RECORD OF TITLE (IRELAND) BILL. [Lords]-[BILL 151.]-COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read. MR. WHITESIDE said, he hoped that the Attorney Gentral would not embark at this hour of the night on a Bill of such difficulty, but that he would postpone it to a more convenient season. Persons in Ireland, with a Parliamentary title, ought to be allowed to renew the title every five years if they thought right, and this would enable any one in five minutes to know whether there were charges on the estate. He suggested that this Bill should be referred to the Committee, which was sitting, to consider registration of judgments. There were two kinds of registry in Ireland, and the Attorney General wished to add a third. It would be better to have one system of registration which would be conducted in one office. He believed the existing system was infinitely more simple, cheap, and safe than the system it was proposed to substitute for it. The Bill, instead of simplifying, would increase the number of complications. It was because he believed so that he asked the Attorney General, as there was a general register, kindly to allow this subject to be handed over to the Commission now sitting to decide what was the mode of register most suitable for Ireland. it was a registration of deeds, he was against it. Still, if they did not accept the Bill, it might be a long time before they had such an offer again made them by the Lords. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) would allow the measure to become law, and content himself with remedying its defects when he was himself Attorney General. THE O'CONOR DON said, he joined with his right hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) in the hope that the Government would press forward this Bill. He THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, he thought that when the Bill had reached its present stage, and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Whiteside) had not divided against it on the second reading, it was ripe for the fullest consideration. believed that the general feeling among the people of Ireland was that the Bill would be favourable to their interests. He was told also that several solicitors in Dublin had declared themselves in favour of the Bill. MR. MURPHY said, he thought that if registration were to be introduced, it might be worth while to consider whether a separate department in the Office of Deeds might not be rendered available. He disapproved of the Bill as perpetuating the defects of the "Landed Estates Court titles. MR. MONSELL said, he hoped the Attorney General would not accede to the proposition, which aimed at the postponeMR. HASSARD said, he did not apprement of this Bill by referring it to a Com-hend that this Bill would be of much mission for the purpose of throwing it value, and, as it now stood, some portions over the present Session. This Bill was a of it were decidedly objectionable. It struggle between the attorneys and the appeared to him that everything professed landed gentry of Ireland. [Mr. WHITE- by this Bill could be done already under SIDE: I deny that.] It is the fact. Be the existing law, in connection with the they right or be they wrong there never Land Transfer Court and the Registry was a Bill in which there was such a Office. Every deed placed on the record strong feeling on the part of the landed under this Bill would necessarily involve proprietors of Ireland as the present. The a re-investigation of title. real question at issue was whether the obtaining of unquestionable title was to be effected at a cheap or at a dear rate. The measure having been so long asked for by the Gentlemen of Ireland, he really could not see why they should not be allowed to have it, especially as it was, after all, a permissive Bill. MR. SCULLY said, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) would withdraw his opposition, and allow the Bill, with all its defects, to be passed this Session. So far as it gave a record of title he was entirely with it; but, so far as SIR HUGH CAIRNS said, that the objections urged against this Bill were really questions of detail which could be better discussed when the Bill was in Committee than in its present stage. The most charming feature of this Bill was the system of close certificates which would confer advantage on the vendor and purchaser, but would not be accessible to everybody, and would save a considerable amount of expenditure which parties were liable to under the present law. MR. GEORGE said, he objected to the Bill upon various grounds. It would im pose upon the Judge of the Probate Court | was to be repaid by the sale of certain in Dublin a duty he was not inclined to buildings and certain fees. One of those undertake. He was surprised to hear the properties was the office of the late unworthy terms in which the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) had alluded to that respectable profession, the attorneys of Ireland. The Act, if passed, would be found to be attended with insuperable difficulties in carrying it out. Of course, at this stage of the Bill he ought not to go into details, but he could not forbear mentioning that Clauses 34 and 35 were based upon principles which had long been condemned as unsound. The Bill had been hastily drawn up, and it had had little consideration in either House at present; and under the circumstances he trusted the Government would, at that late hour, not go into Committee. MR. MALINS said, this Bill would be delusive. The Bill would deprive the landowner of an advantage which he now possessed, and for which the measure contained no compensation. If a man wanted an advance of money he could go to a broker's and obtain it upon the simple deposit of his title deeds. No one need know anything about it, and whenever he repaid the money he resumed possession of his title deeds and there was no publicity. That was a perfectly safe transaction to the lender, as a man could not deposit his title deeds twice. But under this Bill the landowner would lose this privilege, so far as absence of publicity was concerned. There were other points equally disadvantageous to the landowners, but as they seemed to desire this measure so much he strongly advised his right hon. Friend (Mr. Whiteside) not to oppose going into Committee upon it. Bill considered in Committee. Masters in Chancery in Southampton Buildings. When the Masters in Chancery were abolished the Act for that purpose provided that if these buildings were sold the produce should be repaid to the Suitors' Fee Fund-the very fund from which the £1,000,000 was to be taken for the new courts of justice. Their Lordships struck out Clause 22, which provided for the money to be paid into the Treasury, as inconsistent with that Act; but as it was in fact all one transaction the objection appeared useless, and as it rendered nugatory the 7th clause he could not consent to the Amendment. Motion agreed to. Lords Amendment disagreed to. Committee appointed, "to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to the Amendment to which this House hath disagreed:"-Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, Sir GEORGE GREY, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Mr. CowPER, and Mr. BRAND: -To withdraw immediately; Three to be the quorum. COURTS OF JUSTICE CONCENTRATION (SITE) BILL. [BILL 173.] LORDS' AMENDMENT. Lords' Amendment considered. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, the House of Lords had prepared an Amendment to this Bill, to the effect that no land should be purchased for the erection of the new Courts of Justice until a determination had been come to relative to securing land to make proper approaches to that building. That was a subject for Committee report Progress; to sit again a new Act of Parliament, and it ought not on Thursday next. COURTS OF JUSTICE BUILDING BILL. [BILL 172.] LORDS' AMENDMENT. Lords' Amendment considered. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved that the House do not agree with their Lordships' Amendment, by which Clause 22 was struck out. In the Bill provision was made for the appropriation of a million and a half of money from the accumulations of the Suitors' Fee Fund for the purchase of the site, &c., and a portion of the money-£200,000-was to be advanced by the Treasury, which Mr. George to be permitted to put a stop to the present Bill. After consulting with those best acquainted with the subject he proposed that the Amendment of the Lords should be modified, so that no proceedings should be taken until a certificate in writing shall have been received by the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, signed by the major part in number of the persons appointed by Her Majesty, under the Courts of Justice Building Act, 1865, to advise and concur with the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, with reference to the plan and arrangements of the buildings to be erected upon the lands hereby autho rized to be taken, stating that they are satisfied that the lands to be acquired under this Act, of which a plan has been laid before Parliament, are sufficient for all the purposes of the intended new courts and buildings connected therewith, and that the probable cost of the said lands and buildings I will not exceed the amount of the funds provided under "the Courts of Justice Building Act, 1865," for those purposes. MR. SELWYN said, he had served upon a Committee appointed to inquire into this matter, and they found that the Government Estimate for the purchase of the land and erection of the new Courts was fallacious. He thought the Amendment of the House of Lords had introduced into the Bill a wise precaution against the looseness of the Estimate. The Treasury appeared to have abandoned their duty of guarding the public purse in this matter, and he hoped, therefore, either that the Attorney General would not press the point at this late hour, or that the matter would be left as the House of Lords had put it. MR. AYRTON said, the course proposed was conciliatory and satisfactory. He thought that the safeguard proposed by the Attorney General was quite sufficient. To adopt the Lords' Amendment would be a stultification of the Legislature. MR. MALINS said, he would have been more satisfied if the Attorney General had wholly dissented from the Lords' Amendment; but as he proposed a conciliatory course he would not object to it. Lords' Amendment agreed to, with an House adjourned at a quarter HOUSE OF LORDS, Friday, June 2, 1865. Third Reading-Commissioners of Supply Meetings (Scotland)* (118); Parsonages * (137), and passed. Royal Assent-Metropolitan Houseless Poor [28 Vict. c. 34]; Public Offices (Site and Approaches) [28 Vict. c. 31]; India Office (Site and Approaches) [28 Vict. c. 32]; Tories, Robbers, and Rapparees [28 Vict. c. 33]; Police Superannuation [28 Vict. c. 35]; County Voters Registration [28 Vict. c. 36]; County of Sussex [28 Vict. c. 37]. CASE OF CATHERINE GAUGHAN. QUESTION. THE EARL OF BANDON asked the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council, Why the Sentence which was passed on or about the 20th April last, on sub-Inspector Burke and other individuals of the Police Force concerned in the outrage on Catherine Gaughan, at Ballisodare, in the county of Sligo, was not carried into effect? EARL GRANVILLE said, the Irish Government had believed that the sentences two constables had been carried out; but pronounced upon sub-Inspector Burke and it appeared that such was not the case, and the explanation was that the removal of the sub-Inspector from the district had not taken place because of his illness, but, although he had remained in the neighbourhood, he had not done duty. The constables would be removed as opportunities presented themselves. THE EARL OF LEITRIM said, the Irish Government refused to carry out the law in cases of this kind, because they feared to do so; and expressed a hope that the Imperial Government would institute an inquiry into the whole system of Government by the Lord Lieutenant. THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH trusted that the noble Earl would give some more satisfactory answer to the question. A great failure of justice had taken place, when an officer charged with such an offence was retained in the public service, and would hereafter be entitled to a pension. GENERAL POST OFFICE (ADDITIONAL SECOND READING. LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that when he mentioned that the number of letters transmitted and received through the Post Office in this country had increased from 70,000,000 in the year 1839 2 Q to 700,000,000 now; and that the number | of letters received in and despatched from London alone was nearly one quarter of the whole correspondence of the kingdom, he thought he would have almost adduced enough to prove to their Lordships the necessity for a large addition to the present Committee-Writs Registration (Scotland) [41] * Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (recomm.) [130]; District Church Tithes * [186] [Lords] Trespass (Scotland) [98]. Local Government SuppleThird Reading mental (No. 4)* [132]. The House met at Twelve of the clock. WRITS REGISTRATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [BILL 41.]-[The Lord Advocate.] COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." accommodation of the Central Office. The business of the Department had also been greatly increased in the Money Order branch, as also by the establishment of the Post Office savings banks, by the book post, pattern post, and other valuable adjuncts, all of which rendered it necessary that they should have an enlarged space for their operations. Indeed, so great had been the pressure upon them that they could not have gone on but for the opening of the district offices which now existed in various parts of the metropolis, by means of which a considerable portion of the business had been taken off the hands of the Central Office. However, the business of the Chief Office had at present to be transacted in MR. DUNLOP said, he was sorry that four or five separate places, the Money the arrangement he formerly suggested Order Office being in one spot, the Savings had not been acceded to, and that he was Bank in another, and so forth. That was obliged to insist on the Motion of which he found to be an inconvenient arrangement, had given notice, that the Bill be referred and it was very desirable that, as far as to a Select Committee. He certainly repossible, the various branches of the chief gretted that a matter involving so much establishment should be consolidated. It detail, and so little general interest, should was, therefore, 'proposed to purchase cer- be forced on the House at large. It was tain property adjoining St. Martin's-le-impossible to get Members to take an Grand, and there to construct buildings interest in the discussion, because the for the purpose of supplying the requisite accommodation. questions that arose were such as could only be well considered in a Select Committee. He would refer to some of the general features of the two Bills for the purpose of showing that the details were not likely to receive that attention in a Committee of the Whole House which the Amendments proposed required. There had been for two centuries and a half a system of registration of land rights in Scotland. There were a number of registers for districts-every Royal burgh had its own register; there was one in nearly every county, although in some cases two might be joined together to form a district; but substantially there was a local register. Unfortunately, however, there had been combined with that what was called a general register. That was kept at Edinburgh, and its original was to relieve the proprietors of baronies, which included lands in several counties, from the necessity of registering the sasines in every county in which there were lands forming part of their baronies. The effect of this was, that the registers not being limited to the great baronies, but being | satisfactory decision on the various details free for parties to register, although hold- involved in either Bill. The only informaing lands only in one county, lands might tion they had was the report of two gentleeither be registered separately in the men-one an Edinburgh solicitor, and the different counties, or in the general re- other a Glasgow solicitor-both able men, gister where they were all mixed in one no doubt, but they had not reported to the register, without any arrangement what- House any of the evidence on which their ever; so that it became a very difficult Report was founded. They have given matter indeed to make the searches which nothing but their report, and, so far, were required. Now, although about the their opinion; but they had not enabled beginning of this century certain abridg- the House to judge how far that opinion ments or indices were began, so as to was founded on the facts, and whether the admit of searching the registers more con- facts really bear it out. He considered it veniently, yet nobody could be sure whe- essential that they should enter into some ther the lands were registered in the inquiry into circumstances that had not local or general register; and, conse- been reported on. These gentlemen were quently, it was essential, before a man required to report only on the state of the lent money on the security of land, or county registers and burgh registers, which sold it, to make a double search in the last were not dealt with in this Bill; but local and general registers. The great they were not required or allowed to look amendment which both the Bills on the pa- into or examine the state of the Edinburgh, per sought to accomplish is to have only one registers at all-the difficulties which exist register. The Lord Advocate proposed to there at present to get the work required effect that by abolishing all the local regis- done, and how it would be possible for ters, giving compensation to the parties them to undertake the additional labour it interested out of the Consolidated Fund, was proposed to throw upon them. That and taking their offices all into Edin was a point on which some inquiry must burgh, in order to make what is still be made. They were called upon to transto be called the General Register. He fer to Edinburgh all the county registers proposed that all the work should be done in Scotland from the counties, although in Edinburgh, and in that way to simplify not a word was said against the manner and reduce the searches from two records in which the duty is now discharged. to one, and to facilitate the making of things, therefore, had to be consideredabridgments and indices by recording the how the work was done in the counties, to several deeds in county order, just as it is which no objection had been taken; and, now done in the local registers. The secondly, how it was likely to be done in plan of his (Mr. Dunlop's) Bill was to abo- Edinburgh. Now, as to this last point, lish the General Register, which had they were utterly in the dark. Then as been the great obstruction all through, to the Report of the Commissioners, it and to keep up the local or county regis- had been stated publicly, and not denied, ters, which, as a collateral advantage, that their investigation into the county rewould obviate the necessity of compen- gisters was of a very summary kind; and sation to the keepers. Instead of the this is clearly beyond doubt, that they asRegistrars, as at present, drawing the signed as the main cause of the abridgwhole fees paid for registering the deeds, ments and indices not being in a forward he proposed that the holders should be state, the delay of sending up the record put on salaries as the Edinburgh Regis- volumes from the county. Now, it had were, and in that way the been conclusively proved by the Return expenses would be diminished, as largely which had been obtained by his hon. Friend at least as by the plan of the Lord Ad- the Member for Ayr district (Mr. Craufurd) vocate, so as to admit an equal reduc- that this was utterly incorrect-there was tion in the amount of fees by both not a single county in which the registers Bills. These were the main features were not transmitted to a much later date of the two Bills, and it was necessary than the indices had reached. In Edinthe House should understand them, as burgh the abridgments and indices had they formed the ground on which he been very ill-managed and badly done. pressed for the reference of both to a The system was begun in 1821, and if Select Committee. And the first ground they had done nothing more than year he took was that they had not sufficient by year made an index and abridgmaterials for coming to anything like a ment of the current work of the year, trars now Two |