eastward and leeward of the Lizard, and the persons on board of her distinctly saw the calamity which had befallen the Czar. The weather was then very bad, it was blowing a gale, and the sea was very heavy. In addition to the usual responsibility resting upon the commander of a ship, Commander Dunn was responsible for the safety of 200 of Her Majesty's troops, whom he was conveying from Cork to Plymouth. Under these circumstances, and seeing another steam vessel much nearer to the Czar than he was, and steaming towards her, he deemed that it was his duty not to attempt to render her any assistance, but to proceed at once to Plymouth. These circumstances were at once reported to the Admiralty, and he was bound to say that the impression of the Board upon receiving the statement was that it was not satisfactory; that the duty of an officer in command of one of Her Majesty's ships to render assistance to a wrecked vessel, if it was possible, was so imperative, that Commander Dunn would have exercised a sounder judgment if he had at least made an attempt to succour the Czar. In consequence of this being the impression of the Board of Admiralty, orders were sent to Plymouth that there should be a court of inquiry into the circumstances. Three very experienced and able captains held that inquiry, and arrived at the conclusion that although any attempt to render assistance to the Czar would have been attended with serious risk, the attempt should, nevertheless, have been made by Commander Dunn, though, according to the evidence, it would have been attended with no good result. That was the opinion of the officers who made the inquiry; and he was bound to add that the Board of Admiralty had concurred in that opinion, and had communicated to Commander Dunn that, while recognizing the responsibility and difficulty of his position, they thought he would have acted with a sounder judgment if he had at least made the attempt to rescue the crew of the Czar. Motion agreed to: House at rising to adjourn till Monday. TITLES TO LANDED ESTATES. LEAVE. FIRST READING. THE SOLICITOR GENERAL:-Sir, I rise to move for leave to introduce a Bill to simplify the title to landed estates in England. The subject is one the importance of which is now admitted by every The evils which are complained of, one. and the complexities which have to be simplified, are unfortunately now no new topic. Looking back to the history of the law of real property in this country, it may, by a broad line of demarcation, be divided in substance into two periods. Up to the time of the Commonwealth you were occupied in endeavouring, by means of legal fictions, to make the severe and simple forms of feudal law bend themselves to the advancing interests of commerce and to the wants of the people. Examples of this process may be found in the introduction of the fictitious system of fines and recoveries in this country, and in the various purposes which the complicated contrivance of uses and trusts was made to serve. Then, when about the period of the Commonwealth, you had succeeded by those fictitious means in getting rid, to a very considerable extent, of the severity of feudal tenures, a new period commenced, which has continued to the present time, during which the great effort has been to get rid in turn of those complex systems of legal fiction which had been useful up to that time in lessening the severity of feudal tenures. Of the work of the latter period examples are to be found in the constant and repeated efforts made after the year 1660 in this House to establish registers, sometimes successful, sometimes unsuccessful,-successful as to parts of the country, always unsuccessful as to the whole. You find examples of the same course of action in those most useful nieasures by which you got finally rid of the system of fines and recoveries altogether, and in the last reign the number of measures introduced with the view of limiting the various claims which formerly hung over landed estates, and thereby to a certain extent simplifying their transfer. It is remarkable during the period I have mentioned how uniform has been the complaint of the injury to landed property itself, occasioned by the complexity of the title on which it was held. Upwards of 200 years ago, or thereabout, I observe, Sir Matthew Hale, writing of a property which he had purchased, said, "he would willingly give one year's purchase more for it could he be sure thereby to have a good title." That was a moderate "bid" for a simplification of title to landed property. Shortly after thatnamely, in 1669, a Committee of the House of Lords was appointed to inquire into the question of the tenure of land, and a sentence from their Report, I think, is worthy the attention of the House. Lord Essex reported to the House :- "That, after serious debate and examination of | establish a similar, court, under the circumstances several persons of the Committee of Trade and in which property is placed, in England and Wales Merchants, the Lords' Committee had come to the or Scotland-every estate would sell for at least conclusion that one cause of the decay of value of three years' more purchase, a much larger amount lands was the uncertainty of titles of estates, and of capital would be invested in landed and other recommend that there should be a Bill of Regis- real property, and circulated in improvements by ters for the future." its becoming unfettered and capable of immediate application.' The value of land was very much depreciated at that time, and the other House cites "That the West Riding is the principal place in the north for the cloth manufacture, and most of the traders therein are freeholders, and have frequent occasion to borrow money on their estates for managing their trade, but for want of a register find it difficult to give security to the satisfaction of the money lenders-although the security they offer be really good-whereby trade is much obstructed and many families ruined." This measure, therefore, affecting land as it did, was a measure introduced in the belief that commerce as well as land had suffered from the want of simplification in the title to landed property. Coming down to more modern times, I find in 1846 another Committee of the other House of Parliament addressed itself to the subject, and they reported This estimate is a larger one than that of Sir Matthew Hale. He was willing to give one year's purchase, but the auctioneer offers three. Now, Sir, passing from this short pre be said to be two. The first is of Parliament came to the conclusion that the complexities of title had very much to do with that depreciation. I find that about the year 1703 the register of deeds was introduced into the West Riding of York-liminary view of the question, I think it deshire; and whatever may be our opinions complaint is thus made in general terms. sirable to define precisely the evils of which of the advantages of that institution the They may grounds on which it was established are the length of time which at present must at least deserving attention. The Act by elapse between the making of a bargain which the register was established re- and the completion of the purchase. We know how the purchase of all other kinds of property is completed. If you buy stock you do not require to be told how many hours are necessary in which to make the transfer. If you buy railway shares, in like manner you have your purchase com. pleted and your money paid in a few hours afterwards. Perhaps the most extraordinary facility of transfer obtains in the case of ships. In five minutes, and at an expense less than 5s., you may make a contract for, and actually transfer such a ship as the Himalaya or the Great Eastern. It ought never to be forgotten by the owners of shipping property in this country that, whatever may be their position in other respects, they have this singular advantage: they can transfer their property as they please and as often as they please without any fiscal duty; they are not subjected to the difficulties of making out title to which owners of landed property are subjected: Then, in 1856, a Royal Commission hav- and their ships will pass more easily ing been appointed to take the whole ques- than stock or shares. The mode in which tion into consideration, I find in the Ap- the transfer of a ship is effected is by pendix to their Report, to which I shall a document of a simple form, and by the afterwards have occasion to refer, witness entry upon a registrar that the transfer after witness addressing himself to the has taken place. But compare that with injury sustained by landed property, and what is done in the case of landed proto the actual loss consequent on the diffi-perty. You buy an estate at an auction, culties incident to its transfer. I take, as or you enter into a contract for the puran instance, a statement made by an auctioneer in London, of eminence in his profession, and of great experience in dealing with landed estates. He says "They are convinced that the marketable value of real property is seriously diminished by the tedious and expensive process attending its trans fer." "The effect of the present state of things is unfairly to depreciate the value of all fee simple property by obstructing and impeding transactions; whereas, if the principle acted upon in the Incumbered Estates Court in Ireland in regard to titles, and their confirmations was rendered universal-although it is not essential or requisite to chase of the estate. You are very anxious to get possession of the property you have bought, and the vendor is very anxious to get his money. But do you get possession of the property? On the contrary, you cannot get the estate, nor can the vendor get his money until after a long lapse-sometimes no inconsiderable port on of a man's lifetime-spent in the preparation of abstracts, in the compari son of deeds, in searches for incumbrances, | sequently, the same expense is incurred as in objections made to the title, in answers when I bought it; and for the whole of to those objections, in disputes which arise that I, the owner of the estate and the upon the answers, in endeavours to cure borrower of the money, must pay. Well, the defects. Not only months, but years, that is not all. Months or years after all frequently pass in a history of that kind; this is completed, from circumstances, I and I should say that it is an uncommon find I must sell my estate altogether. I thing in this country for a purchase of any find a person willing to become a purmagnitude to be completed-completed by chaser. The intending purchaser sayspossession and payment of the price-in a "No doubt you thought this was a good period under, at all events, twelve months. title when you bought this estate, and no Sir, the consequences of this were stated doubt this lender of money thought he had in the Report of the Commission to which a very good security when he lent his moI have already referred, in words so ap- ney; but you are now asking me to pay posite that if the House will permit me, I my money. I must be satisfied that the should desire to read to them. The Com- title is a good one. My solicitor must look missioners state in their Report :into it, and my counsel must advise upon it." Then again commences abstracts, examinations, objections, difficulties, correspondence, and delay. I am the owner of the estate, and I must pay substantially for the whole of that, because, although the expense there is paid in the first instance by the purchaser, of course in the same proportion as that expense is borne by him in the same proportion will abate the price which he will give for the estate. "When a contract is duly entered into, the investigation of the title often causes not only expense but delay and disappointment, sickening both to the buyer and seller. The seller does not receive his money nor the buyer his land until the advantage or pleasure of the bargain is lost or has passed away." Unquestionably, Sir, that is one and a very great evil under which we labour. But that is not the greatest evil. I can well imagine that the purchaser of an estate would be content to submit to delay, and even to some considerable expense, if he were assured that when the delay and expense were over upon that occasion, at all events, he would have a title as to the dealings with which, for the future, there would be no difficulty. But, unfortunately, that is not the case. Suppose I buy an estate to-day. I spend a year, or two, or three years, in ascertaining whether the title is a good one. I am at last satisfied. I pay the expense-the considerable expense-which is incurred in addition to the price which I have paid for my estate, and I obtain a conveyance of my estate. About a year afterwards I desire to raise money upon mortgage of this estate. I find some one willing to lend me money provided I have a good title to the land. The man says. "It is very true that you bought this estate, and that you investigated the title; but I cannot be bound by your investigation of the title, nor can I be satisfied by it." Perhaps he is a trustee who is lending money which he holds upon trust. He says, "My solicitor must examine the title and my counsel must advise upon it." And then, as between me, the owner of the estate, and the lender of the money, there is a repetition of the same process which took place upon my purchase of the estate, and, con It is not necessary to dwell longer upon these, which are the salient evils to which under the present system landed property is subject. The question arises, is it possible to remedy these evils? We all agree that if it can be done a great good will be accomplished. But how is it to be done? Well, of course, the first thing to do in such an inquiry is to direct our attention to precedents. What have we by us, up to this time, which will afford us a guide by which we may act, and can we proceed further in the same direction? I suggest that the House should look to the case of Ireland. What has been done in Ireland by the Incumbered Estates Court? I beg the House to observe what were the particular objects for which the Incumbered Estates Court was in the first instance established in Ireland. These objects were two, and they were perfectly distinct; and it is important that we should keep this distinction prominently before us. The first object was to obtain the means of enforcing the compulsory sale of an incumbered estate; the second to give to the purchaser a Parliamentary title. Again, I say these objects were perfectly distinct-the one might have been obtained without the other. To which of these objects was it that the objections originally taken to the institution of the Incumbered Estates Court were directed? Unquestionably to the first-to the compulsory sale of the estate. To force a sale at a period of depression, it was said, was unfair to the owner of the estate, because if he were allowed to keep it until a more favourable period he might sell at a price so advantageous as to enable him to pay off the incumbrances and have a surplus remaining. But no objection was made to the Parliamentary title being given to the purchaser. Why? Because it increased the value of the property, and was, therefore, beneficial to the owner. The Bill passed; the value of the estates sold under it rose, and it finally became matter for consideration in this House and in Committees of this House whether a system which applied so well to incumbered estates would not apply equally well to unincumbered estates, and it was decided, and I think most wisely, that it was impossible not to extend the system to them. The reasons which induced the House to come to that conclusion can be stated in a word; they never were and never could be refuted. They were three First, it was said that if you did not extend the system to unincumbered estates there would be a continuance of a practice already existing, namely, of owners putting fictitious incumbrances on to their estates in order to effect a sale. Secondly, it was said, with respect to the Parliamentary title, there was no magic in the estate being incumbered, for this reason - upon a sale the existence of an incumbrancer did not give any security that the title was one that ought to be confirmed, because, of course, the object of an incumbrancer, who perhaps was only a judgment creditor, would be to conceal and not to disclose the title; it was the Court that secured the title. Thirdly, if you had an estate but partly incumbered, and which the Court was always prepared to sell, so far as that estate was not incumbered you were really selling an unincumber. ed estate, and with regard to the margin beyond the incumbrance handing it over at once to the owner. You were, therefore, virtually doing that which you were asked to do by extending the power of the Court to estates entirely unincumbered. You accordingly determined to go at all events the length of selling unincumbered estates. But then a further question arose. Could you stop short at sales? Was that all the power that this Court was to possessmerely to sell incumbered or unincumbered estates? Must you not go somewhat further and give an indefeasible title irrespec tive of a sale? Must you not also give an indefeasible title to persons who do not want to sell, but who possessed, and were able to prove their title? Here, again, were three reasons for so doing advanced. It was said, in the first place, just as before you had fictitious incumbrances, now you will have fictitious sales. Any person desirous to get his title affirmed will invent a colourable sale for the purpose of setting the Court in motion in his behalf and participating in the benefits it conferred. Secondly, it was said, "There is no magic in a sale by which you obtain a security with regard to the investigation of the title, because, if you tell the purchaser, When your purchase is completed you will have a Parliamentary title,' he will say, If I am to have a Parliamentary title, I will leave the whole thing to the Court. I will not trouble myself to investigate the title." Then, in the third place, it was said, "If you confine it to the case of sales, what are you to do with the number of other cases of this kind? A man wants to mortgage, not to sell; or to let out his ground for the purpose of building on long leases in plots; or he wants, upon his marriage, to make a settlement of family estates. All these are instauces where there would be no sale, and yet they are instances where, just as much as in the case of a sale, you would require to have all doubts about the title removed.' The result was that the House adopted these arguments and came to the conclusion, by a Bill that was passed last Session, to arm the Court, which before was called the Incumbered Estates Court, and now is called the Landed Estates Court, with power to give indefeasible titles to all purchasers, and to any owner of an estate who could prove a right to its possession, while at the same time its power with reference to the sale of incumbered estates was continued. Now, the advantage of this system to the public in Ireland no person has doubted for many years past. But we must not rest satisfied with the fact merely that it is advantageous to the public; we must inquire, I think, whether any danger has accrued from the exercise of those powers to individuals. Fortunately we have ample materials for conducting and disposing of this investigation. A Commission was appointed in 1855 to inquire into the working, up to that time, of the Incumbered Estates Court. In 1856 certain Bills which were then before Parliament on the subject were re ferred to a Select Committee of this House | those cases were, though I may say that for the purpose of again inquiring into the both errors were discovered before the comworking of that Court. Upon that Completion of the sale and the execution of the mittee sat many hon. Members who are conveyance, and consequently in time to still Members of this House; the right prevent anything wrong being done. One of hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir the two cases was the right to thirteen James Graham), the President of the Board acres of a bog, to which no physical bounof Trade (Mr. Henley), the Secretary for dary existed. A boundary line was assumed the Home Department (Mr. Walpole), and at an angle somewhat more obtuse than the hon. Members for Coventry (Mr. Ellice), ought to have been taken, by which thirteen and Devonport (Mr. Wilson), were all on acres of this bog had been included more that Committee. It was intended, when than ought to have been taken in. But the the Committee was appointed, that all the error was discovered before the conveyance different views of the question should be was executed; and as it was agreed by represented in it. On the Committee were common consent that no sum low enough some strong advocates of the Incumbered could be fixed on as the compensation for Estates Court, some equally strong oppo- this portion, the right to correct the error nents of it, and others who held a middle was given up. The other case was this,position and were anxious that the evidence in the sale of the Martin Estates, in Galon the question should be fully heard. way, which were heavily mortgaged to the There was a full inquiry into the working Law Life Insurance Company in London, of the system up to that time, and the re- the company were in possession of a parsult may be shortly stated in this manner: ticular town-land, and therefore claimed -It was found there have been sold by the that it should be sold with the other parts Incumbered Estates Court properties to of the estate. Before it was sold, howthe value of £20,000,000; that the con- ever, some one appeared and satisfied the veyances executed by the Court exceeded Commissioners that the particular town- 7,000 in number; adding those that have land ought not to be included in the sale. since been executed, they are not less than There, again, the question of compensa8,500. The amount of acreage that has tion arose; but the Law Life Assurance passed through the Court, (allowing for Company said, we are so satisfied with certain cases in which the same estates the price in other respects, that we do have passed through twice), is about not care about this. Let there be no dis3,500,000 acres; therefore, as the area of pute, therefore, and leave the question of Ireland is, I believe, from 20,000,000 to compensation out of consideration alto21,000,000 acres, the Incumbered Estates gether. Now it is a most remarkable fact, Court has sold about one-seventh of the there being on that Committee Members whole area of that country. Now, in the opposed to the system, and eager therefore course of transactions so numerous, and of to discover every defect that could be alsuch magnitude, it is not too much to say leged against it, that not a single instance that not a single case was proved of in- was adduced except those I have menjury done to any individual by the grant- tioned as having up to that time occurred. ing of indefeasible titles. Of course, I do That I may be perfectly accurate, I ought not enter into the question whether injury to say that those who refer to the evidence may not have been done by selling, by the will find a good deal of discussion about Incumbered Estates Court, a property that Lord Blayney's case; but no question might advantageously been kept longer about the title was there raised, the quesunsold; but I contend that the Court has tion being whether the Court had acted never sold the estate of one man as the prudently in selling a large estate which estate of another, nor land as part of one was but slightly incumbered; it therefore estate which was really part of another. had reference to the discretion of the Court The House will remember that there was only, and consequently would not come the greatest anxiety on the part of the properly under our consideration at the Committee to arrive at the truth in this present moment. matter; and it was stated by Mr. Commissioner Hargrave that there had been only two cases in which he had heard it alleged that a wrong had been done in investigating a title under a sale of land. The House will be curious to know what Now to what is it to be attributed that in transactions of such magnitude, in sales and transfers of such importance, there has been such great safety? I think it may be attributed to three causes. First, it has been the invariable practice |