Sitting of 14 March 1859

MINUTSS
NEW MEMBERS SWORN.—For Northumberland (Northern Division), Right Hon. Lord Lovaine; For Enniskillen, Hon. John Lowry Cole.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Saint James Baldersby Marriages Validity.
2° Petitions of Right; Affidavits by Commission, &c; Oaths Act Amendment.
3° Remission of Penalties; Evidence by Commission.

NAVAL EXPENDITURE.
  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, in consequence of the statement made by the noble Lord the Member for Sandwich (Lord C. Paget) on Friday evening, to the effect that within the last eleven years, out of the money voted from time to time by this House for the expense of the dockyards, no less than £5,000,000 has been either unaccounted for or devoted to what the noble Lord termed reckless alterations, I wish to give notice that in the course of a day or two it is my intention to lay upon the Table, together with those Reports of Committees which I have already promised, a full statement of the mode in which the monies voted by this House, during these eleven years, have been appropriated. It is also my intention that that statement shall be given in as much detail as it is in the power of the Department of the Surveyor of the Navy to supply it.
NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. LEFROYsaid, he rose to ask if the Secretary of State for the Home Department intends to bring under the consideration of the House any plan by which those persons in Ireland who cannot at present participate in the Grant for National Education may be enabled to do so.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, he must confess that during the ten days—for it was only ten days—that he had held his present office, he had not bad an opportunity of considering the subject, which be thought required to be fully examined before any person ventured to take upon himself either to bring forward a measure or determine what ought to be done with regard to it. The only answer he could give his hon. Friend, therefore, was that he had no present intention of moving in the matter; but his hon. Friend and the House might depend upon it that should be form such an intention be would give them an opportunity both of knowing what was proposed to be done and of expressing an opinion thereon.

METROPOLITAN MAIN DRAINAGE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite) as a Member of the Metropolitan Board, what steps have been taken by that Board with reference to the Main Drainage of the Metropolis, particularly on the south side of the River.
  MR. TITEreplied, that he had but very recently joined the board; but he had asked its very able chairman for the information his hon. Friend required, and he believed he should be able to give him a correct answer to his question. On the south side of the river there were two systems of sewers, the high level and the low level. The high level sewer began at Clapham, and ended at Deptford; its length, including branches, would be 10 miles; and the estimated cost was £203,000. The contracts for the work had been concluded this week. The low level sewer began a Putney, and ended also at the same point as the high level—namely, at Deptford. With its branches it would be 11 miles in length, and the contracts for it would be advertised in June. The two systems of drainage for the south side of the river
  94
  united at Deptford Creek, where the contents of the low level sewer would be pumped into the high level sewer, and then be conveyed for 7½ miles to Erith, where it would flow into the estuary of the Thames. On the north, the City side, of the Thames, there were three systems of sewers. One of these was contracted for. It began at Hampstead, and ran 7¼ miles to a point on the river Lea. It was contracted for at £152,000; the works had been commenced about a month, and would probably be finished within the twelve months. The second sewer on the north was the middle level sewer. That would begin at Kilburn, and join the first at the same point on the river Lea. Its length was about 10 miles, and it would be contracted for towards the end of the year. There was a third system of sewers on the north side which was involved in the Thames embankment, and would require a considerably longer time in its construction. The whole three systems would unite at the river Lea, where the water in the low-levels would be pumped into the high-level, and be carried in one conduit to Barking Creek, a distance of 4 miles. One portion of the works, were already commenced; another would begin in a few months, and the whole would be completed, it was hoped, within four years. With respect to the money required, the entire £3,000,000 had been lent by the Bank of England at of per cent.; and it was with pleasure he added that, inasmuch as it was to be paid off in forty years by a 3d rate, the product of that rate for the present year had been £10,000 more than the estimate. It was estimated that the rate would produce £140,000 a year; in reality, it had produced £150,000; and if that increase continued there was every expectation that the debt of £3,000,000 thus created and expended would be paid off in thirty, instead of forty, years.

INLAND BONDING WAREHOUSES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to establish Inland Bonding Warehouses in England and other parts of the United Kingdom.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, in reply to the inquiry of the hon. Member, relative to the establishing

  95
  of Inland Bonding Warehouses in the large manufacturing and commercial towns of England I have to state that the question had for some time been under the consideration of the Government, subject to its being referred to the Board of Customs, who have sent in a Report within the last day or two, but which I have not yet had time to read.

TITLE TO LANDED ESTATES BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  On Question that the Preamble be postponed,
  MR. SLANEYsaid, he rose to bear the testimony of his gratitude to the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Solicitor General) and Her Majesty's Government for having brought in the measure. He happened to have been Chairman of a Committee relative to the condition of the working classes, and he was satisfied that nothing could aid those classes more than a Bill whose object was to simplify the transfer of landed property. He looked upon this measure, therefore, at once as a boon to the landed interest, as of much value to all who wished to make investments in small portions of land, and of the greatest possible benefit to the country at large. It had been long wanted, and he believed that without injuring any one it would give increased value to landed property, and enable many persons in the vicinity of towns to obtain small portions of land, which they could not do under the existing complex system of law, unless they first went to the expense of examining intricate questions of title.
  MR. MALINSsaid, the House was going to consider in detail the provisions of a measure the merits of which they had not yet discussed. For himself, he had very great doubts whether it would be found very extensive in its operations, or prove so beneficial as his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General (Sir Hugh Cairns) anticipated it would. As he had accidentally lost the opportunity of raising a discussion on those points when the Speaker put the Motion, he should now, with the permission of the Committee, proceed to do so, and for that purpose move, pro formâ, that the Chairman report progress. [Mr. HADFIELD: Hear, hear!] That the object of the Bill was a most desirable one to be attained no one would deny. Its principle was this—that there should be estab-
  96
  lished a Landed Estates Court in England, to which a person, being seised in fee—in other words having the fee simple of property or possessing absolute dominion over it—should be entitled to apply for a judicial declaration of his title, and that judicial declaration being made the title was to be registered, and be conclusive against all the world. In other words, upon this judicial declaration would be granted a Parliamentary title. In the able speech with which his hon. and learned Friend introduced the Bill he referred to the Report made by the Commission of 1854, which reported in 1857; and he stated that the perusal of that report had produced a profound impression on his mind. That being so, he (Mr. Malins) certainly expected to find that the Bill was in conformity with the report, but to his surprise in some of its most important points his hon. and learned Friend's proposals were diametrically opposed to it. Thus, the Bill proposed to constitute a court which should make a judicial declaration of title, the registration of which would be conclusive against all the world; but the Report of the Commissioners was altogether opposed to such a system. He would now, however, mention some of the practical difficulties which stood in the way of an extensive application of the Bill. In the first place, the Bill did not propose that the application to the Court should be compulsory; on the contrary, it was to be entirely optional; and that of course would greatly diminish its operation. In the next place, the measure was to apply only to lands of which the owners were seised in fee, that was, several persons seised in fee, or one person for life, with remainder to others in fee. The person making the application, however, must have control over the fee, and come before the court voluntarily. That provision again would greatly abridge and narrow the operation of the Bill. It would exclude all settled estates, all copyhold estates, and all estates held for years, for lives, or for any other estate less than a fee simple. Now it struck him (Mr. Malins) that no measure of this kind could have any great value unless it were general and even universal in its application; yet his hon. and learned Friend proposed that it should apply only to tenants in fee. He also proposed that before the first judicial declaration fifteen months should elapse, and before the final declaration two years. It happened that bad titles were very rare. The titles that were rejected

  97
  by mortgagees or purchasers because they Were bad were almost infinitesimal in number. He had recently applied to an eminent conveyancer in Lincoln's Inn, and asked him what he thought was the proportion of titles which he had investigated on behalf of purchasers and mortgagees, and which were ultimately rejected because they were bad; and the reply he received was that they were so few that he was almost afraid to name them. A man might treat for the purchase of an estate over which other persons had rights interfering with the absolute dominion, such as a right of sporting, but with the concurrence of the parties interested those rights might be released and the title perfected. As the owners of estates were to come to the proposed court voluntarily, they must be divided into two classes—namely, those who had good titles, and those who had not. Let it be borne in mind, however, that changes in the ownership of land in this country were not very frequent. True, there was always a large quantity in the market, but taken with reference to the aggregate in the country, it had been found that land did not, on the average, change owners oftener than once in thirty years. Particular estates might often change hands; but taking a thousand estates they would find that they did not change more frequently than once in thirty years; and in such cases all a man had to do was to refer to his own solicitor to make out his title. A man who had bought land ten or fifteen years before and had enjoyed undisputed possession ever since was not likely to incur the expense and delay of an application for a declaration of title whenever he wanted to borrow money or sell his land. Did the Committee believe that land was being depreciated in value? Had it touched a low price in consequence of doubts with regard to titles? Did they not know that every year land was increasing in value, and that the minimum price for which it was now sold was thirty years' purchase, whilst in some cases it reached as high as thirty-five. If, then, it were argued that land was not valuable on account of the difficulty in mortgaging or selling, he begged to deny the fact. He had received assurances from the most experienced conveyancers that although occasionally a title might be delayed considerably, yet the average of purchases were completed as soon as the parties desired to complete them; and that in all cases where they were desirous of
  98
  completing their contract the period between the commencement and the completion of the contract was from three to four months. Supposing, then, that an owner of land had a good title would he go to a court and wait two years for a judicial declaration of that which he knew already to be true, and of which he was in the daily enjoyment? On the other hand, if a man suspected that he had not a good title, was it likely that he would go to the court, expose it to a Judge, and have it decided and proclaimed that he could not show a title? What would become of the estate of a man when it was known that he had applied for a judicial declaration of title and that a declaration had been made that he had none? How many years' purchase would be struck off the value by this means? The fact was that time removed all these difficulties, and the title that was bad in 1860 would be found to be good in 1870 or 1880. The suitors in the court, therefore, might be divided into those who had good titles and those who had doubts whether they had or not. In other words those who would not apply and those who could not apply—those who would not apply because they were satisfied with their titles and did not want a declaration; and those who could not apply because they had doubts and feared they would not obtain it. The principle of the Bill being that there should be a judicial declaration and a Parliamentary title, let the House see what the Report of the Commissioners said upon the subject; but first observe what took place last year upon the Irish Landed Estate Bill. For the first time it was proposed last year to extend the principle to unencumbered estates, and to allow a man who did not mean to sell to come before the court and obtain a judicial title. He objected to that on principle, because it was unknown to the law that absent parties should be bound in any way by a judicial declaration. Indeed, he did not think it very likely that persons would so come; and he was confirmed in his opinion by what was stated by the hon. and learned Member for Ennis (Mr. FitzGerald) the other night on another subject, that since this Bill came into operation in Ireland there had been only two applications made for such a judicial declaration; and he (Mr. Malins) understood that both these applications had since been withdrawn; so that practically there had not been a single application. His hon. and learned Friend had referred in support of his Bill to the

  99
  Report or the Commission on landed titles, but he maintained that that report gave him no support whatever. But before going into that report he desired to say that it was contrary to the law of England that the rights of B, who was absent, should be prejudiced on application of A, who was present. His hon. and learned Friend alleged that due provision had been made for such a case by advertisements in the papers, and by placards posted over the estate. That was all very well; but how often did it occur that parties did not know they had a title. He remembered a case where he was counsel for an hon. Gentleman who for many years had been a Member of that House; he was applied to concur in the conveyance of an estate, and he replied that he had no objection to concur, but he would like first to look into the rights of the matter. When his advisers came to look into the title, he found, to his great surprise, that he had a legal claim to the estate. The claim was contested, of course, and he (Mr. Malins) fought the gentleman's case through all the Courts of Westminster Hall, and finally established him in possession of a considerable estate, of which he would never have heard but by the accident he mentioned, and of which a judicial declaration would have barred him for ever. But suppose the case of an unborn child, or the case of an infant whose guardians were not aware of its rights, their claims would be equally barred by the operation of this principle. In fact, if this principle were adopted gentlemen would require to spend their lives In reading advertisements and in keeping agents to look after placards, lest some persons should unaware sell the estates to which they had some claim. His hon. and learned Friend professed to found his Bill on the Report of the Commission, and that report had gone into the question of Parliamentary titles, but its conclusions were somewhat different from those of his hon. and learned Friend. The report was in favour of a register of titles, but the Commissioners objected to any scheme for giving Parliamentary and unimpeachable titles. Such a scheme would be oppressive to claimants, and would be still more oppressive to those who were put upon their defence. They considered that to make a judicial or a quasi-judicial declaration of title an indispensable requirement to being put upon the register would be objectionable. The expense would exclude all the small proprietors, and the trouble
  100
  would exclude many others; so that the Committee would observe this report was diametrically opposed to the provisions of the Bill which required that there should be a judicial declaration. The report was also diametrically opposed to the establishment of a Landed Estates Court. His hon. and learned Friend in this Bill proposed the establishment of a court to consist of two Judges whose business should be to investigate all titles and to declare whether they were or were not good. What was the object of all this? He knew it was a favourite scheme with many gentlemen to simplify the registration of titles and the transfer of land. To a certain extent he was an advocate for both those objects; but let the Committee never forget that the same system could not be applied to land as was applied to ships or to money in the public stocks. If, indeed, the House declared that land should not be settled to secure portions, jointures, and the like, then undoubtedly they might simplify the transfer of land. The great difference between land and stock might be seen in the usual settlements of land. An estate in land was settled upon a man for life, with remainder to his wife, with remainder to his first and other sons, with remainder to trustees to provide for younger children, with power to tenants for life to grant leases, to sell and exchange and the like, and if you abolish those settlements, which seemed to him the most rational the world had ever seen, then, to be sure, titles might be simplified. The land tied up in such settlements as those he had referred to, comprised a large portion of the surface of England, and all that portion of land was excluded from the operations of this Bill, because his hon. and learned Friend applied it only to that land of which persons were seised in fee. He knew there were many persons who had no experience whatever of the operation of settlements in this country, who could not understand why land should not be transferred as easily as money in the stocks [Hear, hear!] Yes, he heard that cheer. But one difference between them was this, that everybody knew the land could not run away while they were sleeping. Could that be said of money in the Funds? How often did it happen that a surviving trustee applied the money in the Funds to his own benefit, and the real owners were ruined? Who would trust a settlement on a ship with the same security as they would trust a settlement on

  101
  land? If they intended to maintain the old character of English settlements, it was a sheer delusion to suppose that the transfer of land could be made as simple as the transfer of stock, or of a chair or table. How, then were they to attain further simplicity in the transfer of land? Why, it was in the course of being simplified. It had already been greatly simplified in the course of his own experience, in consequence of the old causes of delay and other abominations that had been swept away by those reforms that had followed on the Report of the Commission moved for by Lord Brougham in 1828; and as they went on with the simplification of the law, be the titles to estates and transfers of land would also be simplified. If his hon. and learned Friend should succeed in passing this Bill, it would be many years before it came into extensive operation, because a large portion of the property of England was excluded from its operation; and of the rest, the owners might be divided into two classes—those who had good titles, and those who had bad; and of these, the first class would not go, and the last, could not go to the Court. If the Bill passed, he apprehended that its operation would be so limited that you would be establishing Judges with nothing to declare, and a Register Office with nothing to register. If, however, the House thought that the experiment ought to be tried, he should offer it no opposition, and though he belived that some of the principles which he had already pointed out were dangerous in their nature and mischievous in their operation, he should be very glad to find himself mistaken, and this he would promise the House, that if hereafter he found that his hon. Friend was right, and he wrong, he would not be slow to acknowledge it.
  MR. HEADLAMsaid, he wished to take that, the earliest opportunity, to express his admiration of the manner in which his hon. and learned Friend had introduced this Bill, and to express his cordial concurrence with the scheme contained in it. To say that the principle of these two Bills was a judicial declaration of title was not either a full or accurate statement. The principle of these measures was the registry of the land itself—that is to say, that each piece or parcel of land should be registered in the names of certain individuals as ostensible owners to whom, and to whom alone, a purchaser would have to apply, so that the onus of investigating the title would not be as now, cast upon the purchaser, but
  102
  he would be able to say, if you can put my name upon the register, then I will try. If you cannot do so, then you have not made a title to the land, and there is an end of the bargain. In this way a purchaser would obtain when his name was once upon the registry a perfect and indefeasible title. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wallingford had told them that there was a great difference between land and funded property; and that was no doubt true. They differed in many most important respects, but it did not follow that the mode of transferring the one should be totally different in land from the mode of transferring the other. The difference between the titles to them even at present was one of degree rather than of principle. Stock might beneficially belong to one, and yet stand in the name of another. Stock might be made the subject of settlements of all kinds; a description might be beneficially given to one for life, with remainder to children, born and unborn, and yet consistently with all this people bought in the market without difficulty and with perfect security from those whose names appeared in the books of the Bank of England. So also land might be settled for a term for life, for further estates to arise upon certain contingencies, and for estates in favour of younger children; with power of jointuring, power of leasing, selling and exchanging; and yet in a well-drawn settlement cont emporaneously with all these estates and in terests there would be a power in trustees to revoke these trusts and to sell, and the purchaser would obtain a perfectly good title from the trustees. That was the case now, and it was a similar principle which was embodied in this Bill, and he saw no insuperable difficulty in giving by statute the same power to the registered owner which was now possessed by trustees. At the same time he did not deny that there were difficulties in the way of this change, as there would be in the way of all great changes. A case was stated by the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford when the heir-at-law discovered his title to the land which he was asked to concur in conveying. The example proved nothing against the Bill—the same investigation which, under the present practice, brought to light the title of the heir-at-law, would, if the Act were in operation, have a similar effect, and the title of the heir-at-law would be discovered and established, A case might undoubtedly be conceived when injury would be done under the sys-

  103
  tem to be established by this Bill. Take the case of a legal estate for life in A, and a vested legal remainder in an infant child—such a remainder could not now be affected by any one whatever; but if this Bill were law, and this remainder were not discovered, and the life estate supposed to be an estate in fee, the child might be deprived and an indefeasible title conveyed to a purchaser upon the register beyond appeal or recovery. But, then, the supposition involved a chance so infinitely small as to weigh for nothing. Instead of a legal estate, suppose the remainder were an equitable estate, and that a conveyance were made to a purchaser without notice, then, under the present law, the equitable estate would be destroyed. The dangers that now affect equitable estates might in some cases be extended to legal estates. This was the extent of the evil. He thought the advantage this Bill would confer to be so great that the very improbable evils which he had been considering ought not to weigh against it. He spoke confidently, for, to say the truth, he had long considered the subject, was and no recent convert to such a scheme. So long ago as the year 1848, when the Irish Incumbered Estates Bill was before the House, he suggested such a scheme as this to the present Master of the Rolls as a necessary complement to that Bill. Again, in 1850 when a Bill for the registration of assurances was before the House, he laid on the table clauses to substitute such a scheme as this, which clauses were then printed, and contain the views he then entertained upon the subject. Moreover, he was one of the Commissioners which reported on this subject in 1857, and this plan was in many respects similar to that which was proposed. It is true that certain portions of the plan did not meet with his concurrence, and he was obliged to signify his dissent, and add a memorandum of his own to the Report of the Commission; but the Bill did not contain those provisions to which he was opposed, and he therefore cordially concurred in the general scheme of the Bill. He had mentioned the chief difficulty which had occurred to him—namely, that there was a possibility of a remote legal estate being injuriously affected under the operation of the system to be established by this Bill; but he contended that the danger was so small that it ought not to prevent the House accepting the Bill. He thought also that a hardship might arise in. future to persons selling under condi-
  104
  tions of sale, for the general rule would in future be that a purchaser would insist upon an indefeasible title, and not be satisfied with a title, the merits of which he was precluded to investigate by conditions of sale. He would also ask whether his hon. and learned Friend had sufficiently considered the cases of leases of coal, iron, and other articles of value under ground, which occurred in the North of England chiefly, and in other mineral and manufacturing districts. These leases were often held by very complicated titles, not only as regarded what was below the soil, but also with regard to surface rights. Some of these rights were secured by personal covenants only, and others by covenants running with the land; and he wished that his hon. and learned Friend would direct his attention to the point, and meet the objection by adding further clauses to the Bill. In conclusion he (Mr. Headlam) did not understand the object of the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) in making- the speech he had done at this particular period. After the statements they had heard that this Bill would interfere with the well-being of society, and disturb the settlements of the country, he thought he should have taken some step that would have tested the opinion of the House upon the merits of the Bill. Had the hon. and learned Member taken that course he (Mr. Headlam) should certainly have given his vote in favour of the measure.
  MR. BOWYERsaid, he did not rise to oppose the Bill, but to make a few observations on the important question to which, it referred. He believed, that the discussion of the subject would be attended with advantage, but he was by no means sanguine as to the utility of the Bill if it should pass into law. He objected to the measure because it was apparently a sort of palliation of the bad state of the law of real property. In his opinion, the proper mode of dealing with that question was to ascertain what were the defects of the law, and what were the reasons which prevented the easy transfer of real property, and consequently diminished its value. But what did this Bill propose to do? The Bill attempted to facilitate the transfer of land irrespectively to the law which governed real property. The Bill proposed to create a Court of a most anomalous description, upon which it was proposed to confer a jurisdiction unparalleled in the history of jurisprudence, unparalleled anywhere except in Ireland; and even there

  105
  this jurisdiction had not been practically exercised, for he had been informed that not a single instance had occurred in which the only branch of the powers of the Irish Court which this Bill proposed to transfer to England had been brought into actual operation. According to the ordinary principles of judicial proceedings, they ought to have judex actor et reus; they must have a plaintiff and defendant; and one of the very first principles of law was, that decrees of the Courts had no effect except with respect to the rights of persons who were before the Courts. But this Bill proposed to create a Court whose decrees would hare effect upon persons who were not before it, and who might have no notice or knowledge whatever that any interference with their rights was contemplated. If this proposal showed anything, it proved the very defective state of the law of real property; and it must be admitted that that branch of the law was in a most complicated and unsatisfactory state, although, as the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) had observed, a great deal had been undoubtedly done to simplify it. He was not, however, prepared to admit that the state of the law was such as to justify the creation of a Court with a jurisdiction opposed to every principle of jurisprudence which regulated judicial proceedings. The Irish Estates Court had two branches of jurisdiction. The first related to forcing the Bale of incumbered property, and the other to the declaration of titles. His hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General did not propose to apply the first branch of that jurisdiction to this country; but he did propose to give to the Court to be established under this Bill the power of declaration of titles. He objected to the Bill, because it would attempt to do what was impossible—to make a bad title a good one. His hon. and learned Friend might not admit the justice of that statement, but if the measure did not do that, it would do nothing. Now, undoubtedly, a man who had a good title would not go to the Court, for if any one laid claim to his property, the claimant must prove his title. This Bill proposed, however, that a man who was in possession with a good title should require the Court to declare his title good. The answer in such a case would naturally be—"Quis accusavit? If you have a good title you may surely be satisfied." But suppose the applicant not to have a good title, how could the Court
  106
  make it good? Suppose the Court should examine the title and find that it was not satisfactory, in what a position would the applicant be placed If by so doing he made known a fatal objection to his title, he (Mr. Bowyer) believed, that under such circumstances most people would say that he was rightly served; but did his hon. and learned Friend think that landowners would expose themselves to such difficulties? Another objection to the Bill was, that it was confined to estates of fee simple, but very few persons, except small proprietors, possessed estates in fee simple, and consequently very few cases could occur in which the Bill would operate. The law of real property undoubtedly required improvement. When it was asked why real property could not be transferred as easily as personalty, he would say that the answer was to be found in the whole course of the history of England, and that these difficulties were attributable to the feudal system. By the civil law land was as easily transferred as personal property; but under the English law the difficulties of transfer were enormous. If, however, the law of real property were assimilated as much as possible to the law of personalty, they would then materially facilitate the transfer of land. That was the real object which the House ought to have in view; and after much examination of the subject, he had formed a strong opinion that the only system of registration which would be found useful was a registration of deeds. Such a registration existed in every country in Europe except our own. It was as ancient as the days of Justinian, and was adopted where ever the civil law prevailed. The answer to this suggestion probably would be, that the number of deeds affecting real property in England was so great, that it would be impossible to carry such a registration into effect. He admitted the argument to its fullest extent, but it only corroborated his opinion that if you wanted to improve the transfer of real property you must begin by improving the law of real property, so that the multiplicity of deeds now necessary might be dispensed with. This would be easily done. A great advance towards it had been made in modern legislation, and when the law was brought, into such a condition that land could be passed freely by contract, and when there were not two sets of Courts administering the law on different principles, it would then be possible to establish a re-

  107
  gister of deeds to answer every purpose which this Bill was intended to accomplish. It was now proposed that, to a certain extent, after registration the title in process of time should become indefeasible. But there was a much more simple way of doing this. What was wanted was a good Statute of Limitations, which would answer all the purposes of a declaration of title and a register. It was true that we had a Statute of Limitations already, but practically it was a failure. The Judges had got into the habit of discountenancing this statute, and had picked so many holes in it that it could rarely be relied upon. They were not of the opinion of Justinian, who spoke of Statutes of Limitation as the friend of law—amicus juris præscriptio. The statute at present in force was intended to give a title after thirty years' possession; but it was still necessary to go back sixty years, the chief reason being that, as remainder-men had no means of asserting their claims during the continuance of the life estate, their case had to be provided for. Now, the defect might be cured by instituting declaratory actions, and by providing that Statutes of Limitation should run notwithstanding the existence of life estates. The Bill, notwithstanding its defects, altogether deserved great consideration, but he could not withhold his opinion that practically it would prove of very little utility.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he regretted that this Bill had not been discussed more fully and effectually, for the objections to it were both numerous and weighty. He concurred in the sentiments of the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford, whose eminence as a conveyancer was generally acknowledged; and he was glad that hon. and learned Member had expressed his opinions on this important Bill. No measures like that before the House, to accomplish the objects proposed by the learned Solicitor General could be safely enacted unless the law was changed, so as to make the owner of the legal estate in freehold and other property, whether a trustee or otherwise, the absolute proprietor, and empower him to discharge the property itself, from all equitable and other interests, under settlements, wills, and like instruments. That, however, was the actual state of the law, in respect to trustees and others interested in Government stock, India stock, railway stock, monies out on mortgage, and the like; and in all these cases trustees, as well as owners, liable to
  108
  equitable interests, had absolute power over the trust and other property affected, and they could sell and transfer it, without making the purchaser responsible for any abuse of trust; and, under this state of the law, there was no difficulty in transferring property, without investigation of title, or inquiry whether there were any existing liabilities or charges on it. They might give the same facilities for the transfer of land as they did for that of stock, but wa3 the country prepared to give to trustees and persons in possession under wills and settlements the whole power of dealing with landed estates? He thought not, and yet until that was done, the present system of conveyance must be adopted, in order that all interests might be ascertained. He believed that the Bill would not apply much to small properties, for it would be out of the power of the owners to avail themselves of it. Such persons had very seldom got strictly marketable titles. Thus, in South Lancashire, what were called "leases for ever" were very common—that was, fee simple estates subject to a rent-charge; and sometimes there were rent-charges upon rent-charges to an almost infinite degree. How could such persons trace out and register the ramifications of their titles? When, too, it was remembered that the office was to be 200 miles off, the measure would be to all intents and purposes useless as regarded the northern counties. The hon. and learned Solictor General had said, that professional men in the country usually employed London agents, who could make searches and inquiries, and transact business from the country for them in town; but, practically, this could not be done, because local and personal knowledge could not be transferred to strangers at a great distance, however able and skilful they might be in their general business, and who must entrust agency business like this to the management of their clerks and subordinates. It seemed to him that the measure would also multiply fraudulent transactions to an immense extent. Under the present system of conveyancing, few cases of fraud arose, whatever other inconveniences might arise. He would further remind the House that one of the greatest legal authorities in the land, Lord St. Leonards, had lately declared himself to be no friend to this kind of registration. The legal profession, generally speaking, were also opposed to it, not from the base and undeserved motives generally and maliciously ascribed to them,

  109
  but because they honestly believed that it would increase, and not diminish professional charges and other expenses. The difficulties in the way of the measure were so numerous and serious, and the advantages likely to be derived from it so small, that he confessed he could not place any faith in the Bill.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the arguments which had been urged against the Bill by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wallingford—than whom no one was more competent to give an opinion on a question relating to the law of real property—were in his opinion (with respect be it spoken), so weak as to show that the objections were not very formidable. The objections which had been put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman might be classed under two heads—firstly, that the granting of a judicial declaration of title to land was an entirely new proceeding in this country; secondly, that the Bill, if it were to pass into a law, would either be wholly inoperative or would apply only to cases in which its operation would be mischievous. Now, in answer to the first of those objections, he (Mr. Walpole) might state that the system of fine and non-claim, which was well known in our legal proceedings, amounted in effect to a judicial declaration of title, so that the Bill could not justly be said to introduce a principle which was perfectly novel. And with regard to the second objection, what, let him ask, would the new Court do when application was made to it for a declaration of title by a person who claimed to be owner in fee simple before it acceded to the request? It would do in substance that which was now done by the purchaser in his own behalf. It would appoint its own conveyancer and solicitor to examine whether a good title to the property in question existed; abstracts of title would be produced; objections would be taken, and, if they admitted of it, cleared up; and then, if the Court were satisfied with the result of the investigation, it would pronounce the title to be good. All that would take place under the operation of the Bill. Everybody who was conversant with the subject was aware that there was hardly an instance where the soundness of a title which had been carefully inquired into by an experienced conveyancer and solicitor, had afterwards turned out to be defective. The process which he had just described was that which was now gone through
  110
  every day in a conveyancer's chambers, and why, he should like to know, was it to be supposed that because the same task was to be intrusted to the new Court—which it was but reasonable to expect would perform it with even greater care—the rights of individuals would be likely to be prejudiced? But his hon. and learned Friend had gone on to contend that the Bill would prove inoperative. Now, it was perfectly true that in those cases in which a person had a defective title, or one with respect to the validity of which he entertained some doubts, he would in all probability be unwilling to make application to the Court, unless he could clear up those doubts, and in cases where the estate was small, he would not probably go to the Court unless he had ulterior views. But if a person so situated wished to dispose of his property, the title to which could best be obtained in the operation of the Bill now under discussion, he would at once, as a matter of course, apply for a judicial investigation of title, and thus seek to clear the property, as far as he could, from any cloud which might rest upon it, and at the same time the purchaser would aid him, since he would desire to procure the registration of his own title in a simple form, so that the necessity for future expense in conveying the estate might be done away with. Such, in his opinion, would be the real operation of these two Bills, and although their action might not be of so extended a nature as was desirable, yet it would confer the great advantage of enabling a person to make and to keep his title clear when once a declaration of its soundness had been granted. But his hon. and learned Friend had referred, towards the close of his speech, to the cases of ships, stocks, and railway shares, and had asked how it could justly be maintained that there was so great a similarity—for nobody contended there was a perfect identity—between land and that class of property as to justify the House in dealing with both classes in the same way. Now, let him (Mr. Walpole) suppose that a colony was founded under the authority of the Crown; that funds were raised for its benefit, which constituted stock, by means of which its Government was to be curried on; that shares were taken by different individuals, who were desirous of constructing railways within it; that merchants went out and bought ships for the purpose of promoting its traffic; while others got allotments of

  111
  lands, all having a joint interest in the welfare of the colony, which interest was represented under the terms "ships," "funds," "railways," "lands;" would it not be wise, he would ask, under those circumstances, to confer upon each of those classes the same benefit of being enabled to register their title to their property, and to hand it over without any of the complications which prevailed in regard to land in this country to anybody who might wish to purchase it from them. Would any one contend that these proprietors should be dealt with differently, and that the title to the one should be always simple, while the title to the other should require a history of sixty years to be read and studied before it could be accepted. As to the argument that land was made the subject of trusts or settlements, was charged with portions for younger children, was leased for mining purposes, and, therefore, ought not to be dealt with like any other species of property, he would only say that money in the Funds was liable to be made the subject of the same, or, at all events, very similar trusts and limitations. Why, then, should they ask for a greater security for those who possessed the beneficial interest in land than for those who had a beneficial interest in stock? The real truth was that in both cases the beneficial interest was kept behind, and the object of the Bill was not to deal with the beneficial interests, but to provide means for the purpose of dealing with land as with stock, without the necessity of giving a narrative of every birth that had occurred, of every settlement, mortgage, or charge that had been created during the past sixty years. If that were so, there could hardly be any doubt that it was for the advantage of the landed interest, as well as of those who desired to acquire land, not to continue a system which required a fresh investigation of title upon every occasion that the land was dealt with. He had not intended to enter upon a discussion of the Bill, but the objections raised by the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford, however injurious, were really so small in comparison with the advantages to be derived from the Bill that he had risen to express a hope that the House would not be carried away by the high authority even of his hon. and learned Friend, and reject one of the greatest improvements in respect to land, and the mode of dealing with it, that had been proposed during the past two centuries. MR. DEASY said, the Bill designed
  112
  that there should be a Court invested with powers for investigating cases of title, without extravagant expense, and possessing the power of giving to the purchaser what he might call a Parliamentary title. He entirely approved of the principle of the Bill. They had already had practical experience of its working in Ireland for the last ten years, where landed property of no less value than £21,000,000 had been transferred by a court similarly constituted; and so satisfied were they with the working of that court that last Session the House passed a Bill converting what was merely a temporary tribunal into a permanent institution. His only objection to the present measure was, that it did not follow out in extenso the principle of the measure passed last year. In that Act power was given to the incumbrancers upon land and to owners of land thus incumbered to apply to the Court to order a sale, and the Court was authorized to make such order. Those powers had been safely granted, but they were accompanied by two conditions—first, that a sale was indispensable, and, next that the Court ordering the sale should receive and distribute the money it would bring. Those powers had worked exceedingly well in Ireland, and it was to be regretted that they were not comprised in the present Bill. The sale gave notoriety to the application, and thus afforded notice to all parties interested, while the distribution of the fund by the Court enabled it to give compensation to any person who might be injured by the sale, He had not heard any reason why the principle they had established in perpetuity in Ireland should not be extended to England. He thought that there would be very few applications for the interference of the Court under the Act: and the applications that were made would be chiefly those for enabling parties to carry out contracts for sale. He repeated he did not understand why his hon. and learned Friend had not given the new Court the power and the right to distribute the purchase money. However he gave his hon. and learned Friend credit for what he had done, and thought that the Bill contained the germs of a great improvement in the transfer of real property, while perhaps under the circumstances his hon. and learned Friend had acted wisely in not going too far at first.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) need not apologize for addressing the Committee upon a subject like

  113
  the present, upon which he was so high an authority. He (the Solicitor General) thought it moat desirable that not a single clause of the Bill should pass without discussion and careful consideration, but it was gratifying to find that, after bringing the weight of his great knowledge and experience to bear upon the Bill, his hon. and learned Friend could only make such minute criticisms, and suggest objections which were so easily answered. His hon. and learned Friend had made one mistake when he said that the Bill introduced a principle entirely new into our law, and that until the Irish Act of last year there had never been any judicial tribunal with power indefeasibly and at once to give a title to land for ever. The hon. and learned Gentleman must have forgotten the nature of the Incumbered Estates Act. No doubt, the primary object of that Act was to facilitate the sale of estates that were incumbered, but that which was incidental at first afterwards became a principle, and the Court was invested with power to pronounce at once and for ever whether a good title had been made. That principle was introduced ten years ago, had worked beneficially for that period, and could not be said now to be a novelty in legislation. His hon. and learned Friend said, "Look at the result of the Irish Bill of last year; by the Returns on the table it appears that only two applications up to the beginning of February had been made for an indefeasible title under that Act." But how did that happen? After the Act was passed the Court prescribed by it had to be constituted, and to frame rules for its guidance. Those rules were published at the beginning of November, and they had afterwards to be maturely considered by the professional gentlemen who would be required to act under them before they could be finally settled. So far, therefore, from feeling anything like disappointment that only two applications had been made to the Court up to the beginning of February, he (the Solicitor General) was surprised that in so short a space of time after its constitution even two cases had been prepared and brought under its jurisdiction. His hon. and learned Friend accused him of professing to found this measure upon the Report of the Commission, and at the same time of departing from it. When he (the Solicitor General) introduced the first measure, he stated that he founded it on the Report of the Commission, but, as he also proposed
  114
  what was at variance with the recommendations of the Commission, he proposed the Bill for obtaining indefeasible titles to land, and the Bill for the Registry of Landed Estates, separately, as he had specified in recommending these measures to the House; but he did not lead the House to believe that where he differed from the Report of the Commission he had founded his course of proceeding on anything but the Irish measure. His hon. and learned Friend further said, the Bill would not apply to copyhold estates. He admitted it would not, and for the reason that with respect to copyholds there was already a system in operation which worked well with regard to small properties, and under which a kind of registry of title was established. His hon. and learned Friend also said the Bill did not apply to settled estates. But there he was under a mistake, for wherever there was a settled estate, and the trustees had power to sell, the Bill would enable those trustees to come before the Court and establish the title, and then, having done that, they might, by virtue of their power of sale, dispose of any part of the estate and give to the purchaser an indefeasible title. Again, his hon. and learned Friend—and this was one of his main objections—said the Bill would not apply to leaseholds. He (the Solicitor General) agreed with him in that and that the Irish Act did. He had thought it safer, in making a new experiment of such a nature in this country, to commence with the species of property held in fee simple; but if this measure should pass the Legislature, and prove to be successful, he trusted that at some future day some other person would propose in that House to extend its principle to leaseholds, by which an indefeasible title would also be given to that description of property. His hon. and learned Friend said—and he agreed with him—that the Committee ought to guard against the risk to which absent parties might be exposed under a Bill the object of which was to afford facilities for establishing an indefeasible title. He (the Solicitor General) was aware that was a matter which required careful consideration, and it had been so considered in framing the measure. He must, however, point out a little discrepancy between two of the arguments used by his hon. and learned Friend. His hon. and learned Friend said he had had a conversation with a most eminent conveyancer, to whom he had put the question, "How

  115
  many titles have you been obliged to reject in cases of sale or mortgage on the ground of imperfection? "The conveyancer replied they were so few that he could scarcely recollect them. At all events, then, the Committee might take it on the authority of that eminent conveyancer that the instances in which a title was unsatisfactory in this country, where under the present system there were no means of publication as to what was being done with it, were so few that he could hardly name them. But under the present Bill there would be a better investigation of the title than by a conveyancer. The Court besides having the abstract of the deeds before it would be empowered to call for further information on oath wherever it might be necessary; the transaction would also be made the subject of advertisement, and a considerable space of time would be allowed to intervene before the title was finally declared to be good. The Court would have all those varied means and facilities for protecting the rights of absent parties; and there would be besides a provision in the Bill by which "a caution" might be placed on the books of the Court in behalf of any person who thought he had got so little interest in an estate that it might be overlooked or disregarded, requiring the Court to take notice of any application such a person might make with the view to the protection of his interests. With those safeguards, then, and having before them the experience furnished in Ireland during the last ten years, he thought the Committee might safely approach the consideration of this Bill undeterred by those apprehensions as to the rights of absent parties conjured up by his hon. and learned Friend. His hon. and learned Friend had cited a notable case in which, upon an attempted sale or transfer of land, an heir-at-law, who never dreamt he had any interest in the transaction, was asked to concur in the conveyance, whereupon, like a wise man, he inquired the reason why his consent should be necessary, and upon the matter being investigated in his interest the result was to show that he was the owner of the property. There was always something or other in the abstract of title produced on those occasions which showed that it was necessary to obtain the concurrence of some persons remotely or possibly interested in the land; and unless that concurrence was procured the our-chase was not completed. But did any one suppose this Landed Estates Court
  116
  would do less in cases of that kind to protect the interest of such persons than was now done in private by conveyancers and solicitors when dealing with titles? His hon. and learned Friend said it was vain ever to think of reducing land to the position of stock, and of transferring it with the same simple formalities, inasmuch as the two were essentially different. He (the Solicitor General) quite agreed there was an essential difference between land and stock, and between railway shares and land; but it was really mystifying and misleading the Committee to say that stock, unlike land, had no boundaries by which it could be defined and identified, and that £100 of one kind of stock was as good as £100 of another. The point for them to consider was—could not means be devised by which the title to a particular estate could be shown upon a register as easily as the title to a particular ship, or to £10,000 worth of stock, and by which, that having been done, a transfer might be as easily effected in one case as in the other? His hon. and learned Friend said an entry as to stock seemed plain enongh on the register, but there were often behind numerous transactions affecting it which the register did not discover. He agreed with the fact but not with the result. His hon. and learned Friend made a mistake in the difference of the effect of a caution and an inhibition. He thought a caution would give notice of the deed. Now this was not the case. No one seeing the caution would be obliged to look at the deed at all. All he would have to say to the parties proposing to make a title was, "Take this caution off." A man who was proprietor of land subject to those cautions would not have to render an abstract, but merely prove that these cautions ought to be taken off, and the rest would be matter of arrangement between the proprietors of the soil and the intended purchaser. From the moment the cautions were taken off the land would be transferred, and at very little or no expense. He could not help thinking that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Malins) had allowed himself to be moved by arguments of terror. He had said that the man who had a flaw in his title would stand in an unpleasant position before this Court, if the Court refused him what he asked, because his title would be blown upon, and it would be known that it was a bad title. But at present if a man wished to sell an estate without a good title it would be re-

  117
  jected by a good conveyancer. It was true this was a private tribunal, but he might also have it rejected by the Court of Chancery, the most public tribunal in the country, for he was liable to be made a party to a suit for specific performance, and if the title were bad it was thus known that the title was one that could not be accepted. The practical answer to the objection, however, was that every person who had a flaw in his title was, if he chose, aware of it. He might, if he pleased, have it examined by the Court, and the Court might cure the defect if the owner were willing to pay a little money. It would be in the power of every person to make good a defect in his title, and he might then have a declaration from the Court that the defect in his title was cured. The great majority of titles were without flaws, and was a man who had a perfectly good title to be refused a declaration by the Court to that effect because some other person had a title that was bad? His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Malins) said that owners of land must spend their lives in reading notices and advertisements in order to guard against any attempted sale of their property; but he had no doubt the necessary notices would always be brought home to the persons affected. If, however, from any circumstance a person believed that by accident there might be a sale of land in which he had an interest without his seeing the notice, he would be enabled by the registry to enter a caution against the sale, and would thus insure for himself, almost without expense, a notice of the sale. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Headlam) had asked what he intended to do with property containing minerals, the fact being that in the northern district the title to the surface was in one man, and that to the minerals in another. The first duty of the Court would be to establish rules relative to the title under ground as well as above. If the title to the minerals were not made out, the Court would not give a certificate carrying minerals. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) asked how it was proposed to deal with property in the counties of Lancashire and Yorkshire, much of which was liable to a small fee-farm rent, in fact a small annual sum payable by the purchaser to the vendor. Any person owning property of this description who come for a declaration of title would have to make a declaration that he was not the actual proprietor, but that the estate was
  118
  subject to a fee-farm rent. The owner would thus get a security better than he would otherwise obtain, for it would be stated on the register that a fee-farm rent was payable on this land. The hon. Member (Mr. Hadfield) also stated that the members of the legal profession engaged in the conveyance of land were opposed to the Bill. He must differ with the hon. Gentleman on this point. He had received many communications from solicitors in different parts of the country very largely engaged in practice, and although one section of the profession had doubts about the Bill, and had published a paper which had no doubt found its way into the hands of hon. Members, yet a great number of solicitors of the greatest practice in conveyancing had expressed their approval of the measure. Upon this subject he might state that a deputation of the Incorporated Law Society, containing among them the most eminent solicitors in England, had waited upon him in regard to some of the clauses of the Bill. They stated, and they authorized him to repeat the statement in his place in the House of Commons, that their counsel had considered the Bill, and approved the general principles of the Bill. They also desired this to be known, that if the House of Commons thought that the policy of this Bill ought to be approved, they did not desire that any effect which the measure might have upon their professional emoluments should stand in the way of its adoption. He thought that this statement was in the highest degree creditable to those honourable and upright men. He would now ask permission to say a word relative to the payment of solicitors in a measure of this kind. Under the present system of real property law the only circumstance that had rendered practicable the large amount of transfer of land that went on was the very efficient, honourable, upright manner in which this branch of the law had been conducted, especially by the country solicitors. The integrity of these learned persons, and the reliance justly placed upon their conduct, had relieved the transfer of land from the difficulties which, great as they now were, would be tenfold if the business had fallen info bands less honourable and efficient than the solicitors who had the management of this branch of law. The Legislature had adopted the worst possible plan for the remuneration of solicitors, because it had afforded a motive—if they could be influenced by such, a motive—to make the

  119
  proceedings as cumbrous, as intricate, and as difficult as possible, by providing that the solicitors should be paid by the length and cumbrousness of their work. He should not he surprised if some objection were made by solicitors at an alteration which might affect their legitimate profits. They belonged to a class the maintenance of which was desirable and almost necessary for transacting the business of the country, and he should be sorry to think that a measure, however useful in other respects to the public, should be injurious to them. He believed that the increased business which would accrue if this Bill passed would fully 'compensate the solicitors for the want of that cumbrousness and length which might hitherto have made this business remunerative to them. More than this, however, he had provided that in the registry of land the business done by solicitors should be paid in future upon a scale of remuneration to be fixed by a proper authority on a principle more sound and safe than that hitherto adopted. In place of being paid by length, it might be desirable to provide that the remuneration should be ad valorem. This would be better both for the solicitor and the client, and it would get rid of that most unwise an-d injurious plan of paying for the conveyance of land which he had described. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Serjeant Deasy) had expressed a wish that the Bill had been carried somewhat further, and that it had contained a power for the compulsory sale of land. He doubted whether such a clause would be accepted in this country. Under the improved practice of the Court of Chancery there was not wanted a speedy means of settling incumbered estates, as had been the case in Ireland. With reference to another observation of the hon. and learned Member for Cork, he had to state, that the Court to be established under this Bill would not pronounce any title to be indefeasible until a certain number of mouths should have elapsed, during which, any person who had a claim to make to the property in question, might make it. he had now gone through all the objections to the Bill. But there remained to be answered a prophecy rather than an argument, and that of course was a difficult matter to answer. The hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) and the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Had-field) had prophesied that people would not avail themselves of this measure, that very few persons would resort to the sys
  120
  tern to be established by it. If the question were whether his prophecy was to be put against that of his hon. and learned Friend's, then he should despair of succeeding in convincing the House that he was right and that they were wrong. Any one who had had slight experience in the world must know that many projects which appeared in the first instance to be hopeless and even objectionable, turned out in practice to be some of the most valuable laws which we possessed; and that, on the other hand, many undertakings, which at first looked exceedingly promising, turned out, when they came to be worked, to fall far short of the expectations formed of them. They could not in any way provide against such occurrence?. But they could do this—they could find out what were the evils which they desired to remedy. They could consider and reflect upon what had been done in other places and at other times to remedy similar evils. They could carefully consider the objections which were raised to the project, and weigh those objections for the purpose of ascertaining whether they ought to be regarded as of so grave a nature as to defeat the project altogether, or whether they were such objections as could be met by a modification of the project. When they had done that he admitted to his hon. and learned Friend that—fallible and short-sighted as they were—they would not have secured success, but they would at all events have the satisfaction of knowing this,—that they were treading in that path which, upon former occasions, had Jed to most beneficial reforms.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he wished to say a few words in reference to the latter part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech. He had expected that the hon. and learned Solicitor General would have answered what appeared to him to have resulted very much from the observations made on both sides of the question. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) the hon. and learned Member for Walling-ford (Mr. Malins) and others had stated this to be the state of things with regard to the title to landed property; that solicitors and conveyancers who were most conversant with this species of business were of opinion that in almost every case the titles that they examined were good, and it very seldom happened that a title which had been decided by a conveyancer to be a good title was afterwards called in

  121
  question with success. But then the right hon. Gentleman went on to make an inference from that state of things which he (Lord John Russell) certainly should not have expected, because the right hon. Gentleman said that, if that was the fact, persons who were in possession of estates, or who wished to sell estates, would naturally and inevitably require a title from this new Court. Now, it appeared to him that the consequence would be very much the reverse. If the chances of a bad title were almost inappreciable, a person who had an estate and wished to sell it, would naturally say, "I shall obtain very little more security by going into this court." The intending purchaser also of the estate would be most probably told by the seller, "If you insist upon going into this court, you must do so at your own expense." He thought the consequence would be that instead of everybody going into this court the general case would be that persons would not have recourse to it at all, and would continue to deal with their titles as they had hitherto. If, then, that were the case it surely became of some importance for that House to deliberate well whether they should impose upon the country the expense of maintaining this now court, especially after the admission of the hon. and learned Solicitor General that the whole of the future with reference to this project was uncertain. He found by the second part of the Bill that it would establish a new court consisting of two Judges—one at £3000 a year and the other at £2,500 a year—that there would be clerks at £1,000 a year, and some secretaries with £300 a year. It might happen that there would not be business enough to occupy the Court. Besides, this Bill would add another evil, and that one of the greatest, to the existing evils connected with the administration of our laws. He referred to the variety and conflict of jurisdictions. They had heard much of late of attempts to remedy that state of things; and with that view extended powers had been given to the Court of Chancery and to the superior Courts of common law. But here they seemed to be proceeding in another direction, and to be establishing a new court, which should have its own rules and to which persons would have to resort instead of to the ordinary Courts of law. The hon. and learned Solicitor General would perhaps explain on some future occasion why the court should be instituted. He did not say that this Court might not
  122
  have a great deal of business to do, nor that if the powers to be given by it were confided to the Judges of some of the existing courts, and it should be found in three or four years that the business created by it was so great that it was absolutely necessary to establish a new court, the Attorney or Solicitor General might not fairly come to Parliament to ask its sanction for the establishment of such a court. The Committee should recollect that pensions would have to be given to the Judges and officers of this court if it should be found advisable to put an end to it, owing to a want of business.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, his apology for not answering the question of the noble Lord was that he really could not have anticipated it. He had endeavoured in the few observatious he had made simply to answer the objections made to the Bill and it did not occur to him to anticipate what might be the view taken of the Bill by the noble Lord. The noble Lord said, in the first place, it appeared that in this country it was a rare thing for a title which had once passed through a conveyancer's hands to be afterwards impeached, and that the result of that would probably be that, even if you established a Court with power to investigate titles, few persons would resort to it. But he was sure the noble Lord had not examined what were the irksomeness and inconveniences of the present system with regard to titles to land. He (the Solicitor General), of course, did not mean to deny that at a certain expense and after a certain delay, you could sell and purchase landed property. That was merely a question of a certain number of months and a certain number of pounds of expense. But the great evil was that after all that was undergone you had not advanced one step if you wished to have further dealings with your estate. If you wanted to borrow money on your title the next month, if you wanted to sell again, if you had trustees and they had to sell for you the same delay and the same expense must be gone over again, and that would have to be repeated as often as the estate happened to be transferred. Nay, more; several estates were sold in lots for building purposes; if you sold your estate in 50 or 100 lots, every purchaser was entitled to an abstract of your title. The expense was frequently so considerable that persons were deterred from selling their estates in lots. Whatever was thus paid was deducted from the value of the estate, and it mattered

  123
  little who paid it, whether the purchaser or the seller. That was the reason that titles were generally good, and that upon the payment of a certain sum of money in the shape of law fees the intending purchaser was satisfied with the title. The difficulty had been felt in Ireland to such an extent that it was proved that many persons in that country had placed fictitious burdens upon their estates, to enable them to go into the Incumbered Estates Court and to get a Parliamentary title. Again, the noble Lord thought it was not necessary, at all events in the first instance, to establish a new court for the purpose of carrying the principle of this measure into effect. On introducing the measure he (the Solicitor General) had ventured to explain the reasons which led the Government to propose the establishment of a new Court, and which was simply this,—that the business to be done by this Court was wholly different from the business of any Court in this country. The Judges of the Court of Chancery were certainly too much occupied from morning till night in deciding cases between plaintiffs and defendants to undertake the business that would arise under this Bill. A Judge of the Court of Chancery could not shut himself in his room to read an abstract, which was what the Judges of this new Court would have to do if Parliament passed the Bill. In Ireland it had been proposed to give the power of examining the titles to land to the Court of Chancery; the question was investigated by a Committee of the House, which after hearing the evidence, decided unanimously, or nearly so, that this business could not be imposed on the Chancery Court. Therefore, they must either say there should be no Court at all or a new Court must be created. Though it would have two Judges, yet they would not be required to perform ordinary judicial duties, hearing arguments and evidence and deciding upon them as between the litigant parties. They would be Judges investigating titles, like conveyancers. Judicial conveyancers would be a more correct description of them,—examining the titles they were about to pronounce indefeasible; seeing that they were, in the language of conveyancing, "good titles." The measure was, to a certain extent, an experiment, and it could only be tried by means of a Court of this description. The salaries of the Judges were not disproportionately large, having regard to the class of men qualified to discharge the duties. The
  124
  amount must be such as would induce good conveyancers to relinquish their practice to take the office.
  SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, he had sat on the Committee to which the hon. and learned Solicitor General had referred, and he could therefore explain the reason why it was thought inexpedient to transfer the jurisdiction of the Irish Incumbered Estates Court to the Chancery Court. That conclusion was arrived at after most ample discussion, and in opposition to the views both of the late, and of the present Attorney General for Ireland. It was clearly perceived that the safe operation of the Court depended entirely on the mode and accuracy with which the investigation of titles was conducted; now to perform such duties well required the special knowledge of a conveyancer, which constituted a science in itself, and one with which the most eminent Equity Judges were frequently not conversant. The Master of the Rolls, one of the highest authorities upon such a subject, had admitted that even he should feel himself incompetent to discharge those duties. That being so, if the transfer had been made to the Court of Chancery, the Judges would have been compelled to delegate the performance of these duties to conveyancers, or, in other words, to irresponsible individuals. As a practical reformer he highly approved of the proposed Bill as a whole; not only for its immediate objects, but because it provided for a procedure of an admirable description—one that he would call philosophical. All law reforms during this century, and since the period when Bentham first began to write, had mainly for object the simplication of law procedure, for the purpose of enabling the suitor to bring before the Judge the subject of controversy in the simplest, the speediest, and most economical form consistent with justice. But the Incumbered Estates Court Judges in Ireland had framed their rules of procedure entirely on such a system, and, in point of fact, they formed a model for any other Court. And he trusted that with the transference of Judge Hargreave to the new Court to be established in England, the same simple system would be established here. As to the Court not finding sufficient business to employ its time for the first three or four years, that might be easily provided for by commencing with appointment of one Judge only. But there was one defect in the Bill. It conferred great benefits

  125
  on the landed interest, but did not hold out sufficient public advantages. Landed proprietors would undoubtedly be able to transfer their estates by a species of state conveyancing, and to facilitate the speedy transfer of land he did not at all grudge the boon to the landed interest. But why should not creditors who had lent their money on land, and who had obtained the power to sell, be enabled to apply to the Court for a judicial title, so as to enable them to realize on their securities the highest marketable price? If this were not provided for it would seem fair that the landed interest, who alone received benefits, should alone pay the expenses of the Court, and that they should not be made a charge upon the public.
  MR. MALINSsaid, the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole) had characterized his argument against the establishment of the proposed Court as "weak." If there were any weakness apparent in it, that weakness was fully compensated by the strong words used in the Report of the Committee that sat upon this subject in 1856, of which Committee the rht hon. Member was himself Chairman. That Report stated that the Committee
  "Had come to a conclusion adverse to the creation of a tribunal with the power of deciding on titles to land. The object might be good where estates were much embarrassed, but the same principle was hardly applicable in another state of society, in which there was not the same necessity of a change of ownership."
  It objected, also, to the want of proper provision for the protection of beneficial interests and trusts, which would not be protected against wrongful acts by registered owners. The right hon. Gentleman said, the principle of the Court was as old as the system of fine and nonclaim; but why go back to a system which had been abolished in the time of William IV., because of its injustice? In the event of such a Court being established, however, he agreed with the last speaker as to the duties of those who would necessarily preside, and he approved of the amended title, "judicial conveyancers," given to them by the hon. and learned Solicitor General. He, however, disapproved now, as he had always done, of the extensive powers proposed to be given to those judicial conveyancers. Let them report that a good title existed; let that report, however, not preclude any person who could prove the conveyancer wrong from appealing to a superior jurisdiction, and let the Court guarantee that title to a
  126
  purchaser. But let not the conveyancer, as it was proposed he should do, decide in favour of the present against the absent, for it would be impossible to fathom the noxious results of such a system. With respect to the theory advanced by the right hon. Member for Cambridge University, as to the probable proceedings of colonists, they would, no doubt, become as desirous as their forefathers of providing for their posterity. Settlements would, as a matter of course, be made, and all the peculiarities of our legal system would, as a natural consequence, result; the theory of the right hon. Member, therefore, was not tenable in the slightest degree. The Irish Incumbered Estates Court had been much eulogised, and it had been said that that Court had committed no errors. Errors of this kind, however, did not disclose themselves at once, and that Court had been established only seven years. What might the next seven bring forth? Seven years was a very short time by which to test the utility of an establishment which had to deal with such a question as the title to land. He believed it impossible that the two or three Irish Commissioners presiding over that Court could personally, without the assistance of conveyancers, have investigated the number of titles that had passed through their hands. They were not to assume, because many mistakes had not yet been discovered in the working of the system in Ireland, that they ought to decide against persons in their absence, or against the rights of the unborn and unknown. He could not acquiesce in the practical utility of the proposed system of "cautions" or "inhibitions" which the Solicitor General had promulgated. As illustrations of the imperfections of the system, he might suggest the following instances:—A B registers an estate on the 1st of Janury, 1860, as owner; he could then sell that estate; a month afterwards, C D puts a caution or inhibition upon the register. "Then," said the Solicitor General, "you must get C D to withdraw it," But if C D put it there, he would not withdraw it merely upon being asked to do so; he put it there because he had some interest in the land, and would not remove it unless his claim was satisfied. [SOLICITOR GENERAL: Hear, hear!] That claim would have to be investigated. Other cautions might follow, rendering necessary further investigation, and though you might commence with a simple title, the multiplicity of cautions that might follow, would render the system im-

  127
  practicable. Again, every man before he took so important a step as the purchase of an estate, consulted his legal adviser, and certainly, before he moved the machinery of such a Court as that proposed, he would equally consult his solicitor to advise him upon the title of the estate—a title to which he proposed to obtain from the Court—and so he would have to go through the same course before he went to the Court that the Court would have to go through afterwards. On the whole, he felt convinced the measure would not answer the expectations of his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General (Sir H. Cairns). He would, however, conclude by withdrawing his Motion.
  MR. CARD WELLsaid, that if the ancient strongholds of English law in regard to conveyancing could be sustained, he was sure that they would be by the persevering zeal of the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford. One would imagine from the observations of the hon. and learned Member that settlements and family dispositions were wholly unknown in the case of stock in the funds and personal property; but so far was that from being the fact, that all those provisions for a man's wife and family, the importance of which the hon. and learned Gentleman urged with so much eloquence, were: made every day by means of funded property, unincumbered by any of those difficulties which had rendered the law of landed property in this country a byword and a reproach. The transfer of funded property was effected with ease and the question was whether the same principles could not be applied to land. It was said, indeed, that there was a difference in the nature of the property, but a further question then arose, whether that was a sufficient answer. They hid the advantage of experience on the subject. For ten years there had been in operation a Court which had dealt with landed property with signal success upon the same principle which applied to funded property, and although the hon. and learned Gentleman said that it had been in operation for too short a period to be conclusive in its results, it had, at all events, led to more than £20,000,000 being invested in the purchase of land, a channel into which money could not formerly find its way, owing to the complexity of the details, and the general difficulty of the subject. The establishment of that Court had done more almost than any Act of Parliament which had been passed in
  128
  our time for the regeneration of society in Ireland; and that was his answer, founded upon practical experience, to the technical difficulties raised by the hon. and learned. Gentleman. Then, with respect to mortgages and those charges which were supposed to attach only to land, and which were to be the subject of caveat; it was now about five years since a system had been adopted with respect to ships, involving remarkable minuteness, owing to charges of this kind—and property in ships could now be conveyed, ships could be mortgaged, and even migratory powers of mortgaging could be given. This also had been long enough in practice to afford evidence of its beneficial working, and he contended, therefore, that both reason and experience vindicated the change which was now proposed. It had been asked what necessity there was for resorting to a Court of Record when a man could always clear his title. The answer was obvious. When a man had once gone to the expense and labour of clearing his title he did not desire to go to that expense again for another cause. If a person had a large estate, and was desirous of selling it in small portions, it might be essential fur carrying on that operation, where the title was once cleared, to have some public record of the fact, because the expense of doing it in each case might be so great as to be prohibitory. Again, there was a growing and very natural desire among all persons in this country who by industry and economy amassed a little money, to invest their savings in actual landed property, and land could not be set free for the purpose of those small investments until some means were established by which, like funded and other property, it might pass easily from hand to hand. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University had given an illustration from the Colonies, upon which the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford remarked, "But suppose the colonists say, 'We will have settlements and arrangements like those of the mother country, and therefore we will return to the old system of conveyancing.'" He (Mr. Cardwell) had no doubt that they would have settlements in every British colony, but he believed that they would be made in the same way with regard to land as in the case of stock in the funds. That colony would certainly be a curiosity in history which should carry its loyalty and love of the institutions of the mother country so far as not to be satisfied without adopt-

  129
  ing all the perplexities and embarrassments which were associated with landed property in this country. He (Mr. Cardwell) shared in the universal applause which had been bestowed upon the hon. and learned Solicitor General for this measure, and he cordially congratulated him on having had the privilege of introducing to the House of Commons what he believed would be one of the greatest and most beneficial changes ever made in the law of this country.
  Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
  In reply to Mr. HADFIELD,
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he did not propose to proceed any further that evening, either with that Bill or the next on the paper, than the first Clause that involved the principle of the measure.
  House resumed.
  Committee report progress,

SUPPLY.—NAVY ESTIMATES.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he rose to move that these Estimates be referred to a Select Committee. He wished to advert for a moment to the cause of the merriment which he had created the other night, no doubt by his being too late to get to his place. The House was so full that there was no seat vacant. He had consequently to go into the gallery. He hastened down when the House went into Committee; but being unable to find a seat, he attempted to address them from another part of the House, which he understood was contrary to etiquette. He thought that a very strong case for granting the Committee for which he moved had been made out by the noble Lord the Member for Sandwich (Lord C. Paget) when he said that, out of an expenditure of £19,000,000 in eleven years there was a sum of £5,000,000 which could not be accounted for. The First Lord of the Admiralty had said that he would lay papers on the table giving an account of the expenditure or waste of the£5,000,000. He (Mr. W. Williams) had no doubt of the light hon. Gentleman's ability to do so, for it had never been suggested that the money bad been disposed of in any dishonest or dishonourable way. He had gone through the Estimates since 1816, and found that since that period the astonishing sum of £281,000,000 had been voted for the navy, or, with the additional Votes,
130
nearly £300,000,000; and yet now they were told that they had only twenty-nine efficient ships of the line, and that their navy was inferior to that of France. This arose from great neglect and mismanagement in naval affairs. There could be no proper investigation of these Estimates in. a Committee of the whole House, for the Votes were passed so rapidly that there was hardly time to turn from one Vote to another before they were passed. The other night, when the House went into Committee, he went to fetch his copy of the Estimates, and before he returned, in about a minute, four important Votes were passed; and upon one of them he had intended to take the opinion of the Committee. On the other hand, a Select Committee could deliberately investigate the Votes, He did not intend the Committee to be appointed in the usual way—in which case the Government would of course have a majority in it—but to be selected by the Speaker, and to consist of only five Members. Such a Committee as he proposed could finish their labours in ten or twelve days, so that there would be no delay in considering the Estimates. The right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty had made an able speech on the subject of the Navy Estimates, but without being acquainted with all the facts, and had obtained his information from various departments where the red tape system more or less prevailed. These Estimates were double what they were in former years. When the right hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham) was at the head of the Admiralty he reduced the Estimates to £4,500,000, without impairing the efficiency of the navy. The expenditure remained at that point for about seven years, but it had gradually increased since, and the Estimates for the present year amounted to the enormous sum of £9,800,000 odd, exclusive of an addition of something like £1,000,000 for the proposed increase of the navy. It was admitted that the French had as large a navy as we had, and yet their Estimates last year amounted to little more than £5,000,000. He found from the report of the auditors of public accounts that there was an expenditure of 800,000 more than was voted, and that in the case of stores there was an expenditure of £600,000 more than was voted. If the House would not inquire into this useless and wasteful expenditure, it was useless to bring them forward in separate Votes. The econo-

131
mists of the House were charged with the dilapidated state of the navy, but he did not think that during the last twenty years there had been any Motion to reduce one man from the Estimates proposed by the Government, or a reduction of 1s. in their pay. The Estimates that had been voted from time to time by the House were sufficient to secure the most efficient navy in the world. During the time of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle at the Admiralty stock was taken of the various stores and materials in our dockyards, which ought to be done annually, and this tended to a reduction in the Estimates, and prevented useless accumulation. It had been stated that several ships were waiting to be manned, and yet last year the House had voted 59,380 men, and this ought to have equipped an efficient Channel fleet. He (Mr. W. Williams) had been told by an eminent naval officer that one great cause of the want of men was the system of flogging which still prevailed in the navy. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that there was a deficiency in the lower class of officers, such as mates and midshipmen; but looking at the higher class of officers in the navy, he found that there were 341 Admirals on pay, or rather more than one Admiral and a half to every ship and cockboat afloat; whereas in 1846–7 there were only 153 Admirals; in 1851–2, 232; and, in 1857–8, 316 Admirals; which caused an increase in the list of half pay to £55,000. When the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle was First Lord of the Admiralty there were two Generals of Marines and six Colonels of Marines, costing £4,740; now there were thirty-four Generals of Marines and ten Colonels, all sinecures, and costing £24,000 a year. Of the Admirals, he believed that not more than four or five of them were commanding, and others held comfortable sinecures as Port Admirals. The House ought to insist on the Navy Estimates being placed on the table at the commencement of the Session, and at once referred to a Committee. There should be a fair Committee of Inquiry into the whole structure and management of this voracious department of the public service. Had this system of referring the Estimates to a Committee been adopted many millions of money would have been saved since the termination of the French war.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Ques-
132
tion, in order to add the words "the Navy Estimates be referred to a Select Committee," instead thereof.
SIR HARRY VERNEYseconded the Motion, and said, that never since he had had a seat in that House had he heard such an account given of the navy, and it was a matter of the deepest regret, if not of shame, to find that our navy had been reduced to such a state as that which had been described. The right hon. Gentleman had objected to lay on the table an estimate of the future repairs and public works for each year, but was there any objection to doing the same as regarded the past? It would very much facilitate the performance of the duties of the House, in giving them an accurate account of the various sums that had been expended. The right hon. Gentleman had shown the wretched condition of our navy, and especially of our dockyards; but when he took office he struck out of the Estimates 1,300 men that had been placed there by his predecessors, and now he came forward and complained of a want of men and of want of efficiency in our navy. He (the hon. Member) would support the proposal for a Committee. It was not against the Admiralty, or its representatives past or present, but against the system that he supported the Motion.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he was very much disposed to concur with the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams). At the same time he thought the inquiry as proposed would be rather too extensive, and that it should be confined to the salient points, and one of these points to which inquiry should be directed was, the extraordinary and unsatisfactory manner in which the Estimates were prepared and laid before the House. A Vote was taken the other night irregularly in the middle of the Army Estimates of £133,000 for an excess of expenditure in 1857–8; but was the House aware that in that year there was an expenditure over the amount of money granted by the House to the extent of £790,000? The sum granted was £9,172,000, and the sum spent was £9,962,000. It was clear that Her Majesty's present Government had nothing to do with these expenses, but he did feel surprised that some of the items had not appeared in the accounts for the year 1858–9. Of course emergencies would arise, and he was not the person to quarrel with the fair discretion of the Executive; but this House had nothing to do with the Executive. All it had

133
to do was first to vote the money, and next to see that it was properly applied. That was the true function of the House, and it should never allow that duty to be mixed up with the duties of the Executive. But he would ask the House to look at Vote No. 10—" Naval stores for the building, repair, and outfit of the fleet," and observe what had taken place under that reading in the course of the last six years. They now talked of the extremely dilapidated state of the fleet, yet during the six years the House of Commons had voted for naval stores alone not less a sum of money than £13,587,000. So far as voting the money was concerned, no doubt this House had done its duty; but where he must say it had been lax was, that after voting the money it had not looked sufficiently close to see how it had been applied. What was really wanted was that a little more confidence should be reposed in the House on the part of the Executive. They should let it know what was required to be done, and what they proposed doing, and then come down the next year and show that they had done it. He was quite sure that if a Committee were appointed who directed their attention to the question of how the Estimates should be prepared, they might render inestimable service. And he thought that the recommendation which had been made, and which had been alluded to this evening, that the Speaker should nominate a Committee at the beginning of every Session, was a very good one. That Committee might prepare their report, and on the question that it be now received, a financial debate might at once ensue. Such an arrangement would, in his opinion, be a very good check, and conduce to a wise economy. He was the last man to attempt to starve the public service, but he had a strong conviction that there had been a considerable waste of the public money in all departments, but more especially in the department of the navy.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, that if the hon. Member for Lambeth had moved for a Committee to inquire into the naval expenditure in the dockyards he should have voted with him. He could not, however, support the present Motion for referring the Naval Estimates to a Committee, be- cause that would be to take the responsibility of the Estimates from the Executive, upon whom it ought to rest.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, that the people of this country were lavish in their expenditure to support the natural defence of the
134
country—tho navy—in the most efficient manner, but they expected that the money which was voted for the purpose should be expended in the most efficient way. By the accounts which he held in his hand he found that the amount voted for the navy in 1835 was £4,245,718, manned by 26,500 seamen, and that for every successive year there had been a gradual increase, until for the present year it had risen to £9,839,859, or more than 100 percent, with 48,000 seamen. Of course the country expected that there had been a proportionate increase in the force, in the number of men and the number of ships. Let them see if that were so. In 1848 the expenditure had increased from £4,245,000, in 1835, to £7.764,020; the number of seamen was 40,500; the ships of the line built were, none; converted, none—total, none. Frigates built, 1; corvettes, 2; tenders, 1, total—4. The next year the number of seamen voted was 42,000; ships of the line built, none; converted, none—total, again none. Frigates built, 2; corvettes, 4; tenders, 1—total, 7. The following year the Vote was £6,883,747, and the number of seamen was 40,000; ships of the line built, none; converted, none—total, again none. Here, then, were three successive year3 during which there was not a single case of increase in the ships of the line, either built or converted, or addition made to the weight of metal and strength of the navy. Well, did facts like this demand inquiry or did they not? No doubt the money had been spent; but the question was, had it been spent to the most advantage for the country? The first year in the period to which he had referred, that a ship had been built at all, was in 1851, but he believed that even that was a "convert." Still it was an addition of one ship of the line. In 1852 there were two ships of the line built; in 1853 six were converted; and in 1854 five; but in neither year was there an absolute increase. In short, it was not until the year 1854 that any great increase took place in the numerical force of the navy. Then four gun-boats were built, and thirty-eight purchased; and in 1853 eight gun-boats were built, and 100 purchased, but no ships of the line were built, and only two converted. The navy began then to cut a figure in numbers, but not in power. Such craft would not do for a Channel fleet; and the result was, that after doubling the Estimates, we were at this moment destitute of a sufficient Chan-

135
nel fleet, and yet it is to be supposed that the Navy of England in 1835, costing only £4,245,718, was deemed capable of protecting the honour of England.
ADMIRAL WALCOTT: I entertain a very decided objection to a proposition which would refer the Naval Estimates to a Select Committee, because it would remove from the Executive power a responsibility which, I believe, it is most important to retain and enforce. If there be one man who would rejoice more than another, if the accounts for buildings and repairs of ships were so submitted, it is the present Surveyor of the Navy. For commanding ability and untiring zeal no officer more efficient could be found, and, I must Bay, his position requires that he should occupy a permanent seat at the Board of Admiralty. At no time could any argument, even on the plea of additional expense, be alleged against such an appointment; at the present moment, one most worthy of consideration, when the construction of ships, so as to ensure the highest qualities of speed under sail or canvass, was of the utmost national importance, and. every first-rate ship cost between £200,0p0 and £300,000. While I give full credit to my noble and gallant Relative (Lord C. Paget) for the highest motives, I would divest both him and hon. Members of some wrong impressions conveyed in his speech on the 11th instant. The noble Admiral referred to the instance of the San Fiorenzo frigate, and the First Lord of the Admiralty declared his ignorance of her very existence. He might well say as much, for there never was such a vessel; she was, indeed, laid down as a sailing ship, and it was found advisable to discontinue further building in that character, and her scantling being found unequal for a screw, her conversion into a steamer was impracticable, the portions which had been framed were carefully taken to pieces, and employed in building a sloop-of-war. Some amusement was also at the same time created by a remark of a similar kind, with regard to the lengthening of the Immortalilé, which conveyed an impression that the ship had been sawn in sunder to admit of the process, whereas it actually occurred when only her keel and ribs were in frame. The addition of fifteen feet was made in the length of her bow at the cost in labour work of about £200; and I would ask what is such an inconsiderable sum when the beauty and efficiency of such a ship is at stake? My noble and
136
gallant Relative alluded to the expansion of another vessel, from 450 to 750 tons. Let me ask, could any improvidence be greater than rigid adherence to certain lines of construction, which the advance of science demonstrated to be ill designed? The Surveyor of the Navy would have been unworthy of his position had he neglected to advise the Admiralty that the change was indispensable. The ship, therefore, certainly grew, but the enlargement was productive of no loss, and was that which alone rendered her valuable to the country. Comment has been made by the hon. Member for Lambeth, that there is a very large number of admirals, captains, and commanders, on the Navy List, whilst, to my regret, the First Lord of the Admiralty informed us that there was a deficiency of mates and midshipmen. The number of admirals was the inevitable consequences of the protracted war, which lasted with scarce intermission from 1794 to 1815; at one period there was 965 vessels wearing the Royal Pennant, which the return of peace reduced to about 200; the officers whose services were no longer required were sent on shore, and this country continues to support them. It is a debt of honour contracted by the nation which every year diminishes, and the cold hand of death will entirely cancel. The House will pardon me if I remind hon. Members that in my person is felt the hardship of removal to the Reserved List; for a period of thirty years my untiring efforts for active service, with offers to undertake any description of service of command or station, were all to no purpose, while by favour or interest the same officers were constantly re-appointed to command, a system injurious in effect to the country, and a death-blow to the hopes of the most enterprising and ardent spirit, displacing a large number of naval officers from serving at sea. Sir, it is under this chilling award that the whole service languishes, gallant men fret and chafe under this injustice, every door of advancement is closed upon them; they are condemned to inactivity on shore, while their hearts burn to serve their country afloat, and they learn with sorrow, and might I not add indignation, that this their heavy misfortune is visited upon them as if it were a crime. No man, Sir, can exceed me in a heartfelt desire to see the navy raised to the highest state of efficiency; but let me observe that in achieving an object so important, no language should be permitted which conveys acute

137
sorrow to the breasts of those men who jeopardize their lives and fortunes to uphold the honour of that profession, the compulsory deprivation from whoso service is a pang which will go down with them to the grave.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, no man was more desirous than he was of exerting an effectual supervision over the public expenditure, and he thought it very important that there should be an inquiry, but it was impossible for him to vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Lambeth, because he did not think it advisable to transfer the consideration of the Estimates from the House to a Select Committee. He thought the preferable course was that the Estimates should be brought forward and discussed in the House under the superintendence of the Government. He deemed this course the more advisable on the present occasion because time was pressing, and as they heard statements which were not of a very comfortable nature, he thought the House of Commons ought at once to give the Executive Government the supplies which would enable them to proceed with such preparations as upon their responsibility they might deem necessary for the defence of the country. With regard to inquiry, he had no doubt they would ultimately have one. Some hon. Gentlemen demanded an investigation on the part of the country, but in his opinion another strong reason for inquiry was that accusations had been made that evening against different members of successive Boards of Admiralty. It was impossible that all those gentlemen could enter upon their defence on that occasion, but he thought that in justice to Sir Baldwin Walker, and others whose conduct has been impugned, an opportunity for a searching inquiry into the truth of the accusations ought to be afforded. He had no doubt it could readily He shown that there was the greatest misunderstanding with regard to some of those accusations. A charge had been made against him that he had not ordered the building of steam line-of-battle ships when in office. That subject was carefully considered by the Committee of 1848, and if the Report of that Committee were referred to it would be found that at that time we had four block-ships and were considerably in advance of France with regard to a steam navy, but it was also shown that, in consequence of the scientific improvements which were constantly made, the probability was that if
138
a screw line-of-battle ship were then built, she would before long be perfectly useless. Under these circumstances, it was thought advisable, in consonance with the advice of nearly every witness examined before the Committee whose opinion was worth having, not to proceed too rapidly at that time with the building of large screw ships for the navy. One was built by way of experiment—the Sanspareil—and, he believed, did not turn out very fortunately. As an instance of the changes which took place, he might state it was stated in evidence in 1848 that scientific men had come to the conclusion that it was advisable to have full lines for screw ships, while it was found practically that fine lines were absolutely necessary; so that if the original opinion had been acted upon, they would have had screw line-of-battle ships which would have proved totally inefficient. When it became necessary he had proceeded to build screw line-of-battle ships, and he did not think the acts of the Admiralty, of which he was a member, had in this respect been unfortunate in their results. The first line-of-battle ship they built was the Agamemnon, and he believed it would be admitted by naval officers that she had not proved a bad ship. A great deal of ridicule had been thrown upon the "conversion" of ships. He would mention an instance of what had happened when he was at the Admiralty. A ship was laid down called the Windsor Castle, which was intended to be a sailing vessel, but when it was seen that screw ships were superseding sailing ships, it was determined to endeavour to turn her into a screw ship, The Windsor Castle was accordingly cut in two, and many hon. Members would remember the ridicule with which the Board of Admiralty were covered for their decision, which was pronounced by the newspapers to be foolish and absurd. Well, the Windsor Castle was launched on the very day upon which the Duke of Wellington died, and her Majesty was pleased to direct that her name should be changed to that of the Duke of Wellington, and the Windsor Castle, about which so much ridicule was thrown upon the Admiralty, was now the Duke of Wellington, one of the best ships, he believed, in Her Majesty's Navy. He did not suppose he would now be told that the Board of Admiralty had acted unwisely because, instead of building a sailing ship, which would have been useless, they had, at an expense he believed of about £12,000,con-

139
verted the sailing ship into one of the largest and best screw ships in the navy. He had seen articles in the public journals in which the writers blessed their stars that there were no longer at the head of the Admiralty persons who cut ships in two, while they were quite ignorant that the Duke of Wellington was the very ship respecting which the Board of which he was a member had been so unsparingly ridiculed.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he thought the remarks which had fallen from the right hon. Baronet were most valuable with regard to the expediency of going into Committee. But he wished to set himself right with the House on one point. He had always argued, and he thought justly—[An hon. MEMBER: Hear, hear!]—he thanked his hon. Friend for that cheer—that the present constitution of the Admiralty required great alteration. But, having made that statement, he would add that he thought no course could be adopted by the House more prejudicial than that suggested by the hon. Member for Lambeth. He could see nothing calculated to be more detrimental to the well-being of the country than the appointment of a Committee—even were that Committee presided over by the hon. Member for Lambeth—and he hoped the House would negative the proposal in so decided a manner as that on future occasions such Motions would not be interposed to delay the business of the country.
LORD HARRY VANEsaid, he rose to express a hope that it would not be considered that those hon. Gentlemen who dissented from the views of the hon. Member for Lambeth did not therefore entertain a desire for inquiry on the subject of the navy. He believed it was undeniable that the statements which had recently been made on the subject of the navy had produced an extraordinary effect upon the public mind, and his decided opinion was, that it was absolutely essential that the public feeling should be satisfied by means of an inquiry. He thought it absolutely necessary that the present, or any other Government, should consent to such an investigation; but at the same time he conceived that it would be highly injurious to the interests of the navy and of the country if the Executive were allowed to divest themselves of responsibility, and to throw it upon a Committee, which was the course proposed by the hon. Member for Lambeth.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he
140
wished to protest against the idea that he had, either directly or indirectly, intended to attack an old and valued friend and brother officer, Sir Baldwin Walker. So far from considering that Sir Baldwin Walker was responsible for the shortcomings to which he had called the attention of the House, he believed he was wholly irresponsible for them; but, at the same time, he (Lord C. Paget) would not hesitate for a moment to find fault with Sir Baldwin Walker, were he his best friend, merely because he was not a Member of that House, if he considered that his public acts exposed him to criticism. His (Lord C. Paget's) remarks had been addressed to the First Lords of the Admiralty and to other hon. Members of that House who were, or had been, officially connected with the Admiralty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated on a former occasion that Sir Baldwin Walker was not interfered with, but that he was regarded as an almost supreme director with respect to ship-building. He (Lord C. Paget) could inform the House, however, that so completely had Sir Baldwin Walker been in the hands of the Lords of the Admiralty, that, until within a very short period, he had not been empowered to give an order for the alteration of ships in the dockyards, even in the slightest degree. It was therefore impossible that he could have applied his observations to Sir Baldwin Walker.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, I hope the House will think the view taken by my hon. Friend (Mr. Bentinck) and by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Francis Baring) a sound one, and will not accede to the Motion. I hope also that the House will not forget what has fallen from the right hon. Baronet with regard to that noble and magnificent ship the Duke of Wellington, Those remarks were most apposite to the present occasion; and when we hear charges made—whether against Sir Baldwin Walker, or against the Admiralty—of reckless and extravagant expenditure because certain ships have been altered, let us bear in mind the testimony of so competent a witness as is the right hon. Baronet to the fact that these alterations have in some signal instances tended to the public service and have given us some of the finest ships we possess. I shall not detain the House by discussing at any length the Motion of the hon. Member, but I think it will be admitted that the speech in which that Motion was introduced was one of a

141
very discursive character. In the first place the hon. Member stated that I had admitted the existence of great mal-administration in the dockyards. [Mr. WILLIAMS: Hear!] Now, I beg to say that I never admitted anything of the sort, and I was not at the time in a position to make such a statement. What I said was, that on taking office I found a gigantic expenditure going on in the dockyards; that I did not feel satisfied that the public had their money's worth; that I thought it my duty to endeavour to ascertain if such were the case, and that I therefore appointed a Committee of Inquiry. I may add, that that Committee have most diligently attended to their duties for the last six months, and that their investigation has been of the most minute character. I am now awaiting their Report, and I am informed meanwhile by the Chairman that he believes their recommendations will tend to promote both efficiency and economy; but I never stated—and I should have been acting very unjustly if I had stated—that I had satisfied myself of the existence of any mal-adiministration in our dockyards. Then the hon. Member informed us that since the great war with France £300,000,000 have been spent in our dockyards. Why not go back to the time of the Commonwealth? Why not tell us how much has been spent since the days of Oliver Cromwell? I am certainly not in a position to say what the expenditure on the navy has been during the period to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, but this I can say that such statements, whether true or un- true, have really no bearing upon the question now before the House, which is, whether the Estimates for 1859–60 shall be referred to the consideration of a Committee. The reference made to the Motion of the noble and gallant Lord (Lord C. Paget) was equally inapposite. The hon. Gentleman dragged in that Motion as a reason for the inquiry now suggested. Why it has nothing to do with the question. Let me here remind the hon. Member, who may not have been in the House at the time, that I this evening gave notice of my intention to wait for no Committee of Inquiry on the subject of the noble Lord's Motion; that in justice to the building department of the Board of Admiralty, as well as to past Boards of Admiralty for the last eleven years, I intend shortly to lay upon the table a full statement of the appropriation of the moneys which have been voted by this House during the last eleven years for
142
dockyard purposes; and that that statement will contain the greatest amount of detail which the office of the Surveyor of the navy can supply. That is the effect of the notice which I gave to-night, not out of the slightest discourtesy to the noble Lord, but simply that justice may be done to those who have been gravely attacked by him. I believe it will be shown that the noble Lord is mistaken in saying that there is a balance of £5,000,000 unaccounted for, and I am also ready to state that the noble Lord has been misinformed in what fell from him as to particular ships. This is not the right moment to revive the subject, but I am sure nobody will be more satisfied than the noble Lord himself to learn that he is in error on these points. I repeat, however, that his statements afford no ground for the Motion of the hon. Member (Mr. Williams). The hon. Baronet who seconded this Motion (Sir Harry Verney), has asked whether I have any objection to furnish retrospective information. If I remember rightly, when I replied to the noble Lord I stated that the form which he suggested could not be complied, with, and that his proposal for information should rather have a retrospective than a prospective bearing. I will not commit myself to any promise, but I can assure the House that I do not wish for concealment, that I have no objection to furnish information, and I think I have proved on previous occasions that I have no such objection, provided only that the inquiry is so shaped as not to impede or injure the public service. I must now glance at one or two remarks of the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby.) My hon. Friend alluded to a supplementary Estimate which I proposed the other night, and stated that that Estimate had been taken in a very irregular manner in the middle of the Army Estimates. Let me remind him, however, that that supplementary Estimate was taken after full and ample notice given in the usual way, and that it therefore came on in a strictly regular manner. My hon. Friend went on to say that that Vote of £133,000 ought to have appeared in the Estimates for 1858–9; but it was part of the expenditure of 1857–8, and could not therefore have appeared in the Estimates of 1858–9. The hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Sykes) represents me as having said that we were destitute of a Channel Fleet. Now I never said anything of the sort; on the contrary, I have exerted my-

143
self, not I hope without some success, to establish a Channel Fleet; and the hon. and gallant Member must, therefore, have entirely misunderstood me. But the question before the House is, are we or are we not to appoint a Select Committee? I earnestly hope that the House will reject the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, for I believe that if acceded to it will tend to the injury of the public service. I repeat that I have no objection to any investigation which is consistent with the public interests; but when hon. Gentlemen are pressing for inquiry, I hope they will recollect that I am going to present a Report bearing on the statements of the noble Member for Sandwich (Lord C. Paget.) On this point I appeal more especially to the right hon. Baronet (Sir Francis Baring) who has himself held office at the Admiralty, to consider whether, at a moment of unusual pressure and of unusual exertion there, it is possible to institute such an inquiry as he has suggested, without so burdening the Department as to render it very difficult to carry on the business of the country. At this moment every nerve is strained almost beyond its power; it is difficult for the existing establishment to perform the duties which press upon them; and, considering the great amount of additional work which has now to be performed, I do hope the House will pause before it further taxes the Department to provide the means of carrying on the inquiry proposed.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Lambeth would not press his Motion to a division, as there seemed to be a general feeling that it would be inexpedient to refer those Estimates to a Select Committee. He would not go into details on the subject; but after the serious charges which had been brought by no common Member of the House, but by an admiral of great distinction in Her Majesty's service—one not only distinguished on his own element, but having peculiar opportunities of knowing all the arcana connected with ship-building—when that Member got up in the House and accused a Department of having wasted £5,000,000 of money of which there was no account, he thought it could hardly be expected that that House would be content with the offer of the right hon. Gentleman. He knew that he, as one of its Members, and having been connected with a former Board of Admiralty, should not be content by the offer of settling the question by producing
144
a paper of accounts. However inconvenient it might be for the Admiralty to have the time of their clerks taken up by an inquiry, he considered that that Department had been so damaged by the statement of an Admiral—one, too, who had possessed rare opportunities of knowing all the peculiarities of ship-building—that the House was bound to appoint a Committee to inquire into the circumstances; and he (Mr. Osborne) for one should not be satisfied—inasmuch as he disputed the noble Lord's figures, challenged his facts, and dissented from his conclusions—he should not be satisfied unless he had an opportunity of showing before the Committee how very badly that gallant Admiral had been informed, and that however great he might be on the water he was a very lame duck on the land. He would not take up the time of the House by going on this occasion into the gallant Admiral figures; the time would arrive for this. He would only give an instance to show how possible it was for even the frankness of an Admiral to lead away the House by a clap-trap assertion. The noble Lord cited the case of the Immortalité, and the expense of lengthening her by 14 feet, as constituting one of the particulars in his list of charges with reference to the squandering of £5,000,000 of money. But would the House believe that the extra expense thus incurred was in reality somewhat under £200? He could also account pretty satisfactorily for the case of the San Fiorenzo, were it not that he was unwilling to weary the House by entering into details at that moment. He entreated the House, however, to grant the inquiry for which he asked into the shipbuilding expenditure in our navy, and he pledged himself, should it do so, to controvert the statements which had been made by the gallant Admiral. However great the inconvenience to the Admiralty might be—and he admitted it would be great—the inconvenience was greater that a statement damaging to the efficiency of a Department should remain uncontradicted; and neither the House nor the country would be satisfied unless here was an inquiry into the ship-building department and expenditure.
SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he was of opinion that a Committee should, both. in justice to the noble Lord the Member for Sandwich, (Lord C. Paget) as well as to the Admiralty, be appointed, and he might also observe that, as a notice of Motion for inquiring into the state of the Navy stood

145
upon the Paper for Thursday next in the name of the hon. Member fur Newport, the hon. Member for Lambeth had better not press his Motion that evening. As an instance of the mismanagement which prevailed at the Admiralty, he might mention that shortly before his right hon. Friend near him (Sir Charles Wood) left that department he had ordered efficient vessels to be placed at different ports. The captain of the Duke of Wellington had accordingly been ordered to put her in commission for that purpose, while directions had been issued that the St. Vincent was to be paid off; but the moment, however, the succeeding Board of Admiralty had come into office the order had been countermanded.
MR. JACKSONsaid, his experience as a shipowner led him to the conclusion that the hon. Member for Dovor (Mr. B. Osborne) must be labouring under a mistake if he supposed the Immortalité could have been lengthened 14 feet at a cost of £200. Indeed, if a cipher were added to the figures he thought they would be nearer the mark. But be that as it might, it was, he thought, absolutely necessary that steps should be taken to inquire into the expenditure of the money under the control of the Admiralty. One circumstance had come within his own knowledge which tended to show how essential it was that such investigation should take place—he alluded to the cost and quality of the anchors which were employed by that department. The subject was one into which a Committee had been appointed to inquire, and eight different qualities of anchors had been tested, the worst being that which had been found to be used by the Admiralty. But not only was that the case, but the cost of the Admiralty anchors was 75 s. per cwt., while the cost of Trotman's, which were the best quality of anchor, was only 35 s. per cwt. Now, if that were a fair specimen of the way in which things were managed in the navy it was no wonder that the expenses in connection with it were greatly and to no good purposes increased. He was therefore prepared to maintain that his noble Friend the Member for Sandwich, having brought forward the charges which he had made, was bound to substantiate them, and ought to have the opportunity of doing so afforded him. There had been an inquiry into the system of army contracts, and an investigation into the affairs of the Admiralty might also bring its Weedons to light. The country.
146
at all events, was determined that the public money should be properly laid out, that it should receive 20 s worth for every sovereign which was voted by Parliament, and that no Government should be suffered to exist which did not render a just and accurate account of the national expenditure. He should, under those circumstances, recommend the hon. Member for Lambeth to withdraw his Motion.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he fully agreed that the Amendment was not convenient at this period. But he rose to offer an observation or two. The last; speaker had expressed his conviction from his experience as a shipowner that the lengthening of the Immortalité by 14 feet must have cost more than £200. [An Hon. MEMBER: He said £2,000.] The hon. Member must admit that the cost must depend on the state of the vessel at the time of the alteration. He (Sir Charles Wood) was responsible for that lengthening of the Immortalité. The ship was simply in frame at the time the alteration was determined on. It was necessary merely to unfasten a few bolts, to put in new bow timbers, and to move the stem a few feet forward. The alteration was very simple, and the cost very small. Last Friday night he asked the Surveyor of the Navy what was the cost of the alteration, and on Saturday morning he was assured that the cost, being for labour only or for labour mainly, could not by any possibility have exceeded £200.
Question "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

DESTRUCTION OF THE 26TH NATIVE INFANTRY—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. GILPINsaid, he rose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to the destruction of the 26th Native Infantry at Ujnalla on the 1st of August, 1857, as detailed in a work entitled The Crisis in the Punjab, by Frederick Cooper, Esq., Deputy Commissioner of Umritzur. In calling their attention to the massacre of those unhappy men, he (Mr. Gilpin) believed that he was calling attention to almost the very blackest page in the emphatically black book of the Indian rebellion. He was as unwilling as any hon. Member to call in question the conduct of any absent man, or to pass a condemnation upon an individual who had not had an opportunity of speaking for himself; but in this case there

147
would be, he believed, no dispute as to the facts, because he intended to confine his account of this terrible affair to the report which appeared in Mr. Cooper's own boob. He might say by way of preface that it was not now his intention to call in question the conduct of any of the Military authorities, or remarking on a Military execution. As a civilian he was about to call in question the acts of a civilian, as an Englishman he felt himself called upon to blush for the shame which had been brought upon the character of his country. He had just received a long letter, dated from the United Service Club, from a gentleman who appeared to think that he was going to find fault with the doings of the military in India; but he did not feel himself competent, and it was not his intention to undertake any task of the kind. In order that there might be no mistake he repeated that he would quote as briefly as he could from Mr. Cooper's own account, in order that he might not be accused of misrepresenting circumstances which he regarded as atrocious, but which Mr. Cooper justified, and not only justified, he had placed himself at the bar of public opinion, jauntily claiming for his acts the approbation of the public and the sacred sanction of the Highest. The regiment to whose annihilation he was calling attention had, according to Mr. Cooper, "served with great distinction at Arracan, Cabul, Moodkee, Ferozeshah, and Sobraon, and was disarmed at Lahore on May 1st. 1857." The men of this regiment were disarmed in the month of May, 1857. He did not find that they had previously been charged with any overt act of rebellion. The disarmament had taken place, as he understood, as a measure of precaution, and in the then state of India he had no complaint to make of such an act. They fled from their cantonments on the 21st of July, after having killed two of their officers. They had themselves, however, been first fired upon by the Sikhs levies. They were, as he understood, engaged at that time in cooking a meal; a storm of dust arose which darkened the light of the sun, and under these circumstances the Sikhs fired on the regiment amounting to upwards of 500 men. Two officers, one of them a Major Spencer, a man he believed of unusual humanity, and the other a sergeant-major, had rushed in among the Sepoys, who supposed they were in some way connected with the firing, and who then killed them. It was not wonderful that such a panic had arisen
148
among the Sepoys; and Mr. Cooper mentioned in his book cases of panics having taken place among the English during the rebellion. The murderer of Major Spencer was well known. He (Mr. Gilpin) respectfully asked the attention of the House to that fact. Mr. Cooper gave his name, and stated that he was a fanatic. The regiment, consisting of 500, fled; they were first of all attacked by the Sikh villagers, who were, as it were, natural enemies of the Sepoys; and those villagers were further stimulated by the promise of large rewards for the bodies of the Sepoys, dead or alive. The result was that 150 of the fugitives were destroyed by the villagers, and the remainder of the body escaped across the river to an island, to which they were pursued by Mr. Cooper with a very inferior force. Under the impression, if not with the promise, of a fair trial, they gave themselves up without any resistance, as many as sixty-six stalwart Sepoys having allowed their hands to be tied by a single man. Without a trial of any kind 237 of them were shot by the direction of Mr. Cooper, forty-five were stifled, 41 were subsequently blown from guns; and thus within forty-eight hours 500 human beings, without any trial, were ruthlessly and mercilessly butchered. Those were the facts he had to lay before the House; and he believed he could prove that they had taken place from Mr. Cooper's own book. According to the narrative of that Gentleman:
"The 26th Native Infantry, stationed under surveillance at Meean Meer, was disarmed on the 13th of May last. Whether there had been any preconcerted scheme among the disarmed regiments for a general attempt to escape from their unpleasant position, is not known; though it has been generally understood that lots had actually been drawn, and that had the 26th succeeded in. any measure the 10th Grenadiers had engaged to follow in their wake. Some say that the noonday gun was to be the signal of a general rise. Society, on the 30th of July, was, however, shocked to hear of another foul murder of a commanding officer, Major Spencer, and the rise of the 26th regiment. Lieutenant Montague White narrowly escaped, he was enticed into the lines by some Sepoys, who affected sorrow at the murder, and was about to dismount, when a warning voice in his ear told him to beware. He galloped off; but not before some hand had aimed a felon stroke at him, and wounded his horse. The sergeant-major was also killed, and the regiment precipitately fled; a dust-storm (as was the case at Jullundur when the mutiny arose) raging at the time, favouring their immediate escape, and concealing its exact direction. They were not, however, unmolested; and it is feared that the ardour of the Sikh levies, in firing when the first outbreak occurred, precipitated the murders and frightened all, good, bad, or indifferently disposed, to flight, From subsequent

149
statements, since taken down, it is concurrently admitted that a fanatic of the name of Prakash Singh, alias Prakash Pandy, rushed out of his but brandishing a sword, and bawling out to his comrades to rise and kill the Feringees, selected as his own victim the kind-hearted Major." … "Another panic arose at Anarkullee, and the thundering of cannon at Meean Meer into the then empty lines of the fugitives spread the utmost alarm. It was taken for granted that the fugitives must flee southwards, and accordingly Captain Blagrave proceeded with a strong party from Lahore to the Hurriki ghat (near to which Sobraon "was fought): and from Umritzur was detached in the same direction, a force (150 Punjab Infantry and some Tawana Horse) under Lieutenant Boswell, a rough and ready soldier, superior to all hardships. They had to march in a drenching rain, the country nearly Hooded. Sanguine hopes warmed their hearts amid the wretched weather. But, alas for their hopes! Intelligence reached the Deputy Commissioner that the mutineers had made almost due north; perhaps in hopes of getting to Cashmere, perhaps to try their luck, and by preconcerted plan to run the gauntlet of those districts in which Hindostanee regiments, some with arms, some without arms, still existed. Suffice it to say, that it was reported at midday, on the 31st of July, that they were trying to skirt the left bank of the Ravee, but had met with unexpected and determined opposition from the Tehseeldar, with a posse of police, aided by a swarm of sturdy villagers at a that twenty-six miles from the station. A rapid pursuit was at once organized. At four o'clock, when the district officer arrived with some eighty or ninety horsemen, he found a great struggle had taken place; the gore, the marks of the trampling of hundreds of feet, and the broken banks of the river, which, augmented with the late rains, was sweeping in a vast volume, all testified to it. Some 150 had been shot, mobbed back into the river and drowned inevitably, too weakened and famished as they must, have been after their forty miles' flight to battle with the flood. The main body had fled upwards and swum over on pieces of wood, or floated on to an island about a mile from the shore, where they might be descried crouching like a brood of wild fowl. It remained to capture this body, and, having done so, to execute condign punishment at once." …. "There were but two bouts, both ricketty, and the boatmen unskilled. The presence of a good number of Hindostanees among the sowars might lead to embarrassment and 'accidental' escapes. The point was first how to cross this large body to the main land, if they allowed themselves to be captured at all (after the model of the fox, the geese, and the peek of oats). This was not to be done under two or three trips, without leaving two-thirds of the mutineers on the island, under too scanty a protection, and able to escape, while the first batch was being conveyed to the main bank; nor also without launching the first batch, when they did arrive, into the jaws of the Hindostanee party, who in the first trip were to be left ostensibly 'to take care of the horses' on the main land. From the desperate conflict which had already taken place, a considerable struggle was anticipated before these plans could be brought into operation. The translation of the above fable to the aged Sikh Sirdar, who accompanied, and to the other heads of the pursuing party, caused intense mirth, and the plan of operations after this formula
150
elicited general approval. So the boats put off with about thirty sowars (dismounted of course) in high spirits; most of the Hindostanee sowars being left on the bank. The boats straggled a little, but managed to reach the island in about twenty minutes. It was a long inhospitable patch, with tall grass; a. most undesirable place to bivouac on for the night, with a rising tide; especially if wet, dispirited, hungry, without food, fire, or dry clothing. The sun was setting in golden splendour, and as the doomed men with joined palms crowded down to the shore on the approach of the boats, one side of which bristled with about sixty muskets, besides sundry revolvers and pistols, their long shadows were flung far athwart the gleaming waters. In utter despair forty or fifty dashed into the stream and disappeared, rose at a distance, and were borne away into the increasing gloom. Some thirty or forty sowars with matchlocks (subsequently discovered to be of very precarious value) jumped into shallow water, and invested the lower side of the island, and being seen on the point of taking pot-shots at the heads of the swimmers, orders were given 'not to fire.' This accidental instruction produced an instantaneous effect on the mutineers. They evidently were possessed of a sudden and insane idea that they were going to be tried by court-martial, after some luxurious refreshment. In consequence of which sixty-six stalwart Sepoys submitted to be bound by a single man deputed for the purpose from the boats, and stacked liked slaves in a hold into one of the two boats emptied for the purpose. Leaving some forty armed sowars on the island, and feeling certain that after the peaceful submission of the first batch (or peck of oats) the rest would follow suit and suit, orders were given to push off. On reaching the shore, one by one, as they stepped out of the boats, all were tightly hound; their decorations and necklaces ignominiously cut off; and under a guard of a posse of villagers, who had begun to assemble, and some Sikh Horse, they were ordered to proceed slowly on their journey hack, six miles to the police-station at Ujnalla. Meanwhile the Hindostanees (the geese) had been despatched to the island back in the boats with an overawing number of Tawana sowars; and it was gratifying to see the next detachment put off safely; though at one time the escorting boat got at a great distance from the escorted, and fears were entertained that escape had been premeditated. However, by dint of hallowing, with threats of a volley of musketry, the next invoice came safely to land, and were subjected to the same process of spoliation, disrobement and pinioning. At any moment, had they made an attempt to escape, a bloody struggle must have ensued. But Providence ordered otherwise, and nothing on the side of the pursuing party seemed to go wrong. Some begged that their women and children might be spared, and were informed that the British Government did not condescend to war with women and children. The last batch having arrived, the long, straggling party were safely, but slowly, escorted back to the police-station, almost all the road being knee-deep in water. Even this accident, by making the ground so heavy—not to mention the gracious moon, which came out through the clouds and reflected herself in myriad pools and streams, as if to 1ight the prisoners to their fate—aided in preventing a single escape. It was near midnight before all were safely lodged in the police station. A driz-

151
zling rain coming on prevented the commencement of the execution; so a rest until daybreak was announced. Before dawn another batch of sixty-six was brought in, and as the police station was then nearly full, they were ushered into a largo round tower or bastion. Previously to his departure with the pursuing party from Umritzur, the Deputy Commissioner had ordered out a large supply of rope, in case the numbers captured were law enough for hanging (trees being scarce), and also a reserve of fifty Sikh levies for a firing party, in case of the numbers demanding wholesale execution, as also to be of use as a reserve in case of a fight on the island. So eager were the Sikhs that they marched straight on end, and he met them half-way, twenty-three miles between the river and the police station, on his journey back in charge of the prisoners, the total number of which when the execution commenced amounted to 282 of all ranks, besides numbers of camp followers, who were left to be taken care of by the villagers. As fortune would have it, again favouring audacity, a deep dry well was discovered within 100 yards of the police station, and its presence furnished a convenient solution as to the one remaining difficulty which was of a sanitary consideration—the disposal of the corpses of the dishonoured soldiers. The climax of fortunate coincidences seemed to have arrived when it was remembered that the 1st of August was the anniversary of the great Mahomedan sacrificial festival of the Bukra Eed. A capital excuse was thus afforded to permit the Hindostanee Mussulman horsemen to return to celebrate it at Umritzur, while the single Christian, unembarrassed by their presence, and aided by the faithful Sikhs, might perform a ceremonial sacrifice of a different nature (and the nature of which they had not been made aware of) on the same morrow. When that morrow dawned sentries were placed round the town to prevent the egress of sightseers. The officials were called; and they were made aware of the character of the spectacle they were about to witness."
Mr. Cooper, it would be observed, called himself "the single Christian." He (Mr. Gilpin) would ask the House to look at the representative of Christianity as described by himself. Mr. Cooper went on to sav.—
"Ten by ten the Sepoys were called forth. Their names having been taken down in succession, they were pinioned, linked together, and marched to execution; a firing party being in readiness. Every phase of deportment was manifested by the doomed men, after the sullen firing of volleys of distant musketry forced the conviction of inevitable death; astonishment, rage, frantic despair, the most stoic calmness. One detachment, as they passed, yelled to the solitary Anglo-Saxon magistrate, as he sat under the shade of the police station performing his solemn duty, with his Native officials around him, that he, the Christian, would meet the same fate; then, as they passed the reserve of young Sikh soldiery who were to relieve the executioners after a certain period, they danced, though pinioned, insulted the Sikh religion, and called on Gungajee to aid them; but they only in one instance provoked a reply, which was instantaneously checked. Others again petitioned to be allowed to make one last 'salaam' to the Sahib. About 150 having been thus executed,
152
one of the executioners swooned away (he was the oldest of the firing party), and a little respite was allowed. Then proceeding, the number had arrived at 237, when the district officer was informed that the remainder refused to come out of the bastion, where they had been imprisoned temporarily a few hours before. Expecting a rush and resistance, preparations were made against escape; but little expectation was entertained of the real and awful fate which had fallen on the remainder of the mutineers; they had anticipated, by a few, short hours their doom. The doors were opened, and, behold! they were nearly all dead! Unconsciously, the tragedy of Holwell's Black hole had been re-enacted. No cries had been heard during the night, in consequence of the hubbub, tumult, and shouting of the crowds of horsemen, police, tehseel guards, and excited villagers. Forty-five bodies, dead from fright, exhaustion, fatigue, heat, and partial suffocation, were dragged into light, and consigned, in common with all other bodies, into one common pit, by the hands of the village sweepers. One Sepoy only was too much wounded in the conflict to suffer the agony of being taken to the scene of execution. He was accordingly reprieved for Queen's evidence, and forwarded to Lahore, with some forty-one subsequent captures, from Umritzur. There, in full parade before the other mutinously disposed regiments at Meean Meer, they all suffered death by being blown away from the cannon's mouth. The execution at Ujnalla commenced at daybreak, and the stern spectacle was over in a few hours. Thus, within, forty-eight hours from the date of the crime, there fell by the law nearly 500 men"
That was the statement he (Mr. Gilpin) had wished to bring before the House, and he thought it was one which would thrill the heart of every hon. Member who heard it. Be knew in the army the punishment for mutiny was death—a severe punishment, no doubt. He had spoken to not a few military men on the subject of this massacre—men who had seen a great amount of service, and whom he knew to be devoid of all cruelty, for the very reason that they were brave. One of them, a distinguished Polish officer, had written to him thus:—
"The execution of the 26th, as detailed by Mr. Cooper, is truly such a cannibal affair that I am relieved to find that it was not a military man who commanded the massacre. Such a deed would stain the escutcheon of any civilized army in the world with indelible disgrace. Taking the facts upon the perpetrator's own showing, the wholesale murder was wholly unnecessary, inhuman, and unjustifiable. I say this as a military man."
There had been a recent war, in which rebellion and mutiny on the part of soldiers had occurred. In January, 1848, some soldiers in Hungary mutinied, cut their major to pieces, and threw his mutilated corpse to the dogs. After a trial a court-martial pardoned the men and ordered three officers to be shot. In the late war

153
in Hungary, where the passions were inflamed to a terrible extent, and where as many atrocities were committed by the Austrians as had been committed by the Sepoys, a Wallachian regiment also broke out into passive mutiny. The regiment was brought to court-martial, who ordered them to be decimated, and one in ten to be shot. It was easy to see what Mr. Cooper would have done; he would have shot them all. When the decimation was about to be made, an officer arrived from the general, with a free pardon. These men remained brave and faithful throughout the war. Sir F. Currie, late Deputy Chairman of the Board of Directors and now a member of the Council of India, spoke of this act as a "cruel massacre." He never heard of Mr. Cooper's name until his book was put into his hands. He now took his leave of him, recommending him before be left India to build a pyramid of human skulls in imitation of Tamerlane, and then, remembering his constant reference to Providence and his inclination to ascribe such events to Providence, he would no doubt inscribe upon the ghastly structure Non nobis Domine. He could not believe that the approval of Sir John Lawrence, as conveyed in the following letter, had been given to Mr. Cooper with a knowledge of all the facts of the case:—
"Lahore, August 2, 1857.
"My dear Cooper.—I congratulate you on your success against the 26th Native Infantry. You and your police acted with much energy and spirit, and deserve welt of the State. I trust the fate of these Sepoys will operate as a warning to others. Every effort should be exerted to glean up all who are yet at large.
"Roberts will, no doubt, leave the distribution of the rewards mainly to you. Pray sec that they are allotted with due regard to merit, and that every one gets what is intended for him. Yours sincerely, "JOHN LAWRENCE."
"Frederick Cooper, Esq., D.C., Umritzur."
Another letter he had read with deep pain, for he felt that if a man who could write such a letter represented the British power in India, it ceased to be a matter of wonder that there should be a rebellion there. It was rather a subject of wonder that rebellion should ever abate. Mr. Robert Montgomery, Judicial Commissioner for the Punjab, wrote to Mr. Cooper as follows:—
"Sunday, 9 A.M.
"My dear Cooper,—All honour to you for what you have done, and right well you did it. There was no hesitation or delay, or drawing back. It will be a feather to your cap as long as you live. [It must be a bloody feather]
"Get out of the wounded man all you can and
154
send him to Lahore, that he may himself proclaim what has been done. The people will not otherwise believe it.
"Better write an official report, and place the whole on record. Bring forward all persons who did well. Do this judiciously. I mean discriminate between the medium, the good, and the super-excellent.
"Primâ, facie, the Tehseeldar deserves apparently great praise. Were they baulked in getting the boats, and how? Had the Tehseel people knowledge that the 26th Native Infantry had broken our, or did they first ascertain it on seeing them?
"You will have abundant money to reward all, and the (executioners) Sikhs should have a good round sum given to them.
"I congratulate you very heartily on your success. There will be some stragglers; have them all picked up, and any you got send us now. You have had slaughter enough. We want a few for the troops here, and also for evidence. Believe me, yours sincerely, "R. MONTGOMERY.'
"F, Cooper, Esq., D.C."
"P.S. The other three regiments hero were very shaky yesterday, but I hardly think they will now go. I wish they would, as they are a nuisance; and not a man would escape if they do.—R. M."
Now, if there was any meaning in language, Mr. Montgomery wished that 2,000 men would mutiny and fly, in order that he and his soldiers should have an opportunity of butchering them. His friends said that these atrocities were exceptional cases, and he had been asked, "Why bring them forward?" A noble Lord, not a Member of that House, but who had had much to do with India, had asked, "Why not let them rest?" and added, that the less said about them the better. But had they the power of commanding that an act of this kind should be buried in oblivion? It was written with a pen of iron upon the rock, and they could not bun the remembrance of such acts if they would. They ought to learn a lesson from these deeds. It was not that he claimed a character for humanity above that of other hon. Members; but he appealed to the Government, represented by the noble Lord, whoso head and heart were so full of Indian concerns, for an emphatic declaration that he had no sympathy with such atrocities, and such a declaration on the noble Lord's own part and that of the Government would do more to consolidate Her Majesty's power in India than a large addition to her troops. These 500 Sepoys relied for their safeguard on British honour. They might have resisted, but they believed they were promised a fair trial. They trusted to the honour of England, and they were deceived; and he called upon the noble Lord to say that such deception would receive no apology from him and those who acted with

155
him. The House and the country felt just now a great interest in missions and in education for India, but one such atrocity as this would do more to excite burning hatred to our power and to our faith, everything multiplied a hundred fold, than the missionaries could eradicate in the next century. A throne could not be permanently established on injustice, nor could authority be perpetrated by wrong, and it was his earnest desire that the rule of our Queen should be in the hearts of her subjects in India as in England. He knew that the noble Lord the President of the Council for India and the Right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Vernon Smith) the late President of the Board of Control, would with himself deprecate such atrocities as those he had condemned, and desire with him that the throne of the Queen should be established on justice, and her power directed by the principles of truth, mercy, and humanity.
GENERAL THOMPSONhad been much conversant with public assemblies, and had been used to boast to himself that he could follow any man. But he could not follow the speech they had just heard, or add a word that would not weaken the effect of the statement their pacific Friend had made. He could not add to the colouring, but he might make some naked addition to the facts. Neither he nor his hon. Friend was present in India at these scenes; he wished they had, because then they could offer themselves as evidence. But the public papers would enable the House to form a judgment, and he would 'appeal to them as the best and only evidence they had. He gathered from them what had not been mentioned—namely, that this regiment had been disarmed, and it was boasted that any of the men who in small bodies attempted to escape were destroyed by the hostile population. Orders were despatched that these men should be sent off in small bodies, to take the fate it had been boasted must befall them. He did not blame the Governor General, and he did not blame the Indian Government; for neither Queen, nor Parliament, nor Governor General ruled in India, but the race of abandoned men who had usurped the powers of them all, and left upon record the blackest page that history could produce. No act of Pagan or mediaeval times could match it. He was once present where an armed populace broke in, and proposed to slaughter some prisoners—at Buenos Ayres—of whom he was one. A quartermaster of Horse Ar-
156
tillery of the name of Hay—perhaps he was still alive—drew his sword, and cried—"Let us have one tussle for our lives!" That was what these Sepoys had done. They seized brickbats, staves, and such instruments as were within the reach of disarmed men, and tried their chance. It was what you, Mr. Speaker, would have done, and I, and every soul that hears me. They had therefore one tussle, and then came the massacre. He was ashamed of being an Englishman, and being obliged to own himself this man's countryman. The men were endeavouring to save their lives by the only means in their power, when the Sikhs were set to murder them. They had been subjected previously to every kind of insult. A low reprobate, writing to the public prints about the Sepoys, said—"We have great fun in making faces at the Sepoys, and throwing things into their lines." Throwing things into their lines, meant throwing carrion and things supposed to convey ceremonial pollution. He (General Thompson) never knew an Irishman who was afraid to speak the truth when appealed to; and he would now ask every Irishman in the House whether, if the Con-naught Rangers had been in the position these Sepoys were, they would not have done the same; and then he would turn to the Scotch Members and ask them if they believed the 42nd would not have done so too. One chance there was. He had stood up in that House to speak of the murder under trust, of the Princes of Delhi. He had since fallen in with a glimpse of hope—a glimpse only, but which might at some time be valuable to the country—that the unhappy man who with his own hand had done that horrible deed, was labouring under that heaviest dispensation of Providence, constitutional insanity. He hoped the same might prove the case with the man who had inflicted this other deep dishonour on his country. It was a charitable hope, and he wished it might be fulfilled; for England, the world, and mankind, would be rid of a stigma, if it could be proved that this wretch—for so he could not but in conscience call him—had acted under a disease which made him free from moral responsibility. He could not believe that any man in that House would defend this horrible massacre. There was a massacre once which the world had never ceased to talk of—the massacre of St. Bartholomew. And there was a Frenchman and Catholic, who, when the order to continue that massacre was sent to him, replied,

157
"Your Majesty has here brave soldiers, faithful subjects, but not one executioner." He (General Thompson), wished that a little of that spirit had been manifested in India. He wished it the more because he had worn epaulettes, and they had been worn by executioners. May I (continued the hon. and gallant General) make a clean breast of it? You, Sir, did me the honour of inviting me to your hospitalities. It would have been grief and pain to me to do anything that could be construed into insensibility to your kindness. But I could not don epaulettes that had been worn by hangmen. A beggar came to Mr. Wilberforce's door, and was given some remnants of vermicelli soup. The man said, "Indeed I am very hungry, but I cannot eat soup with maggots in it." So I, Sir, cannot wear epaulettes that have been worn by hangmen, without giving them at least some time to sweeten. Those Gentlemen who dislike the combination, will have plenty of opportunities of showing their zeal. Meantime, he left the ease to the good sense, the loyalty, and humanity of that Assembly.
LORD STANLEY: Sir, I have no reason to complain of the course which the hon. Member who brought on this discussion has taken in using what is, no doubt, a fair opportunity of bringing before the House an important subject; but I cannot help regretting, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has followed him has thought fit to mix up with what is undoubtedly a serious and painful circumstance, some old stories from newspapers which are probably untrue, and which, if they were true, would be utterly unimportant. It is impossible to deny that these transactions to which reference has been made are such as cannot be heard or read, even at this distance of time and place, without great pain and regret. And I will go further, and say that that pain is greatly increased by the tone and the spirit in which these transactions have been described, both in the despatch written at the time and in the book subsequently published by the gentleman who gave instructions to the Sikhs engaged in this affair. There is a tone of flippancy, and an appearance of exultation at that great sacrifice of human life—a sacrifice of life made not in the heat of action, nor after a judicial process—which is utterly at variance with good taste and good feeling. Making all allowances—and we are bound to make the
158
very largest allowances for the circumstances of time and place—it is impossible not to condemn the language in which. Mr. Cooper has written of these transactions. But what the House has to consider is, not the tone in which Mr. Cooper has written, but the circumstances which took place at Meean Meer. Now, what were the circumstances? The regiment in question—the 25th Native Infantry—was stationed at Meean Meer, and being strongly suspected of an intention to join in the mutiny, was placed under restraint. It remained under restraint for a period of about six weeks. I think it was on the 30th of July that the attempt to revolt was made. It has been said, in vindication of that attempt, that it was merely an effort on the part of these troops to escape, and that that effort was made because they were to be sent in small parties among a population that was hostile to them, which was tantamount to committing them to inevitable destruction. Now, I apprehend that that is simply a mistake in fact. It is quite true that at a later period regiments were disarmed and discharged in small parties, but no general disarmament of troops had taken place when this outbreak arose. Escape, then, is not the word to apply to such a transaction; and oven if it had been a movement of escape on the part of the troops, though a single fugitive may possibly avoid detection, when a large body of men attempt to escape they must be prepared to resist force by force, and the attempt, therefore, on the part of a regiment under these circumstances to escape from the place where they were kept under surveillance would, in fact, on their part, lead to the inference that they were prepared to meet any force that might resist them. It is said that at the time of this outbreak these troops were not armed, That is undoubtedly the case; but every one who knows India knows that arms are not difficult to be obtained there. They were then not fugitives, but insurgents. And when did they make the attempt? Why, at a time when Delhi was not taken. Every man of them, if they had escaped—and they were men for the most part belonging to Central India—would have gone to swell the ranks of the insurgents. At the time of the attempt there was already arrayed against the Imperial forces an enormously disproportionate force of Sepoys. I say, then, that whatever may have been their inspiring motive at the moment of this

159
out break, it is impossible to treat it as anything but mutiny and an insurrection at a moat critical time. Then, it is said that the Sikhs fired upon these troops before the murders were committed. Now, we have not, and probably we never shall have, full and circumstantial evidence of what occurred at the time. But we know this—we know that an outbreak was expected for some days before. We know that an outbreak actually took place upon that day—the 30th of July, and it is only reasonable to suppose that as English officers were present, or, at least, at no great distance, any attack made upon them by the Sikhs was owing to a previous outbreak on their part. But was this outbreak a mere result of panic, and was it merely by way of self-defence? If that was the case, how came those attempts at the murder of two European officers to take place? It may be said that the murder of Major Spencer was the work of an individual only. We do not find that any attempt was made by these Sepoys to give up that guilty individual, or that they endeavoured to disconnect themselves in any way from the crime which he had committed. But, admitting that the murder of Major Spencer was the work of an individual only, what was the case as regards the attempt on the life of the second officer Lieutenant Montague White? A plan was laid to entice him within the lines, and when they had brought him there, an attempt was made on his life, with which he narrowly escaped. The object in this case could not be to get rid of an inconvenient witness, for the facts must have been public and notorious; nor was it any immediate danger to which the regiment was exposed. It appears to have been, as far as we can judge, a premeditated and treacherous murder, and this must be borne in mind in coming to any decision on the facts. It is unfortunately true that out of 700 men nearly 500 suffered death, some on the spot and some afterwards at Lahore. But all these facts were known, and are referred to in a despatch addressed by Viscount Canning to Sir J. Lawrence, in which the Governor General states that "great credit is due to Mr. Cooper for his exertions," We have evidence then, that every authority in India, regarded this punishment as necessary. Two officers had been murdered by these men without any purpose; the result of the escape of the regiment would have been that it would have joined the insurgent forces; and a
160
severe example was doubtless considered to be necessary, to prevent similar risings elsewere. Reference has been made to a note addressed to Mr. Cooper by Mr. Montgomery. The note is couched in hasty language and such as could not have been deliberately employed, but I submit that whatever vindication the case allows of is furnished by its terms. In that note it appears (as indeed we know from other sources) that there was a largo force in the neighbourhood; they were troops of the same garrison; they were similary disarmed, but under the same temptation to rise and not unlikely to yield to it. Probably Sir J. Lawrence and those in command thought, if a severe punishment were inflicted on the first body, as an example, it might prevent a similar mutiny by other regiments, and, in the end, be the saving of many lives. I have now stated what I apprehend may fairly be urged in vindication or palliation of the course pursued; but I am bound in sincerity to add, I cannot but wish that an indiscriminate execution of these men had not taken place, that some selection had been made, that there had been some previous investigation, and that some punishment short of death had been inflicted on the great bulk concerned. But it is one thing to wish that an act of this kind had not been done and another thing to pass a formal censure upon it. Only by great exertions—by the employment of force, by making striking examples, and inspiring terror, could Sir J, Lawrence save the Punjab; and if the Punjab had been lost the whole of India would for the time have been lost with it. Sir J. Lawrence has declared this act was necessary; and the Governor General has confirmed the opinion. Taking all this into consideration, and remembering that we, at this distance of time and place, are hardly fair judges of the feelings of men engaged in such a conflict, I hope the House will—I do not say oppose—I cannot ask its approval of the act in question; but I hope it will pass over the transaction in that silence which is sometimes the most judicious comment.
Main Question, put and agreed to.

NAVY ESTIMATES.—SUPPLY.
House in Committee.
Mr. FITZROY in the Chair.
(1.) £142,957, Admiralty Office, agreed to.
(2.) £186,057, Coastguard Service, and Royal Naval Coast Volunteers.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he hoped the First Lord of the Admiralty would give some explanation of what he intended to do in reference to the Coastguard. It included two descriptions of men,—old civilians not available for the sea service, and seamen. Some of the seamen had served in ships of war, had been discharged with a good character, and, as a reward, had been employed in the Coastguard. But there were a certain number of men employed who had not served in the navy. It was obvious that the most valuable men were those who had been trained; in case of need they would serve as the nucleus of the crews of ships of war. It was most desirable to increase the number of the Coastguard men as much as possible, and the Manning Commissioners recommended that this force should be raised from 10,000 to 12,000. This augmentation could only be made gradually year by year, as the class of men whom they required could not be obtained at once. When he was at the Admiralty he took a vote for 10,000 men, though he only expected to raise 9,000 of them at once, and that number was nearly obtained; and he thought that subsequent events had proved that he had formed a correct idea of the value of this class of men. This year, however, there was no increase proposed in the Coastguard seamen, and it was to be hoped that the First Lord of the Admiralty would explain why he had not followed the course which it was understood was to be pursued when this force was established,—namely, to increase it as rapidly as circumstances would permit.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman as to the value and importance of the Coastguard, and felt great satisfaction that the Manning Commission had recommended that this excellent reserve should be increased. The reason why he had not asked for a larger number of men for this force was, because they were at present many hundreds short of the strength granted by Parliament, and therefore any increase for this year would have been merely nomimal. The deficiency throughout the year ranged between 700 and 800 men.
SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he wished to ask why the number of Coast Volunteers was not given in the Estimates? All the particulars that the Committee was furnished with were the sums of money which were required for this branch of the service. There were at present rather more than 7,000 Naval Coast Volunteers. He
162
was also anxious to know whether it was true that men had been drawn from the Coastguard to man the ships in commission.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, it was true that a few men had been allowed to volunteer from the Coastguard ships, but they were very few. They had manned two ships of the line and two frigates recently with a rapidity which was very uncommon. In fact they were deriving the advantages of the continuous service of the men of the fleet, and of experienced sailors, who had recently come home from foreign ships in Her Majesty's service. The number of Volunteers was about 7,000.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, he had been informed that nearly 600 men had been taken, from the Coastguard to man the ships in commission. If that were so, it would seem to indicate that there was a difficulty in getting seamen for the navy.
ADMIRAL DUNCOMBEsaid, it appeared from the statements made that the Coastguard was 700 or 800 below the number voted. It was evident, therefore, that there was still something wrong, and that we had not that reserve which was necessary in case of an emergency.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, if the Coastguard were to be rapidly raised either to 10,000, at which it stood under the Act of Parliament, or to 12,000, which the Commissioners recommended, it would be necessary to relax the present rule with regard to admission to that service. Men were anxious to obtain situations in the Coastguard, and when the Government began to make their reserve from the merchant service he would suggest that they should admit to the Coastguard men who had volunteered for the reserve. They would thus fill the Coastguard, and give a valuable stimulus to the merchant service to form a reserve for the navy.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he had always thought it to be of the greatest possible importance to keep the greatest possible number of old men-of-wars men in the Coastguard. This would show the merchant service what good things the navy led to. He wished to receive an answer to the question he had put to the right hon. Baronet. As he understood, the best men were employed ashore, and the inferior class on board ship. He wanted to know why the increase of the men on board ship was caused by a diminution of those on shore.
MR. CORRYsaid, that the revenue cut-

163
ters in the present year were supplied by men from the Coastguard service afloat, which was not the case last year. The fact was that we had on shore a larger number of men this year, and we were short of the number afloat.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he wished to ask whether the number of Coast Volunteers had increased since last year.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that the number last year was about 6,000; at present it was between 7,000 and 8,000. He might also state that the number of men who had entered from the west coast of Scotland was between 400 and 500.
SIR CHARLES NAPIER: Was it true that only about 200 men had accepted the short-service pension of 6d. a day?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Yes. The number was small; it was about that number.
SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he had been told that the fitting-out and changing of the nine block-ships had cost £164,000. He could not understand where the money had been put. The operation upon a single ship could be accomplished in forty-eight hours. He could not understand where the money could have gone.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, it was generally acknowledged that the men of the north of Scotland were extremely fine men, and, indeed, it had been said of them that they were a race of giants, but they were found to be very averse to going far from their homes, and were not to be relied upon as a naval force. The restrictions existing, especially with regard to their not serving more than 100 leagues from the land, rendered such a force one which it was not desirable should be absorbed in the reserve proposed to be created.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, he had come to a different conclusion. It was true that the Volunteers were not to go more than 100 leagues from the shore, but there were many services in which they would be able to supply very important aid. Still there was one great defect in the volunteer system, and he wished to ask the right hon. Baronet if he could state how many of them were absent from drill last year. He understood that out of 7,000 only 3,000 or 4,000 could be relied upon.
SIR CHARLES WOODobserved, he was surprised at this, because in the first year only three or four men out of 300 or 400 were absent from drill.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he
164
could not exactly state the proportion, but he believed that about one-tenth did not appear when they were called upon. He thought that with some slight encouragement a very fine class of men called "wreckers," who at present were idling about the coast, might be made very efficient crews for the gun-boats.
SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he thought if some extra inducement were offered to the men of the Coast Volunteers they would be more willing to serve, such for instance as a dinner on a Sunday, and that if more organized they would be found an efficient force.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he ought to mention that though it was the opinion of the Committee who sat on this subject that the Coast Volunteers might be superseded by a more efficient force, yet, as far as it had gone, great benefit had resulted from the institution of that corps. It had habituated the men of the north to the discipline observed on board men of war, and thus paved the way to the creation of a large and useful force in cases of emergency. Among other suggestions made, it had been proposed that a gun should be placed at each port, under the direction of old mariners, and that the inhabitants should be practised in the use of the gun, the best shot receiving a shilling reward, or some encouragement of a similar nature; this would induce the attainment of a great knowledge of gunnery among such men.
MR. CARDWELLwas of opinion that, when it was well understood the old system of impressment would not be again resorted to there would be no limit to the number of volunteers that the country might obtain. It would, however, be better to discuss the whole subject on another occasion, and in a more formal manner.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported to-morrow.

MUTINY BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
MR. COWAN, who had given notice of a Motion condemnatory of the practice of billeting in Scotland, said, that after the changes in that system which had been made by the gallant General the Secretary of State for War, and especially after the increase of the rate of remuneration which had to a great extent remedied the evils which were complained of, he should not move his Re-

165
solution. At the same time he must urge upon the gallant General the propriety of diminishing this practice as much as possible, and, if might be, abolishing it altogether.
GENERAL PEELsaid, that in reply to what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman, he had great pleasure in announcing that it was the intention of the Government to raise the allowance from 1½d. to 4d. a day. But that alteration did not extend to innkeepers who had to find provisions for troops on the march. In addition to the former proposal, it was intended to make a further allowance of 2½d. a clay to them; thus increasing the present rate from 10 d. to 12½d. The attention of the Government had been anxiously directed to the suggestions of the Billeting Committee of last year. There were several grounds of objection brought forward by the Committee. Amongst them was an objection to the arrangement by which the militia were billeted. But the fact was, that in all instances in which the militia had been called out of late years, they had been quartered in barracks, and had not been billeted. It had also been observed that some districts suffered more severely than others from the system of billets. He was happy to say that he had received intimations from several towns from which the greatest complaints had proceeded, such as London, Liverpool, York, &c, and he had been informed that the innkeepers would be perfectly satisfied with the proposed changes, and that persons were to be found who would be not unwilling to provide quarters for the troops at the increased rate. He hoped the House would allow the Bill to pass this year to see how the proposed changes would work.
Mr. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he was glad of an opportunity of testifying to the extreme courtesy and kindness of the right hon. Gentleman in listening to the complaints that had been made upon this subject, and to the conciliatory spirit in which he met the objections which had been made to the present system.
MR. BLACKsaid, he could corroborate the remarks of the hon. Member who had just spoken. In his opinion the proposals of the gallant General were perfectly just and fair.
MR. BOVILLsaid, that having called the attention of the House to this subject about two years ago, he also wished to express the gratitude felt by those persons who had been aggrieved by the old system.
MR. RIDLEYsaid, he wished to ask whether or not the recruits raised in Sunderland, Shields, and other towns of Yorkshire, would be removable at once to barracks in York.
GENERAL PEELsaid, he thought it would not be practicable to remove recruits immediately to the barracks at York.
House in Committee.
GENERAL CODRINGTONasked whether the practice of giving money to soldiers to buy them out, as it was called, whereby a separate bargain was made with the innkeeper was to be continued?
GENERAL PEELsaid, that with every desire to adopt the proposal that the payment should be made by the billet-master, it had been found necessary to postpone any alteration in that respect till it had been seen how the new system would work.
Clauses agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported, without Amendment.

MARINE MUTINY BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he thought this would be a good opportunity of throwing out a suggestion to the right hon. Baronet, namely, whether it would not be bettor on all occasions when complaints were brought against a sailor that the captain should be directed to order an inquiry to be made by some other officers of the ship. It was very often a painful thing for the captain, who had the power of remitting punishment, to insist upon the punishment being carried out in the discharge of his duty, which would not arise if, in all cases, a ship court-martial were to pass sentence upon the offender. In making these observations he did not wish it to be thought that he was at all of opinion that the amount of flogging in the navy was excessive.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONobserved, that the hon. and gallant Admiral was not strictly in order, inasmuch as this Bill related merely to sailors whilst on shore; but he begged to assure the hon. and gallant Admiral that the whole subject of naval courts-martial was under the consideration of the Government.
  GENERAL CODRINGTONsaid, he desired to ask whether the Marine Mutiny Act relating to sailors on shore would contain the same provisions as the former Mutiny Bill?
  MR. CORRYsaid, that no alteration was proposed to the billeting of sailors on shore.
  Clauses agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, without Amendment.
  House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oath.—The Earl of Bandon.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Court of Chancery Accommodation.
3a Ecclesiastical Courts and Registries (Ireland).

CONTRACTS WITH ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH COMPANIES.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYmoved for Copies of any Contracts which have been made by Her Majesty's Government with any Individual or Company for the Construction and Maintenance of Electric Telegraphs. The noble Earl said, as he understood no opposition would be made to the Motion he would not trouble their Lordships with many observations; he would only say that he trusted in any contracts which might be made, care would be taken to include a power to the Secretary of State, in any public emergency, by warrant, to take possession of the electric telegraph and keep it as long as the public service demanded, compensation being awarded to the company. Such a power was taken in all Acts relating to telegraph companies in this country, and if such a power was of importance here it was still more so with regard to telegraphs connected with British possessions abroad—such as Malta and Corfu—in order to preserve communication with England, and exercise the necessary control over the transmission of messages. Cases of public emergency might arise so as to require the exercise of this power, either in actual war or in anticipation of war, and he trusted the Government would see the necessity of such a clause. There were other powers also which he thought it expedient the Government should possess—that of purchasing electric telegraphs, submarine or otherwise: the compensation to be fixed by arbitration or by any other mode the Executive Government should think fit. The principles laid down by the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) the other night were quite satisfactory—first, that no monopoly should be given to any one company; second, that no guarantee should be given to any electric telegraph company unless in actual working order; and that such subsidy be granted only so long as the electric telegraph was in working order. Another point of importance was that the Government should not tie themselves up to any arrangement with any company or individual, but should be open to receive the best terms from any quarter; and he thought it the more necessary to make these observations as he had been informed that an offer had been made for constructing an Atlantic Telegraph on a payment by the Government of £25,000

  89
  a year, and that the person who had made this offer had received no answer. He did not know whether or not that was correct, but he hoped the Government would, by competition, obtain the best terms they could for the public.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, there would be no objection to the Return. The points which the noble Lord had mentioned were most important, and would receive full consideration. He had no knowledge of any such application having been made to the Treasury as that to which the noble Lord alluded.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that a different practice prevailed in this country with regard to public works from that which existed in other countries. In other countries the Government undertook the construction of such public works as private companies undertook in this country. The introduction of the principle of the Government guarantee to public companies was a novel one. He had always objected to them; for they were unnecessary and were absolutely injurious, for when once the practice was established no work would be undertaken without a guarantee. Generally speaking, in this country, whenever an undertaking was likely to pay it would not languish for want of encouragement. He had strenuously opposed the proposal to give guarantees for the Irish railways, and now, though unguaranteed, they paid on the whole better than the English lines.
  Motion agreed to,

COURT OF CHANCERY ACCOMMODATION BILL.

  PRESENTED. READ 1a.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORlaid on the table a Bill to extend the powers of the Lord Chancellor for providing accommodation for the Court of Chancery. The noble and learned Lord said that in the year 1841, when two additional Vice Chancellors were appointed, the Honourable Society of Lincoln's Inn, at their own expense, erected courts for their accommodation; but those courts, not having been intended to be permanent, were now nearly worn out, and they were small and incommodious. Since that period a change had taken place in the business of the Court of Chancery by the abolition of the Master's offices, and the transfer of their business to the Judges of the Courts and their chief
  90
  clerks, which rendered it essentially necessary that new courts should be provided. It was indispensable for the transaction of business that the construction of the courts should be such that the Judges and their clerks should be close to each other. Negotiations bad been entered into with the Hon. Society of Lincoln's Inn, who had undertaken to build proper courts on being secured a rent amounting to 4 per cent on the outlay, together with the amount of any loss of rent of premises which it would be necessary to remove in order to make room for the new courts. The existing powers of the Lord Chancellor, were not sufficient for the purpose. Under an Act of 1852 the Lord Chancellor had power to provide out of the funds which should be in the Court suitable buildings for the transaction of the business; but the power only existed of applying the funds year by year. This Bill, therefore, was intended to enable the Lord Chancellor to apply the funds of the Court in paying the rent for a term of ninety-nine years, and for any such further term as might be thought fit, for the purpose of paying a rent not exceeding £4,000 a year, amounting to 4 per cent on the outlay, with rack-rent of the removed premises, as he had adverted to. He should not have thought it necessary to trouble their Lordships with any further remarks; but he was aware that there was in agitation a grand scheme which he was afraid would oppose some obstruction to the limited objects which were sought to be achieved by this Bill. It was very much desired to erect a building for all the courts of law and equity on a site of ground amounting to about seven acres, which would be obtained by removing all the buildings between Carey Street and the Strand. It was a most magnificent plan, and one that would have had his hearty concurrence, if it were not for the means which were proposed to be resorted to in order to effect that object. It was proposed to take £800,000 of the Suitors Fee Fund for the purpose of erecting that building. In the office he filled he was one of the guardians of that fund, and he must object to such an application of it. He must protest against any application of the funds be belonging to the Court of Chancery for the purpose of carrying out that most magnificent scheme. That fund arose originally from an investment of the money which was paid into the Court of Chancery to the

  91
  account of the Accountant General by the suitors of the court. That money was invested, and the dividends applied in payment of salaries, in payment of compensations, and in all other expenses of the Court. The surplus, after application of the fund to those purposes, was invested for the purpose of providing an indemnity fund against consequences which might possibly ensue from failing of the funds and the original investment not being sufficient for the purposes for which it was intended. That system continued till 1852, when it was considered that the fund had increased to such an extent as to render any further accumulation of the fund unnecessary for the protection of suitors. Under those circumstances the Suitors Relief Act was passed in 1852, by which it was provided that the surplus of that Indemnity Fund should be carried over to the Fee Fund, and the consequence had been that the Court had been able to reduce to a very considerable extent the fees on proceedings in the Court. He understood that the plan to which he had just adverted was that Government should guarantee the payment of the different compensations, salaries, and pensions, which were only temporary and gradually dying out, to the extent of £30,000 a year, and that when all those salaries, pensions, and compensations came to an end, no further payment would have to be made. It appeared to him to be a most extraordinary scheme to propose to take away a sum of £800,000 from the suitors of the Court of Chancery, the interest of that sum (£30,000) to be paid by the Government, and that when these compensations came to an end, and the pensions were no longer to be paid, instead of allowing the fees of suitors to be reduced by the amount of the pensions no longer to be paid, to entirely abstract the £800,000 from the Suitors' Fund for other purposes. That appeared to him to be a most improper application of the particular funds belonging to the Court of Chancery. He had stated that possibly there might be objections offered to his limited scheme by reason of that grander and larger plan. It was supposed that the plan of building courts for the Vice Chancellors might prevent the larger plan being carried out. He would at all events say this, that wherever the funds were to come from it would take a great number of years before the great scheme could be carried out. In the mean time new courts were required for
  92
  the Vice Chancellors, and there was no good reason why they should be put off until that scheme, however important, could be carried out. He did not know that these Vice Chancellors' courts could be obstructive to the general scheme of a building for all the courts, because they would not be more than 250 yards from the new courts. It therefore struck him that they would rather further than obstruct the larger plan. Under these circumstances he trusted their Lordships would consent to the introduction of the Bill.
  Bill presented, and read 1a.
  House adjourned at a quarter to Six o'clock, till to-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.