave given.
  Bill to simplify the Title to Landed Estates ordered to be brought in by Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, Mr. Secretary WALPOLE, and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL.
  Bill presented and read 1o.

  REGISTRY OF LANDED ESTATES.
  Bill to establish a Registry of Landed Estates ordered to be brought in by Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, Mr. Secretary WALPOLE, and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL.
  Bill presented and read 1o.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.

  LEAVE.—FIRST READING.
  MR. WALPOLE,in moving for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Acts relating to the Ecclesiastical Commission, said, that as it had, in a great measure, been before the House on a former occasion, those who took an interest in it would find it more convenient to have the Bill in their hands before he explained the main points to which he thought attention should be directed. He wished to have an opportunity of explaining it, because he thought there had been misunderstanding with respect to it. There were four points involved—first, the management and restoration of episcopal estates to those entitled to them; secondly, the mode of requiring accounts from the different chapters, and dealing with capitular property in a similar manner to episcopal property, so as to put an end by degrees to the system of renewal of leases on lives; thirdly, the extension of the principle of local claims to other property besides tithes; and, fourth, the mode in which it was proposed to put an end to all leases or renewals on fines, and the specific period when they should cease, providing, that in the meanwhile those persons should receive the full right of renewal, according to the recommendations of the Commissioners. With this short explanation he hoped the House would permit him to bring in the Bill.
  Leave given.
  Bill to amend the Acts relating to the Ecclesiastical Commission ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary WALPOLE, MR. HENLEY, and Mr. DEEDES.
  Bill presented, and read 1o
  House adjourned at a Quarter before Ten o'clock till Monday next.

ASSASSINATIONS IN IRELAND.

  RETURNS MOVED FOR.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIM moved
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, for a return of,

  233
  "The Names of all Persons assassinated in Ireland, from the 20th of May, 1836, to the 31st of December, 1858.
  "The Date of such Assassination.
  "The Names of all persons who have been wounded or Attempts made to Assassinate, for the same period.
  "The Date of such Attempt.
  "The County in which such Persons resided.
  "The Names of Persons arrested, if any, on suspicion of such Assassination or attempted Assassination.
  "By whose Order Committed.
  "The Informations, by whom taken, if any.
  "Date of Imprisonment.
  "If brought to Trial state the Date.
  "If convicted state the Date.
  "If acquitted state the Date.
  "The Sentence; and,
  "If Sentence was carried into effect or commuted."
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that, in moving for returns of so extensive and unusual a character, he should have expected that the noble Earl would have stated the grounds upon which he made so exceptional a Motion. In point of fact, almost the whole of the information asked for was already before Parliament, in the shape of the criminal tables, which were annually laid before both Houses. Those tables were complete up to the end of 1857, and those for the year 1858 would be presented during the course of the Session. In these documents would be found all the information asked for by the noble Earl, except that which it would not be desirable to give. Independent of the objection to reverting to affairs of twenty-two years' standing, he could not see of what importance it could be to any one now to know who were the committing magistrates in cases that occurred so long ago; and the preparation of the Returns, containing information of so minute a character, would involve great expense and labour, without being of any corresponding value. If the noble Earl had advanced any reasons for seeking those Returns, he (the Earl of Derby) would have considered them; but, as it was, he hoped the House would support him in resisting the Motion.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMsaid, he had not anticipated any objection to his Motion. The fact being perfectly notorious that a vast number of assassinations had taken place in Ireland, and it being also very notorious that in very few instances had there been convictions of the criminals, he had expected that the House would have assented willingly to his Motion. He had gone so far back as 1836, because that was the date of the passing of the Police Act. A great deal depended on the efficiency of
  234
  the police, and in his humble judgment, the police in Ireland were inefficient. He considered the police in that country were less to be regarded as ordinary constables than as political intruments; and if a Committee should be appointed, he would be prepared to prove their utter inefficiency, and that they were political engines in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant. He could not look without considerable anxiety at the continual increase in the powers vested in the Lord Lieutenant, which took place Session after Session, the result of which was that, in point of fact, the Government of Ireland was now an absolute Government. He contended that the Lord Lieutenant and his police—for they were his servants—did not protect life and property in Ireland. He hoped the noble Earl would accede to the Motion, but, if not, he (the Earl of Leitrim) must get the information he sought elsewhere.
  LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, that the noble Earl had himself given a sufficient reason that there was no necessity for the Return for which he had moved when he said that the information he sought was already perfectly notorious. He only applied this observation as an argumentum ad hominem conclusive against the Motion of the noble Earl, but not as adopting his statements, any one of which he was prepared at a fitting time to controvert. For example, he was not prepared to join the noble Earl in the censure he had pronounced on the constabulary force in Ireland; neither could he agree with him that the members of that force were the tools and instruments of the Lord Lieutenant. On the contrary, speaking in general terms, he considered them a most useful and well-conducted force. Then, again, he felt compelled to dissent from the statement of the noble Earl that the Government of Ireland was a mere despotism. A despotic Government was commonly considered to be a strong Government; most certainly that designation could not be given to the vice regal Government of Ireland, for nowhere, excepting perhaps in the Ionian Islands, was the administration of the Queen weaker than it was in Ireland. The Government of Ireland was divided both in administrative authority and in responsibility, and therefore it could not possibly be a strong Government. He denied altogether the noble Earl's (Earl of Leitrim) assertion of the mal-administration or non-administration of the law. He admitted that there were unfortunately cases in Ireland in which cri-

  235
  minals, from the sympathy they obtained among the people, could not be apprehended and brought to trial; but it was far from being generally true that the law could not be administered in Ireland. Though some few but cruel outrages had remained undiscovered and unpunished, Her Majesty had from the Throne borne testimony to the present satisfactory state of Ireland. There was no exception of Ireland made in the Queen's Speech from the general state of peace and good order, they were justified in saying that Ireland was now pervaded by a spirit of law and tranquillity. The words of the Speech were emphatic, and were as follows:—
  "I am happy to think that in the internal state of the country there is nothing to excite disquietude, and much to call for satisfaction and thankfulness. Pauperism and crime have considerably diminished during the past year, and a spirit of general contentment prevails."
  Yet it is painful to think that it is, under these circumstances, that a Proclamation of an unusual and an alarming character had recently been issued by the Lord Lieutenant. He did not think it advisable that the policy of that step should be discussed at the present moment, when the trials of some of the parties against whom the document was specially directed were pending, and when the Government were precluded from giving explanations; but the matter would hereafter form a proper subject of inquiry and consideration. He would not prejudge the case by any observations of his; but this proceeding, like every departure from the ordinary forms of Government and procedure, required a justification. He trusted the Government would themselves produce papers to show the grounds on which they had acted. But this could not be asked or expected till after the approaching assizes. He hoped the noble Earl (Earl of Leitrim) would see that to call upon the law officers of Ireland, just when they were engaged in preparation for State trials at the assize, to furnish those returns was unreasonable in itself, and was, besides, asking them to do that which he was quite sure any man of much less energy and much less industry than he knew his noble Friend to possess could do for himself, by going into the library and calling for the annual Returns from 1835 to the present time. From these Returns he might get almost all he wanted, for he would get the list of persons committed, indicted and tried, the verdicts of the juries, the sentences, and
  236
  a return showing how far these sentences were carried into execution.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid, if it could be shown that the Executive Government of Ireland had shown any apathy in the suppression of crime, that they had not used the utmost exertions to bring the perpetrators of the assassinations which had recently been committed in that country to justice, he could then see that there was some reason in the Motion of the noble Earl. But he must say that at the present moment such a Motion was peculiarly uncalled for. It was true, as was remarked by the noble Lord who had just sat down, that there was unfortunately a disposition among the people of Ireland to sympathise with malefactors, to conceal them from the hands of justice, and to facilitate their escape. But no blame on that account rested on the Executive Government; they had done everything that could be done to bring offenders to justice; both with respect to the attempted murder in Donegal and the more recent assassination of Mr. Ely in the Queen's County, with which district he happened to be more immediately connected, the Executive Government had done all that men could do to bring the murderers to justice. Under all these circumstances, therefore, and as the Motion seemed to him to cast an indirect and unmerited reflection upon the Irish Administration, he thought his noble Friend ought not to press for these Returns. Notwithstanding the commission of these recent outrages, he must still express his belief that at no period was Ireland in a state of greater prosperity than it was at the present moment; and he was convinced that this statement would be borne out by all who like himself were connected with Ireland, and were interested in her welfare. One word more. He must protest against the attack of the noble Earl, when he called the Irish Government a despotic system, and said that the police were mere tools in the hands of the Executive Government. He believed, on the contrary, that the police were a most efficient body of men; and, that though among such a large body instances of inefficiency or of misconduct might be found, yet, upon the whole, they had been of great service to the country.
  THE EARL OF DESARTsaid, that although undoubtedly crimes of a very atrocious character had recently been perpetrated in Ireland, they must be looked upon as the acts of individuals and not as

  237
  affording evidence of the disposition of the great body of the people. Any man who had witnessed the condition of Ireland in 1849, and should revisit it after this lapse of ten years would scarcely recognize the country, so much had its condition improved. It was no doubt greatly to be lamented that there should still exist in the country a disposition to shelter from justice the perpetrators of crime, but he believed even that spirit was dying out, and he hoped to see the day when it would cease entirely. He must say a word with respect to the conduct of the Government in respect of their recent proceedings in the matter of the secret societies. People showed a disposition to blame the Government for the promptitude they had shown, and for the zeal with which the police had tracked out the members. It was said that the Government had shown a disposition to make a mountain out of a molehill. His decided opinion was that that affair would soon have swelled to a mountain if it had not been for the activity of the Government in dealing with it while it was a molehill. This was proved by the evidence sworn to by the approver, who said that he was told as soon as the messenger of the Phœnix societies returned from America he would be told what was to be done. He objected both to those Returns and to the object which the noble Earl had in moving for them, because he believed that the present state of the law was quite sufficient to repress crime, though it might be impossible wholly to do so as long as there was unfortunately a sympathy among the peasantry with the violators of the law.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMsaid, he would bow to their Lordships' decision in the matter, and withdraw his Motion. He admitted that his Motion was an attack upon the executive Government of Ireland, but not upon the Government as it existed now, but as it was administered by the noble Lord opposite. He hoped their Lordships would look well to the conduct of the Executive Government of Ireland.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

MILITIA COMMISSION

  QUESTION.
  EARL GREYthen, pursuant to notice, asked the noble Lord the Under Secretary for War when the Report of the Militia Commission would be presented, and whether his noble Friend was prepared to state whether it was the intention of the Govern-
  238
  ment to introduce any changes into the present organization of that branch of the service before the Commission had reported.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGEsaid, that the Commission in question was appointed on the 8th July, and met on the 16th of the same month. Its members then delegated to a sub-committee the task of drawing up confidential queries, which had been sent to every regiment, on every important branch of the inquiry. They also had before them several comprehensive plans for the reorganization of the militia of the United Kingdom, which they had duly weighed and considered. On reassembling, after a short recess, they next proceeded to take evidence; had sat in all seventeen days, and had examined twenty-one witnesses; but, although a considerable amount of evidence had been taken, the inquiry was still incomplete; and as a large number of witnesses still remained to be examined, he feared it would be difficult, if not possible, to give the noble Earl a definite answer as to the precise period when the Report would be laid upon the table of the House. If the Commissioners were now to close their doors against any further evidence, and their Report were to be drawn up with any undue haste or precipitancy, the noble Earl might say that the investigation had not been properly conducted. He might, however, assure the noble Earl that the Commissioners had spared no labour in dealing with the subject which had been submitted to them for inquiry; and in reference to the question whether the Government were prepared to propose the introduction of any change into our present militia system before the Report of the Commission was received, he should merely state that it was one to which, in his opinion, the noble Earl could hardly expect that an answer could be returned. He might add that, whatever might be the merits or the demerits of that system, the militia had, both during the Crimean war and throughout the recent mutiny in India, rendered invaluable service to the country. He should, moreover, appeal to the illustrious Duke whom he saw sitting upon the cross benches (the Duke of Cambridge) who, he felt assured, would be prepared to corroborate the statement that the militia regiments now embodied were, in many instances, fully equal to those of the line. One militia regiment, indeed—the Donegal—had made better rifle practice at Hythe than any regiment of the line, and the head of the School of Musketry there could

  239
  bear testimony to the great efficiency of the militia officers generally whom he had under his instruction. He had simply to say, in conclusion, so far as the Commission to which the question of the noble Earl referred was concerned, that if he had neglected to state anything with respect to its labours which ought to have been mentioned to their Lordships, the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) who so ably presided over its deliberations, could supply the omission.
  EARL GREYsaid, he regretted to perceive from the answer of the noble Viscount that there was so distant a prospect of any effective reform in the system of the militia. Now, he would remind their Lordships that in June last there was a discussion on this subject, and an almost universal opinion was expressed, that in many respects our militia system was exceedingly defective. His noble Friend, a noble Duke not now present (the Duke of Cleveland), who took great interest in this subject, and who commanded a militia regiment, stated most truly that the first subject of inquiry ought to be with what objects and intentions the militia was to be kept up. This suggestion, however, seemed not to have been attended to, which accounted for many of the inconsistencies now existing. This was not the time to go fully into the defects of the present arrangements; but after what has fallen from the noble Viscount, he might be permitted very shortly to remind their Lordships of some of their faults in the system which appeared hardly to have been denied. In the first place, the noble Viscount alleged that the embodied militia had performed very good service, and that some of the embodied regiments had been brought into a condition of very great efficiency. No doubt that was so; but when a militia regiment had been embodied for a certain time, there was no reason why it should not be nearly as efficient as a regiment of the line. It was composed of the same materials, it cost fully as much money, and he (Earl Grey) knew of no reason why it should not be almost as efficient as a line regiment. But still that it should be altogether as efficient could hardly be, for the officers did not and could not, in general, have received the same complete instruction in their profession as officers of the line; and besides this, the most enterprising officers and men—all those who were most fitted for and had the greatest love for the pro-
  240
  fession of arms—were constantly seeking to enter the line. It was therefore impossible that an embodied militia regiment should be as efficient as the line, and it was infinitely less available. A militia regiment could not be employed in many of those services in which the line were brought into requisition; and, therefore, while it cost during the time it was embodied quite as much money as a line regiment of equal strength, the country did not derive the same advantage from expense incurred upon it. Moreover, it was an injustice to the regular army if, of the sum to be expended on the military service of the country a large portion was to be devoted to regiments that were never to be sent abroad, because in consequence the regiments of the line must have less of home service than was their due. It was unjust, also, to the militia regiments that they should be kept embodied so long, since this rendered it impossible for the officers and men to engage in any other vocation or profession, while at the same time they did not enjoy those legitimate advantages which men who devoted themselves to the profession of arms had a right to expect. Such were the objections to the system as regarded the militia regiments which were kept permanently embodied; and, on the other hand, it was notorious that the disembodied militia force was not so efficient as it ought to be. Officers commanding regiments complained that the time allowed for training was not sufficient. Further, their Lordships knew that the expectation of regiments being permanently embodied drove out of the militia a great many country gentlemen, and persons who had other avocations, which prevented them from serving permanently; and it was also notorious to everybody that the system afforded the utmost facilities to men who entered regiments, received the bounty, and were not forthcoming when required. He believed he was not exaggerating when he said that there were hundreds and thousands of cases in which men enrolled themselves in two, three, or even a dozen regiments. These men received the bounty, and while nominally, therefore, you had a large force upon paper it would not appear when its services were called for. This was especially the case in counties where the rate of wages was high. In his own county there was a regiment of militia which was called out after having been disembodied

  241
  since the war, and which showed a very large deficiency indeed in the number of men who ought to have appeared for training. If, therefore, we look to our disembodied militia as forming an effective reserve in case of a sudden emergency we were trusting to a broken reed. He had no doubt that if war broke out, and if the services of the militia were required, we should have in three months a very efficient force. But this was not what was wanted. What we required was a reserve available at a moment's notice to meet a pressing danger. if a war should unfortunately break out our real season of danger would be the first fortnight, and during that fortnight, under existing arrangements, the militia would not prove a reserve to which we could look with confidence. We were, therefore, keeping up as a reserve a force which did not answer the purpose for which it was intended; and then consider what it cost us. It appeared from the Estimates laid before Parliament that for the current year the embodied and disembodied militia was expected to cost £660,000, independently of provisions and of some other items for the embodied militia, which were mixed up with the expenditure upon the regular army. He contended that this was too large a sum to spend without deriving any adequate advantage in return. The expenditure, too, was continuing daily; and he thought, therefore, that Parliament and the country might fairly have expected that after the discussion of last year the Government, upon the reassembling of Parliament in the present Session, would have been prepared to announce measures by which either the expense of maintaining the militia would be very largely reduced, or this force would be made efficient in proportion to the burden which it entailed on the country. Neither of these courses appeared to have been pursued; and after the noble Viscount's speech it was perfectly clear that the prospect of any change for the better was indefinitely remote. Meanwhile, not only did the expenditure continue, but it appeared from a statement recently made by the Secretary of State for War that that expenditure was likely to be increased, because it was stated by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (General Peel) that some of the regiments now embodied were to be disembodied, and others embodied in their place. Now, that change could not be carried into ef-
  242
  fect without considerable expense, not only to the country but to the officers—an expense which nobody would grudge if the system were to be placed on a proper footing, and if really efficient regiments were the result, but which he could not help considering highly objectionable while the militia remained in its present state. He thought there was some reason to complain of the delay which had taken place in dealing with this subject, and that delay seemed to him the natural and necessary consequence of the manner in which the question had been treated. Commissions of inquiry were, he would admit, very efficient instruments fur assisting the Government to effect reforms of various kinds in the laws and the administration of the country. These Commissions properly constituted, and where their assistance might legitimately be invoked, had been the means of effecting important reforms which otherwise would have been impracticable. But Commissions required to be used with judgment, and it did appear to him that in the present instance the object of a Commission and the proper mode of using it had been to a great extent lest sight of. It might have been of advantage to the Government to have obtained the report of a Commission on the subject of the militia. If two or three gentlemen of experience who could have devoted their whole time to the work, had been appointed last summer to collect information, the necessary materials for forming a judgment as to what ought to be done might very soon have been obtained. But that was not the course pursued. A numerous Commission had been appointed, consisting of members of this and the other House of Parliament, colonels of militia regiments, gentlemen who had other avocations, and whom it was difficult, to bring together: and who found it still more difficult to agree upon any definite recommendation, when they did get together. Now, he did not see how any one could possibly expect that a Commission so constituted, could lead to any satisfactory result; and he must say that this did not appear to be the only instance in which Commissions of this cumbrous sort had been improperly made use of. For the last year or two it seemed to be becoming the practice to depute everything to Commissions. We had a Commission upon the construction of the Indian army, another upon the manning of the navy, another on barracks, a fourth upon the medical service of the army,

  243
  another upon the commissariat, another upon education, and he did not know how many more Commissions were at this moment prosecuting their inquiries. These were important inquiries, and no doubt some of them might with great advantage be entrusted to Commissioners, but he must say, that for others the Government itself was the proper Commission. What was the Government? It was a standing Commission for looking into these matters of administration, and the course now pursued was neither more nor less than putting the Government into commission, and producing the appearance of great activity and energy in promoting reforms, while in point of fact. everything was postponed and deferred till a later period. For one, he felt extremely dissatisfied with the statement made by the noble Viscount opposite, and he remained convinced that there was nothing in the composition of the militia which could have made it at all difficult for the Government, with the assistance they might have commanded, to have looked into this subject long before the present time. Their Lordships had a right to expect that, when Parliament re-assembled, the Government would have been prepared to state to the House their views on the subject, and to propose such measures as they might have deemed necessary.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that he was always ready to listen with great respect to anything the noble Earl stated on a subject to which he had devoted great attention, but he had not expected from the noble Earl's notice merely to ask a Question, that the noble Earl would have entered into a discussion as to the reasons for referring matters to standing Commissions generally, and as to the whole constitution of the militia, or that the noble Earl would, on the present occasion, repeat arguments the natural conclusion from which was, that the noble Earl wished to get rid of the militia altogether, and have no force of that kind. Now, whatever objections there might be to the reference of matters of every description to Commissions of inquiry, the noble Earl could hardly object to the course pursued in the present instance, because, if he recollected rightly, in the course of last Session, when this question was under discussion, the noble Earl himself expressed in their Lordships' House great gratification that this particular subject was about to be referred to an inquiry by Commission, and only regretted that the inquiry was not
  244
  to have a wider and more extensive range than was proposed by the Government. Again, the noble Earl said—and he valued the admission—that inquiries by Commission were the most valuable means of obtaining useful information for the guidance of future legislation. He must say, that that general principle was strangely at variance with the general complaint now made by the noble Earl against the appointment of Commissions; and the declaration made last year by the noble Earl was equally at variance with his present condemnation of the appointment of a Commission in this particular case. He was not now about to enter into a discussion respecting the merits or demerits of the militia; but he would venture to say, that in the hour of difficulty and danger which this country had passed through, the militia had been found to be a most powerful auxiliary to the army and to the defence of the country. If the noble Earl was right in his argument, this country ought at all times to have a force ready at a moment's notice, even when there was no probability of war, for the defence of the country; it was quite clear that in that case the militia system must be abandoned; and there must be, whether it was wanted or not, a large increase of the regular army, sufficient to meet a sudden and unexpected emergency. Their Lordships need not be told that at present a very unusual proportion of the army was engaged in India. He was speaking in the presence of the illustrious Duke (the Commander-in-Chief), when he stated that there were at this moment seventy-three or seventy-five battalions of European infantry in India, and altogether the Europeans acting in arms in India amounted to between 90,000 and 100,000 men. If, therefore, the principle were sound that it was necessary to maintain a sufficient army at home to meet any sudden demand that might be made by what he considered the most improbable of all contingencies, an unexpected invasion of the country, and at the same time to provide the requisite reliefs, Parliament must be prepared to abandon the militia and enormously to increase the regular army. The present discussion had come on quite unexpectedly, and he might quite irregularly, as there was no question before the House, and no one could have expected from the noble Earl's notice that it would have arisen; but he must say, in reference to the complaints made by the noble Earl to the effect that

  245
  there were to be no improvements, and no measure brought forward by the Government, that that was a most gratuitous assumption. The Militia Commission was only appointed at the latter end of last Session. If a Commission had been appointed, as the noble Earl had suggested, composed of two or three individuals, and if they had proceeded, in the absence of any evidence, to express their own opinions, and offer their own recommendations, such a course would have been liable to more just reproaches than those levelled by the noble Earl against the course pursued. What was the course taken by the Government? They did not desire to do away with the militia. If they had, a Commission of this kind would not have been the proper mode of proceeding. But what the Government desired to obtain was information from practical men, as to the practical defects of the present system, the means of improving the militia, and a practical way of making the staff of the disembodied militia more available than it was at present. The Government also wanted an inquiry relative to the frequency of desertions from the militia, and the frequency of re-enlistments; and there was not one of the subjects referred to by the noble Earl which had not been referred to the Commission for their inquiry and report thereon. That Commission was composed, not of some three or four persons, wholly unconnected and unacquainted with the subject, as, perhaps, the noble Earl would have recommended, but comprised officers of high standing and distinction of the regular forces, and all the most experienced colonels of militia regiments, whose knowledge of the system would enable them to give the most valable assistance and advice. That was the course which the Government thought fit to take, and for which, until the present moment, he flattered himself that the Government had the sanction of the noble Earl's high authority. The Commission had inquired into all those points on which the noble Earl thought the system at present deficient, and he did not think that the noble Earl was justified in assuming that the Commission would take a long time to make its report. Their Lordships would, indeed, have a right to complain if the Governments, after appointing a Commission, and when its report was expected in six week or two months' time, had brought forward measures of their own devising, without waiting for the result of
  246
  the deliberations of the Commission which had been appointed—whether rightly or wrongly—for the special purpose of inquiring into this subject. He trusted, then, that their Lordships would not think that either in the appointment or instructions, or composition of the Commission, the Government had been guilty of any dereliction of duty; but they would have been guilty of very great dereliction of duty if they had proceeded to do as the noble Earl had suggested, and had proceeded to legislate without more perfect information than they possessed last year, and at a moment when they had the near prospect of receiving information of the amplest sort as the result of the inquiries which had been carried on by the Commission.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he did not perceive the inconsistency alleged by the noble Earl opposite in the argument of the noble Earl near him (Earl Grey) whose opinion as to the inefficiency of the militia as a military force was a matter well known to the House. The noble Earl stated that in the discussion last year, Members on both sides of the House, including the Government, admitted to a great extent the evils in the militia, and also that a Commission properly constituted would be a valuable organ for collecting facts before the matter should be dealt with, and what he complained of was, that the Commission had not been properly constituted with a view to arriving early at a result; and after the statement of the noble Viscount it was clear that though the Commission had been appointed nine months there was still an enormous mass of business remaining in their hands. Objection had been taken to so many questions of this kind being referred to Commissions, and he thought it would be found that the appointments of Commissions for these questions by the present Government were enormous. There were six or seven in the War and Navy Offices. With respect to the Colonial Office the only difficult point at present had reference to the Ionian Islands, and in a manner hardly legal, and if legal, yet in an extraordinary way, a Commissioner had been appointed inrespect to that matter, who had extensive powers from the Government; so much so that the noble Earl at the head of the Government, when applied to for information on the subject, said he should leave the matter entirely in the hands of the gentleman who had been appointed Commissioner, who, when he came back,

  247
  would explain all the steps he had taken. It was the sincere desire of the country to transfer the Government of India to the Crown, but as had been already mentioned, the question of the future organization of the Indian army had likewise been referred to a Commission. He believed that a subject connected with the Home Office, which the late Government thought might be satisfactorily disposed of by the Secretary and Under-Secretary, had been referred to a Commission, and that upon the shoulders of the same Commission had been thrown nearly half the business of the Home Department. He confessed, however, that he did not find so much fault with this practice of referring subjects to Commissions as his noble Friend, because his confidence in the present Government was not such as to lead him to believe that they did not require all the extraneous assistance they could possibly obtain. He believed the country would derive considerable advantage from the fact recently stated by a friend of his, that, in matters of public business, there were few Members of Parliament who had not a greater responsibility than Her Majesty's Government.
  The DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that as Chairman of the Commission he wished to state that the assembling of a large number of the embodied regiments of militia in the autumn had made it utterly useless for the Commissioners to sit hour after hour in Great George Street during a great portion of the recess. Latterly, however, they had sat from day to day, and not minding hard work himself he should be happy to continue sitting day by day. But he now rose for the purpose of suggesting to his noble Friend (Earl Grey) that he should permit him (the Duke of Richmond) to summons him as a witness before the Commission, and to call upon him not to deprive the Commissioners of the great benefit of his knowledge and experience on this subject. Let his noble Friend come forward and give his evidence, and he promised him that he should not be detained at the utmost above one or two days.
  EARL GREYsaid, the noble Duke had taken a somewhat unusual course in summoning him across the table to give evidence before the Commission. He should be happy, however, to give them any information in his power at any moment they might require. He would not prolong the discussion further than to re-
  248
  mind their Lordships that the discussion on the militia last year arose on a precisely similar notice to the present, and that that notice was given by the noble Duke who had just addressed the House.
  House adjourned at a quarter-past Six o'clock, to Monday next Eleven o'clock.