, in bringing up the Report of the Committee, containing Amendments to the Birkenhead (Cheshire) Improvement Bill, moved that they be read a second time.

begged to be permitted to make a few observations before the Report was received. On the Committee meeting to whom this Bill was referred, they were told, that as there was no opposition, the Committee need not be detained. A Petition had been presented against the Bill numerously and respectably signed. It was said, there was no necessity to read it; it was, however, read, The Committee then proceeded with the Bill, and he believed he was justified in saying, that the cases were rare in which a Bill had received so many and such important and necessary alterations as the Amendments in the hands of the Speaker would show. As the Bill stood, the vacancies of Commissioners were to be filled up by the remaining number, so that in a few years they would have been a self-elected body. The Committee had fixed that all future elections should be by the inhabitants rated at 10l. per annum. Rates to a considerable amount were to be levied, but there was to have been no publication of the accounts, and the Committee in consequence fixed that they should be printed and published. No person was to be eligible to be a Commissioner unless he occupied premises of the actual value of 60l., or was possessed of property of the value of 2,000l.; the Committee reduced the amounts to 30l and 1,000l. Tenants were liable to be distrained upon for paving the streets to an unlimited amount. The Committee decided that they should only be liable for the amount due, the landlords being held responsible. The Nuisance Clause actually occupied nearly six pages. The most trifling thing was declared a nuisance; such as boys playing at marbles, &c. &c.; and such offender, were he unknown, might be seized, taken before a Magistrate, and fined 5l. A great deal of this petty legislation was struck out. Loitering in the streets was also declared a nuisance; so that a poor Irishman, just arrived from Ireland, in passing through Birkenhead, and looking at a shop window at articles exposed, as he naturally would, might have been seized and sent to prison. Many other Amendments were also made. He (Mr. Potter) took the liberty of making these observations; and would, with great deference, but most earnestly, entreat hon. Members to whom private Bills were referred, to look through them, whether they were opposed or not. He was a new Member, and hoped he should not be considered presumptuous in giving this advice.

said, those remarks did not apply to the Bill as it stood at present, but to the Bill as it was originally framed. Most of the alterations had been made at the suggestion of the hon. Member (Mr. Potter) himself, and therefore he had no ground of complaint.

presented a Petition from the Watermen of Gravesend, praying to be heard by Counsel against the Gravesend Pier Bill. The hon. and gallant Admiral stated, that since the Second Reading of that Bill he had been to Gravesend, and was enabled to state his decided opinion, notwithstanding the opinion of the Admiralty Board to the contrary, that a projection like the proposed pier, which extended 205 feet in the river, and into a depth of twenty-seven feet at high water, would be Highly injurious to the navigation. He thought, also, that that was the real opinion of the Board of Admiralty, for he believed that they were now prosecuting the persons who erected a projection near Woolwich, which only extended ten feet into the river. Besides the injury to the navigation, the watermen were entitled to some consideration, for they were generally persons who had been impressed, and passed the best part of their lives in the navy, many of them being disabled and dismissed without pensions. One man, after coming home with him after the battle of Navarino, with the loss of an eye, applied to him for remuneration; and cm his forwarding the application to the Admiralty, he was told that the man who had only lost an eye was not disabled from service, although he had always understood that the loss of an eye entitled a man to compensation as much as the loss of a limb. After that the man lost the other eye, haying also had six wounds, and the only reward he could obtain for the poor fellow was 6d. a-day. If that was the way the Admiralty remunerated disabled seamen, he thought it was time to inquire into all other classes of pensions. If the country was so poor that it could not afford to reward such men, let the same course be adopted with regard to all other persons, and he would, for one, if necessary, serve his country for nothing. He had been led thus into the subject, because the House would recollect how men had been pressed for the navy during the war. If a man were a good likely-looking sailor he was immediately pressed, whilst recruits were wheedled into the army by bounties of 17l. or 18l. The sailor, however, was seized, confined as a prisoner to the ship, and at last driven into accepting a bounty of as many shillings as the soldier got pounds, and after all when he had become blind, he was put off with the miserable pittance of 6d. a-day.

rose to Order. He thought the gallant Admiral was wandering from the question in making an irrelevant attack, not only on preceding Administrations, but on the present Ministry; and that the subject of the petition did not warrant his going into the topics he had introduced.

considered that he was quite in order in alluding to the situation of that class of persons who would be most grievously injured by the proposed Bill. It was important to them that they should be heard by Counsel against it. Besides this he had only urged this objection to the Impediments which would occur by the erection of the pier. It must be well known to many Members of that House, that sometimes a single tide would fill in the harbour of Dover, and that the backwater would subsequently clear it; but the pier intended to be put up would impede the flood-tide, and also the return-tide and backwater, so that the navigation of the river would be put in great jeopardy.

said, he had been called up, by the observations of his hon. and gallant friend, to say a few words on the subject. The gallant Admiral had objected to the pier, because it would throw a number of persons out of employment who had peculiar claims for the consideration of the House; and because the pier would be au impediment to the safe navigation of the river. The pier at Woolwich, to which the Admiralty had objected, was a solid piece of masonry, and therefore formed a positive impediment; but the Gravesend pier was to be built upon iron stauncheons, which would admit of the flux and reflux of the tide. With respect to the pension of 6d. per day—

considered that any discussion on the principles of pensions was out of order.

would not go further into the subject, than to say, that the sailor referred to had been examined by a medical officer, who had recommended that he should go for a time into the hospital, as there was a hope that his sight would be restored. Petition referred to the Committee on the Gravesend Pier Bill.

stated, he had a Petition to present of rather a novel character, as it related to tithes of a particular parish—the parish of Uttoxeter, in Stafford. Although the tithes (amounting to 1,200l.) were amply sufficient for the purpose of remunerating the incumbent, and although they were vested in the hands of the ecclesiastical body—namely, the Dean and Chapter of Windsor—yet they were some way or other applied to other purposes, and the incumbent, who was the working minister, had only the paltry pittance of 20l. a year, with the Easter dues, which were too small to attend to a parish of 5,000 souls. He was obliged to keep a curate out of his small salary; and, if he had not some little private property of his own, he would not have enough to live upon. The tithes were originally granted to the Dean and Chapter of Windsor, for the moral and religious improvement of the poor of the parish, but instead of being applied to those purposes, the Dean and Chapter had stated they could not tell what use was made of them; and, therefore, the petitioners prayed that an inquiry might be directed, to see they were applied to those purposes for which they were originally intended. The petition was signed by all the respectable inhabitants of the parish. An hon. Member of that House (Mr. Tyrell) was stated to be lay impropriator, and, consequently, the receiver of the greater portion of the tithes.

explained, that he held the tithes under a lease from the Dean and Chapter of Windsor; that he had received the property by inheritance, and not liking it, had endeavoured more than once to dispose of it for a suitable consideration, but had not been successful. He had now let the tithes, but not till he had made every effort to come to an arrangement with the parish on the subject.

called the serious attention of the House to the statements of the petitioners, which were of the greatest importance to the interests of the Church as well as to the public. It was the existence of such things that was shaking the foundations of the Church, which might be a national blessing.

said, the hon. Member appeared not to be aware, that one-half of the tithes in the kingdom belonged to lay-impropriators. Perhaps he was not aware of that. Such, however, was the fact, and to get rid of the inconveniences arising out of this would be very difficult indeed; too difficult, he feared, for the King's present servants to undertake. With regard to what was said about the Dean and Chapter of Windsor, he (Mr. Cobbett) would only remark, that the Dean and Chapter of Winchester had been accused of similar things; and they had sought to justify themselves by alleging that the Aristocracy had a larger share of the Church property than they had. They did not content themselves merely with general statements, but they also mentioned by name many of these Church cormorants, and they gave the name of one nobleman who was said to receive more of what was called Church property than the whole of the twenty-six Bishops, while his conduct was such, that the inhabitants of one parish had been obliged to sue him at law to make him re- pair the broken windows in the Church. With regard to the tithes of this particular parish, they were as much private property as any other species of property derived from the same source, and he did not believe that the House would act so unjustly as to interfere in the case of Mr. Tyrell, while others were allowed to retain their property.

rose to submit his Motion to the House for leave to bring in a Bill to allow the Affirmation of Quakers to be received in all cases in which oaths were at present required to be taken. At present Quakers were only disqualified from two offices—namely, any office under the Crown, and from serving on juries; he proposed that the Affirmation of Quakers be received in all eases, and thereby they would be qualified to do that from which they were now debarred. His Bill would also prevent the repetition of those trifling delays which had recently taken place in that House on the hon. member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) taking his seat, and again yesterday when that hon. Member was ballotted to serve on an Election Committee. Looking at the question upon general grounds, he could not see how a Legislature that had taken away the necessity of an oath from this religious class, in cases of life and death, could stop short in admitting them to all the privileges, and immunities of the State, from whose imposts and support they were not exempt; and to which they contributed so much by their industry, enterprise, good order, and wealth. There could be no expectation, whilst the state of society continued as it was at present, that the Quakers would be called on to take a seat in the Cabinet. From the naval and military departments and generally from the service of the State, they would continue to be excluded by their own tenets; but there were many places which they were well qualified to fill, and to which they might prudently aspire. He would illustrate this by relating a circumstance which came immediately under his own notice, connected with this subject, and which, indeed, had first impressed his mind with the necessity of having those disabilities removed. He remembered the case of an individual, a native of Barnsley, in Yorkshire, who had been introduced to him in consequence of his taste in literature. This young man was in a humble walk of life, and a vacancy occurring in the Post-office department in Barnsley in consequence of a recommendation from him, and a representation in favour of the individual, signed by almost all the respectable inhabitants of Barnsley, his Grace the Duke of Richmond (the Postmaster-General) appointed him to the office. But it turned out that as a Quaker he could not take the oath required to be taken previous to his entering the office. The young man then wrote to him saying his objection to taking the oath had offended some of his friends, but he could rot commit a cool deviation from what he conceived to be his duty, without embittering every hour of Ills life. He begged the pardon of the House for troubling them with this statement, but it was only an instance of what might occur any day in any part of the kingdom, and he hoped the measure he was about to introduce would have the effect of preventing its recurrence. He had originally confined his intentions to the point of eligibility to office, and he had extended it more in deference to the views of others than his own. As to the Quakers, he had never heard a wish or suggestion on their part to be allowed the privileges his measure was intended to give. Though he took up this subject from a feeling of justice towards them, he stood forward not as their advocate but as the advocate of the community. The Quakers were a highly useful and sensible class of men, and would doubtless make excellent and intelligent Jurors. Giving them power to become Jurors would be a sensible and agreeable relief to those who were at present liable to serve on Juries. It appeared that there was but little doubt as to the present state of the law upon the subject of Quakers serving on Juries, they were liable to be summoned, and in some cases they had actually been so. There was an instance in the county of York, where a Quaker served upon a Jury at the Assizes at York; and the same man was afterwards prevented, on the ground of his being a Quaker, from serving on a Jury at the Quarter Sessions in the same county. At the late Assizes at York, a respectable and very opulent Quaker was summoned there to discharge the duty of a Juror. He applied for release on the ground of being a Quaker, and his consequent inability to serve; his application was refused, and he was kept dancing in attendance at a great distance from his own home and business, and without profit to any body, because he did not eventually serve. At the Admiralty Sessions in the Old Bailey on the 27th December last, Robert Channens was indicted for wilful murder on the high seas. A Quaker went into the box to serve on the Jury—an objection was taken; it was over-ruled, and the trial proceeded. The prisoner was found guilty. On a subsequent day he was called up to receive judgment, and his counsel took an objection to the verdict. He was represented to have said, that he knew of no alteration in the law, that every or any subject could not be tried for any crime, unless it was on the oaths of twelve men. In the present instance, it would appear that only eleven men had been sworn. The learned Judge proceeded to pass sentence, and said the objection should be taken into consideration, and it was referred to the whole of the Judges, who decided that the objection was good, and that the trial was not legal. The man had certainly solved the difficulty, by dying in the mean time in prison. The hon. and learned member for Chester (Mr. Jervis) seemed to infer that there was a difference between civil and criminal cases, and that a Quaker might be compelled to serve in civil, but not in criminal cases. He could only say, he could discover no such discrimination in the law. At all events, he thought there was sufficient uncertainty and anomaly apart from the distinct and positive reasons on which he grounded his Motion, to make the adoption of the measure highly desirable. He could not, however, quit these judicial topics without stating how glad he was to find himself countenanced by very great and very recent authorities. At the late Assizes for the comity of Durham, one division of which was so ably represented by his hon. friend (Mr. Pease). Mr. Justice Alderson closed his address to the Grand Jury, who had been appointed to try the same question, with these words:—'It has been declared, no doubt on the best ground, on the authority of an Act passed in the 22nd, year of the reign of George 2nd, that the affirmation of a member of the Society of Friends is to be taken in a Court of Justice, where an oath is to be taken, as an equivalent to an oath by other persons. The consequence is, that Quakers may now serve as constables, or in any similar office; and I dare say I shall very soon see the day when Quakers will execute the duties of Grand Jurors and other duties in the same way as others do. That is a desirable circumstance, for I do not see why they should retain to themselves any immunities when all those privileges hitherto withheld from them have been granted to them.' It appeared, then, that Mr. Justice Alderson both anticipated and approved of the present Motion. He knew it had been thought that the strong opinions entertained by members of the Society of Friends with respect to capital punishments might interpose some obstacle to their taking part in the administration of the criminal law, however, that objection did not apply to them exclusively, but equally to many other sects. As Moravians were coupled with Quakers in all recent Acts of Parliament, he proposed to include them also in the operation of this Bill. The case of that class of religionists called Separatists was already in the competent hands of the hon. member for Cambridge. He believed it was thought that both that hon. Gentleman and himself should have extended their object. He hoped that none would object to the definite and practical, though perhaps narrow plan, although they did not endeavour to fill up a more magnificent, though less definite outline. The right hon. member for Finsbury (Mr. R. Grant) admitted when he brought forward his Motion on the subject of the Jews, the propriety of doing away with all remaining disqualifications that pressed on Quakers. He did not mean to insist upon the disqualifications which he proposed to remove as a flaming grievance, or his Motion, as one of transcendant relief, but he would call upon the House to adopt the measure at the same time on high grounds, when he reminded them, that if they consented to this Bill, they would sweep away the last disability on the Statute-book imposed by positive enactments, or religious scruples; and he was not without hope that not only would there be no opposition, but that no time would be lost in forwarding the Bill. The noble Lord then moved for leave to bring in a Bill to allow Quakers and Moravians to make affirmation in all cases where an oath was now required.

having been Chairman of the Committee appointed to inquire respecting the Newry Election, had to move according to notice, and according to the Resolution of the Committee, that an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, to give directions to the Attorney-General for Ireland to prosecute Mr. James Lisle for corrupt practices at the said election.

said, that there could be no doubt that the individual in question ought to be prosecuted, since he was the person who, without the candidate's own consent, had sought after him, had brought him forward, and had returned him; but there were other persons besides Mr. Lisle who might have been guilty of bribery and corruption at the Newry election, and he recommended that the Attorney-General should be invested with a discretion to prosecute any other individuals who, in the course of his inquiries might appear to him to have been culpable.

did not mean to oppose the Motion, but he could not avoid remarking on the different practice of the House in the Stafford and in the Newry cases. In the latter case, the one individual charged with bribery was ordered to be prosecuted; in the former case a Bill of Indemnity was brought in, in favour of all the persons charged with the same offence.

rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to establish a general Registry of Deeds and Instruments relating to Real Property; and said, that the importance of the question rendered it necessary for him to trespass on the attention of the House, for a short time, by entering into some details. No measure proposed for the Reform of the Law, was of greater importance than that which he was about to propose; and there was none, he was convinced, which would lead to greater benefits. He should feel considerable hesitation in grappling with so important a matter, did he not know that it had already been under the consideration of Parliament, and discussed with a minuteness which left little either of information or of argument to be supplied. The question was brought before the House of Commons in the time of the Commonwealth, and was then defeated. Cromwell then stated, that he must abandon the measure, because the sons of Zernich (meaning the lawyers) were too strong for him. Subsequent Parliaments had noticed the matter, though nothing was done until the appointment of the Real Property Commission in 1828. That Com-mission consisted of eight distinguished members of the legal profession, with the present Solicitor-General at their head, and, after investigating the subject with the greatest possible cure and minuteness, they drew up a Report, in which they recommended that a general registration of all deeds in the kingdom should be adopted. In conformity with this recommendation, and for the purpose of carrying it into effect, his hon. and learned friend, the Solicitor-General, brought in a Bill last Session, and the measure which he rose to ask leave to introduce, differed only in a slight degree from that Bill. His hon. and learned friend's Bill arrived at a second reading, and was referred to a Committee up-stairs. That Committee, of which he was Chairman, sat twenty-nine days, and called before them the most eminent members of the profession resident in London, and requested persons interested in the question, but especially those opposed to it, to come forward, and state their opinions. After maturely considering the evidence, the Committee drew up a Report, in which they state as their unanimous opinion that a general register of all deeds and instruments affecting land, would be of decided advantage, as regarded large purchases; and with respect to smaller transactions, they considered that if the cost of registration could be so adjusted as to be comparatively small upon purchases below a certain value, the system of registration would be made perfect, by being made applicable to all lands without reference to value, The subject having been thus maturely considered, he was relieved from much of the embarrassment he might otherwise labour under, for he felt that he was only urging the adoption of a plan which had already obtained the sanction of persons the most capable of forming a correct judgment upon the subject. At the same time he was bound to admit that the change which the plan would introduce into the law of Real Property was so great, that Parliament ought not to sanction it, except upon the most ample proof of its utility. He put the case upon that issue. If the House of Commons did not think the objections to the present law sufficiently powerful to warrant the adoption of this measure, let them reject it; but as far as his own opinion went, it was in accordance with that of the Committee. The doubts which daily arose in all questions of title, and which would go on increasing, if the law, relative to the transfer of real property, should continue in operation, amounted to a great evil, and appeared to him to call for a remedy. Among all the plans which had yet been proposed, there was no one which would completely answer the purpose, except the adoption of a general registry of all title-deeds. The heavy expense which the existing law entailed upon every man who purchased land, had long been felt as an intolerable grievance, and he believed that no measure could be devised which would more effectually tend to shorten deeds, and facilitate the transfer of property, than the measure which he had undertaken to re-commend to the House. One of the grievances connected with the present system which had been put most prominently forward, was that of the accidental loss or wilful concealment of deeds. When a man made a purchase, an abstract of the title was delivered to him in which reference was made to all the deeds in the possession of the vendor; but it repeatedly happened that deeds were noticed in the abstracts which the vendor had it not in his power to produce, or, having it in his power, chose to conceal. The professional gentlemen with whom he had conversed on this subject, had stated to him that they had found cases of fraudulent concealment of deeds comparatively rare. One gentleman who had been fifty years in the profession, said, that in the course of his practice, he had not met with more than six cases of that description. It was fair to state that fact, because it made against his case; but he had reason to believe, that wilful concealment of deeds occurred more frequently than that Gentleman supposed. He could not give the House a more convincing proof of this fact, than by stating that a practising barrister of the Court of Chancery, who, not being a conveyancer, had comparatively few titles brough tunder his eye informed him that during the short period of five weeks from the 11th of March last, to the 15th of April, no less than five such cases had fallen under his notice. The first was a case of property, mortgaged under two different titles, without notice to either mortgagee. In the second, a sum was borrowed on the security of an agreement for a lease—the lease itself being afterwards taken, it was mortgaged, suppressing the transaction on the agreement. The third was a case of a mortgage in fee, by a tenant for life, under a settlement—the settlement being withheld. The fourth, was the ease of land, settled on a man for life; he suppressed the settlement, and devised the land, as if he had been tenant in fee; the settlement afterwards came to light, and the devisee was ousted. In the fifth, the laud was mortgaged, and then sold for its full value; a settlement was afterwards discovered, which has destroyed the title both of the mortgager and purchaser; because, there were grounds for fixing them with constructive notice. Now, with five cases of fraud, in as many weeks—coming under the notice of a gentleman, whose chief business was not the investigation of titles, was it possible to believe, that if the attention of professional men were directed to the subject, they would not find cases of fraud far more numerous than they were now apt to suppose? Although that ground, by itself, might not be sufficient to make them change the whole system of the law in transferring lands, yet, it being of no unfrequent occurrence, it was one ground for legislating; and undoubtedly, if they were to devise a cure for this evil, there was no one sufficient to meet every possible case of fraudulent concealment, except a general record of every deed and instrument, relating to land—open to the inspection of those who were about to deal with the property, and furnishing the surest safeguard, that no other deed or instrument, affecting the title, could by any possibility, exist. But it was not from causes of fraudulent suppression of deeds alone, that the greatest inconveniences arose; by far the most numerous—the daily cases which occurred to defeat or embarrass titles—were those which he had continual opportunities of seeing—he alluded to the great difficulty which almost every seller found in producing or obtaining the deeds necessary to verify his abstract of title. The first step taken by a vendor was to deliver to the purchaser, or to his attorney, a document containing a statement, of the different deeds by which he deduces the title to himself. Presuming the title to appear good in law, upon the face of this abstract, the next process was, to verify the different steps in the title, by comparing the deeds at length with their contents, as abstracted. Now it scarcely ever happened, that there was not some deed missing, lost, or mislaid, or in the hands of a mortgagor, or other person having some interest, and who would not produce it—or, when the deeds mentioned in the abstract were produced, there might be a recital which disclosed the existence of some other deed; and as such disclosure fixed the purchaser with notice of its contents, it was necessary, for his security, that he should see it, in order to be satisfied that it contained nothing affecting the title; and it would not do to rely upon length of time as a bar; for, there were cases of estates recovered after an adverse possession of a century and a half, and even longer. So that there was no safety unless the purchaser could see the actual contents of all the deeds which had ever been executed with reference to the estate he was about to buy; and the difficulty, or the impossibility of doing this, was not the worst part of the case; for the attempt was attended with delay, expense, and vexation, harassing beyond all conception. A man anxious to become possessed of the land, might accept what conveyancers call a tolerably good holding title; but was that enough? Ought not every man to have a right to a good marketable title? Was it enough to say, "You may safely buy this—the chances are 100 to one against this or that deed being found—against any adverse claimant starting up under this settlement or that will, of which we know nothing except that it exists somewhere." Had a purchaser a right to no more than this? Had he not rather a right to a clear and unimpeachable title, such as he might carry into the market, and transfer, as a fund holder transferred his stock? This vast and daily occurring evil, arising out of the non-production of deeds, was only to be cured by having a public record of all instruments, to which the purchaser might be referred, where he might at a glance see the whole of every transaction which had ever been had, relating to his purchase—and might buy, with the full assurance that no other deed could by possibility exist, to defeat or affect the title. The saving of expense in all transfers, too, would be great; for a general registry would not only make titles safe, but would enable men to transfer their property with facility, and at small cost, compared to what they paid at present. When a man wanted to sell his land, he took his title deeds to an attorney; purchasers too would not buy except through the medium of a professional man. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, both parties employed professional men. The attorney for the vendor made out an abstract of title, for which he charged a certain sum; this abstract was delivered to the purchaser's attorney, who scrutinized it with a jealous and watchful eye, from a laudable desire to protect the interests of his client. First, there was the examination of the title, to see that it was properly deduced; then came the verification of the abstract, with all the difficulties he had referred to; then came professional charges for time, and correspondence, and journeys, and attendances, and fees to counsel, and opinions of conveyancers as to the necessity of calling for this or that deed, or whether they might be safely dispensed with—and negotiations with the vendor's attorney as to who should pay for office copies of certain instruments, or who should be at the expense of searching for others, as to abatement in the price, because a deed was not forthcoming, or a slight taint is thrown upon a portion of the title, with various other things; incurring an expense large in every purchase, and in many little short of the whole value of the property! If all deeds were registered, these evils would be avoided, for a purchaser could go to the office without a solicitor, and compare the abstract with the deeds themselves, and learn, to a certainty, the nature of the title which he wished to obtain. He was aware that the remedy which he proposed would be important in its consequences and expensive in execution; but the question to be decided was, whether the evil was of sufficient magnitude to justify them in resorting to the remedy. And he begged leave to call the attention of the House to the safeguards at present afforded by law with respect to the title to real property. Many members of the profession contend that there was, under the present system, a sufficient security for titles afforded by what are called outstanding terms. He was aware that, in touching upon this branch of the subject, he should find it difficult to mate himself intelligible to those who were unacquainted with legal technicalities. An interest in land might be severed into two estates; the one—called the legal, the owner of which was the only person recognised on the common-law side of Westminster Hall: while another man might be the equitable owner, and alone entitled to the beneficial enjoyment of the estate, and its rents and profits. The rights of this person, who was, in fact, the real owner, were recognised in Courts of Equity alone. Now, take the case of a mortgage, in which the mortgager created a term of 1,000 years, on condition that if the money be paid back within a certain time, generally six or twelve months, the term should cease. If this were done, the legal estate in the term becomes united with the equitable estate, but if the mortgage money were not paid off within the time, the legal estate in the term became absolute, and could not get hack to the mortgager without an actual reconveyance. Here, then, the legal estate was in the mortgagee, the equitable in the mortgager, and so it continued, although the money might be afterwards paid off. Suppose the mortgager to sell, a purchaser would require a conveyance of the legal, as well as of the equitable estate, and he would, therefore, insist upon having the outstanding term of 1,000 years conveyed either to himself, (in which case the two estates became again consolidated) or to a trustee for himself, in which case the two estates were still kept apart. The latter course was always recommended by conveyancers, because the legal title, which had its origin from the date of the mortgage, becomes, by a rule of law, paramount to every charge, or alienation, or incumbrance, which might have been made by the mortgager, between the date of the mortgage and the time of the sale; and, consequently, if the purchaser had the equitable interest transferred to himself, and the legal estate conveyed to his trustee, he might set at defiance all mesne incumbrances, the equitable interests of which are equal to his own in justice, and prior in point of time, but who had not the good fortune to be possessed of the legal estate, and who were, therefore, defeated by the last purchaser, under the maxim, "that when the equities are equal the legal estate shall prevail." Hence, in all transactions relating to land, is was the first duty of a purchaser to get hold of all the outstanding terms in order to protect himself. But this was only to be done at an expense, which was frequently enormous; the title to the legal must be deduced as much, at length, as the title to the equitable estate; and, as this applied to every outstanding term, there might be one equitable, and a dozen of legal titles to be investigated. He had seen upon the table of a conveyancer one abstract of the equitable title, and twenty-five abstracts of different outstanding terms, and so necessary were those to the goodness of the title, that the purchaser Would have been most unwise if he had omitted to get in any one of them. These outstanding terms undoubtedly afforded a great protection to purchasers, at the expense of much trouble and money, and of no little injustice to any unfortunate man whose purchase or charge was prior in point of time, but who had omitted to get hold of the legal estate. But the protection which costs so much time, and trouble, and expense to maintain, might not, after all, be worth the parchment it was written upon; for, from the lapse of time, a court of law might presume a surrender of the term, or, what was more likely, the purchaser might have either actual or constructive notice of any one of the prior charges or incumbrances, in which case his turn went for nothing, and he must take his place according to the date of his own transaction, under the maxim qui prior est tempore, pallor est jure; was the House aware what constituted notice? It was not alone what a man had seen with his own eyes, or heard with his own ears, but it was what his attorney might have known, or ought to have known; and if he employed a country attorney, who transacted the business through a town agent, then whatever the town agent, or the town agent's clerk knows, might have known, or ought to have known, was notice to the unfortunate purchasers, whose title might thus be defeated, notwithstanding all the boasted protection of the outstanding term which he had got in at so much labour and cost. This safeguard might then turn out to be, when obtained, very inadequate, and it would give little real protection, as compared with that which a general registry would afford. Besides, legal terms were by no means universal; there were many properties, particularly house-property, where the legal was not severed from the equitable estate, so that at best it was but a partial protection. There could not be a doubt that there was no greater benefit likely to be conferred by the adoption of a general registry than the getting rid of these outstanding terms; conveyances would be shortened, expense diminished, and, above all, security given, by the removal of every doubt or taint that could in any way affect the title. Another great evil which would be cured by a general registry was this: A person might mortgage his estate to A, afterwards to B, and subsequently to C. Suppose the estate would not bear the whole of these three charges, according to justice and equity, C, who lent his money last, ought to suffer, because he had lent upon an insufficient security. But he might save himself from this predicament by paying off A, and taking A's mortgage to his own, by which he got hold of the legal estate; and sqneezed out the unfortunate B, who had nothing but his prior equity to depend upon. It would avail him nothing, however, because a subsequent, but more active incumbrancer had got hold of the legal estate, and could use it as a means to deprive him of his security. That was an evil of every day occurrence. It is obvious that, a register of deeds would prevent that mischief; because both A and B's mortgages would have appeared upon the title; C, before he lent his money, would ascertain whether money had previously been advanced; and finding that there were already two charges, he would not lend at all, except he had ascertained that the estate was of sufficient value to pay all three incumbrances. The opposition to the measure had chiefly arisen from solicitors, for whom he entertained the highest respect, and who were a most useful and honorable class of men, but he must protest against the misrepresentations which had been made by some of that body, both as to the nature and object of this measure. It had been stated, that it was the object of the Bill to have all existing title deeds sent to London, to be there deposited. His hon. friend, the member for Yorkshire, had endeavoured to alarm the country gentlemen, as to the consequences of carrying this Bill. His hon. friend seemed to suppose that all title-deeds were actually to be sent to the register-office. His hon. friend might set his mind at rest on that subject, as there was no intention of touching a single existing deed. The measure was altogether prospective, and was only to take effect as regarded deeds executed after the establishment of a general register-office, unless, indeed, parties chose to register their old deeds. He had no doubt that this would be done in many instances, as it would serve as a protection against loss—and in cases where one man holds the deeds when several besides himself are interested in the property, it would be of the greatest possible advantage for such of the owners as could not command the originals, to have a duplicate deposited in the office. The deeds to be registered were those made after the passing of the Act; and, as it was the very nature and chief object of the plan that deeds should be registered at full length, so it would be found unnecessary, after the system had been some time in operation, to disclose more of the title than the simple fact of the conveyance, whether by sale, mortgage, or otherwise; which would tend to shorten, as well as simplify, all deeds. It had been stated, that to put on record all deeds connected with land, would expose a man's affairs, which might be attended with serious inconvenience to him. It would undoubtedly be a serious objection if a number of idle persons could go into the register-office and examine what incumbrances a gentleman had on his property. But before a person would be allowed to examine the register, he must show that he had an interest in doing so, and he would subject himself to a penalty if he proceeded to search having no such interest. But such an evil was more in imagination than reality. No inconvenience had ever resulted from the existence of a register of ships, in which mortgage transactions of the most delicate nature, as affecting a man's credit, were exposed. No evil resulted from a public register of annuity deeds, or of wills, by searching which, any one might for a shilling learn how a man had disposed of every shilling of his property. Another objection had been stated, that by establishing a register-office, the greatest impediments would be thrown in the way of the transactions of country bankers; and it would prevent persons borrowing sums of them by depositing their title-deeds. He should be unwilling to dispute or disparage the value or convenience of that security, although it was a means of getting rid of the Statute of frauds, and evading the Stamp-duty. It was a transaction which constantly took place, and was often attended with considerable benefit. But what was the nature of the transaction? At present the money was advanced on the reliance that the party applying for it was a man of honour, and not on the title, which, after all, might turn out to be no title. It was advanced on the confidence which the lender had in the honour of the borrower, that he would not give him waste-paper instead of real title-deeds. If a general register of deeds were to take place, the country banker would lend upon the assurance of the party borrowing, that no subsequent deed had been registered, as he now lent upon the assurance that the title-deeds he produced formed the whole title to the estate; but with this additional advantage, that, by writing to London, the banker might ascertain, in two or three days, whether there were any charges on the estate in question. If there were not, he might lend his money in perfect security, and, at the same time, the registration of his deed would prevent others advancing money on the property. If the transaction was not likely to be temporary, he would save the expense of a regular mortgage, but retained his full security, by simply entering a caveat on the register, which would forbid any dealing with the property until the caveat was withdrawn. So far from doing any injury to the borrower, it would be of the greatest service to him, as a man would more freely land his money when he knew that no one else had advanced money on the estate. The only effect the establishment of a register could have would be, to give a great collateral security to the lender; and he was satisfied, that in such transactions, a very great and extensive benefit would result from the adoption of such a measure as that which he recommended. The plan which he intended to propose, he was aware it was supposed to be intricate, but nothing could be more simple. As an index of names would, in a very few years, become too voluminous for convenient reference, it was proposed that the names of the owners who first deal with the property, should alone be indexed; and that all subsequent transactions should be referred to this head, which was called in the Bill, the "roots of titles;" such reference being made by a number, or letter, marked upon the deed itself. In fact, the plan was a classification of title-deeds; so that all deeds relating to any particular estate might be found under the symbol of that estate. It was an index to lands, and not to the owners; and, therefore, all that was required was, to get the names of the owners who first dealt with the lands, upon the index; and it was obvious that, even this index, which was so limited ill its extent, might, in the course of time, be dispensed with; for as soon as a title had been sufficiently long on the register to be good by length of time, it would not be necessary to carry the search so high as the root. Mr. Bell a learned gentleman of great professional attainments and of high reputation at the bar, was formerly opposed to the establishment of a general register, on the ground of the difficulty of finding a practicable plan; but a full examination into this plan has induced Mr. Hell entirely to alter his opinion, and he was satisfied that the scheme of the Commissioners was quite easy, and would certainly be completely successful. A great deal had been made of the mysterious words, as they bad been termed, by which the plan had been described in the Bill, and it had been said that a masonic system of symbols had been adopted, with a view to mystify titles and make the index unintelligible. Now, really, it was wonderful to see how sensible men could be led away by a sound. The symbols proposed were, in fact, nothing more than an easy means of reference, so as to prevent the complexity of long and endless indexes. For instance, if there be a deed registered by John Brown, as first owner, the index, letter B, is searched, and the reference found to be letter A, folio 100. The letter A was the symbol, and all subsequent deeds, registered either by John Brown or his successors would appear under that symbol. No name ever appeared but John Brown's because whatever was afterwards done with the estate, was found by referring to letter A, folio 100. That referred to a book in the office, in which was found, fairly written out, every deed, from the one first registered by John Brown to the one last put on the register. So the deeds, as they were registered, would be indorsed with the letter A, folio 100: and this was the reference by which the owner, or any body he was dealing with, was directed to the whole history of the title, as appearing on the registry. He hoped, therefore there would be no more alarm excited by the fear of masonic symbols, or other mysteries. The measure of registration was no novelty; it existed in Yorkshire and Middlesex, although the systems there were extremely defective. The registration in Scotland, was found to work extremely well. That system differed, in many respects, from that which he proposed should be adopted for this country. In France, Switzerland, Germany, Prussia, Denmark, Holland, in Norway, in Sweden, in Italy, in America, and in the West-India Islands, also register of deeds existed. If, therefore, such a plan existed in so many countries, and was found to succeed, surely it could not be very dangerous to adopt the principle in this country. No country that had adopted a plan of registration had seen reason to abandon it. It had been suggested that, in the place of a general register, in London, there should be a number of register-offices in various parts of the country; but there were a variety of objections to this. By having an office in London, the expense would be much less, a more able body of men would direct it; and the facility of searching for deeds would be greatly facilitated, as they would all be brought under one head. By the adoption of the simple mode of registration which he suggested, any one would be enabled, in the course of an hour or two, to search out for and discover the nature of any deed; so that, if an instruction was sent up to the keeper of the register-office in London to give information as to a deed, an answer might be sent back by return of post; and the rapidity of communication between London and every part of the country was so great, that a search would be sooner made and answered, than if there was a register-office in every county in England. He was fully persuaded that, if Parliament should think fit to entertain the proposition, it would, by establishing a general record of all title-deeds, confer a benefit upon the country more enduring, more widely beneficial in its effects, than would ever be afforded by any other legal Reform which the ingenuity of man could devise. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill "to establish a general registry of all deeds and instruments relating to real Property in England and Wales."

had thought, after the general opposition manifested to this measure last year, that all idea of proceeding with it, had been abandoned. He did not mean to say that the attornies in the metropolis might not be favourable to it; but the opposition to the scheme through the rest of England, was powerful and universal. He could not imagine for what object it had now been brought forward, unless it were to throw out a tub to the whale, and divert public attention from such unpleasant subjects as the repeal of the House and Window-tax, and the Maltduty. As for carrying it, he was satisfied that the hon. and learned Gentleman knew that it was impossible. A proposition for the establishment of a general registry was made in the time of Oliver Cromwell, and all the lawyers then in the House were strongly opposed to it; now, however, many of the learned profession were in favour of a scheme of the sort. In those days, the lawyers were actuated by different motives from those which influence them now, they were then only excited by patriotic feelings to bring forward those plans which they thought would be beneficial to the country, but now they must be paid high salaries for acting as Commissioners, and they exerted themselves to carry measures, the only effect of which could be to increase litigation. The present measure was the first-fruits of a law commission, which had cost the country 28,000l., and it was impossible to tell what further expense might attend it. If any of his Majesty's Ministers had been present, he should have impressed upon them the necessity of at once getting rid of these Law Commissions, which kept the country in a state of agitation, and did great injury, by exciting general apprehension respecting the rights of property. The noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the question of the currency, proposed a Motion to the effect that this House would not consent to alter the standard of value, as any proposition for that purpose would shake the stability of the money-market. He had no hesitation in saying, that the proceedings of the Law Commissions excited a general anxiety among all the holders of landed property; for every man felt, that they were proposing measures which rendered property uncertain and insecure. He regretted that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have taken up this Bill, after it had been judiciously dropped by the hon. and learned Solicitor General. The hon. and learned Gentleman in the course of his speech, said, that the country attornies and solicitors had been guilty of gross misrepresentations on the subject of this Bill. It was very easy for a Master of Chancery to abuse country attornies when they were not here to protect themselves, but he must say, that the attack was altogether uncalled-for. The opposition to the Bill, however, came from the landed proprietors and gentry of England who were all opposed to it. He had himself presented a petition to the House signed by a very large portion of the landed proprietors of Yorkshire, and, amongst others, by Lord Harewood, Lord Howden, Lord Mexborough, Sir Francis Wood, Sir W. Cooke, and Sir John Ramsden, and by a numerous body of bankers and merchants. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, that the opinions of various lawyers were united in favour of his Bill. He also said, that Mr. J. Bell, a distinguished Chancery lawyer, who was formerly opposed to this scheme, had recently seen reason to alter his opinion. Now he had heard that Gentleman say before the Committee up-stairs, that he did not know of any evils that had resulted from the want of a system of registration. It appeared, however, that the lawyers had obtained new light on the subject, and had found that the greatest evils resulted from the concealment of deeds. It had been stated that a great discovery had been made in a mode of keeping an index by "roots and symbols," which would prevent the recurrence of any confusion or loss of deeds by registration. Mr. Bell however when examined before the Committee above-stairs, when asked whether he understood this method of "roots and symbols "answered "I think I understand it, but I am not sure that I comprehend it." And this was the opinion which was quoted as being decidedly in favour of the proposed measure. If his opinion were asked as to the probable results of a general metropolitan registration, he could not express it more distinctly than in the words of the hon. and learned Solicitor-General, in the First Report of the Commissioners on the Law of Real Property, in the year 1829, and before he must be supposed to have changed his opinion. The passage to which he alluded was this—'We are aware of the numerous and weighty obstacles to so extensive and novel a plan, in a country of so great extent as England, where transfers of land are more numerous than in any other part of the globe, and where the disclosure of private affairs may be dangerous to commercial credit.' But one word more respecting this supposed discovery about "roots and symbols." The Solicitor-General, in the Chair of the Committee undertook the explanation of the system. But he soon became so entangled amongst these roots, that he seized a favourable opportunity to desert the Committee, leaving the Chair to the more youthful energies of the master in chancery. He, however, was likewise shortly lost and enveloped amidst the mazes of these roots and symbols. At last one of the paid Commissioners—the supposed author and inventor of this discovery—was called in: but after a careful investigation the whole scheme broke down—the supposed discovery turned out to be no discovery at all, but only a very confused and unsatisfactory method of keeping an index. Now, if all title-deeds were to be sent up to this great mausoleum—to this immense building,—where would be found law Latin, Norman French, and conveyancers' English; and which, therefore, might more properly be called this Tower of Babel;—there would be an enormous charge on the public for keeping up the establishment. Independent of the salaries and fees to be paid to the officers, upwards of 500,000l. would be required for the purpose of defraying the expense of the building. [The Solicitor General 20,000l.] He had heard that Lincoln's Inn-square was to be purchased, and that an enormous building was to be erected to cover the interior of it: a building sufficiently capacious to contain all the title-deeds, mortgages, wills, marriage settlements, and legal instruments of England must be of enormous magnitude. By the Yorkshire scheme of registration there were deposited only memorials and an Index. But in the proposed plan there were to be deposited not only memorials, but the whole original title-deeds or copies of them. He had witnessed a settlement of a considerable estate, and the writings, from their bulk and weight could not consist of less than a hundred skins of parchment, and yet a deed of that nature was to be sent up free of expense by the mail-coach, to this great mausoleum of parchment. It had been said, that the deeds were not to be retained but copies of them were to be taken; but were the originals to be returned free of expense to the owners? He said it was a lawyer's Bill; the head of the office was to be a serjeant-at-law, and a number of barristers, of four years' standing, were to hold office as deputy registrars, and clerks without number. And these serjeants-at-law, and experienced lawyers, were to put their learning into their pockets, and be reduced to the drudgery of taking copies and keeping an index. As the Bill originally stood retiring allowances were to be granted; but in a subsequent edition of the Bill the word "retiring" was omitted; but pensions were still to be granted. The serious objections, however, were to the principle of the plan. The very circumstance of sending title-deeds up to London, which might be lost, would throw property into utter confusion. A gain, a man's title-deeds would be exposed to the examination of any person who chose to investigate them; by this means big property would be rendered insecure, and he subjected to vexatious litigation. He might be told that means would be taken to prevent any one from searching for or perusing a deed without being really interested; but how could that be accomplished? Then it was provided that should a title-deed be lost, or injury sustained by any neglect of duty, the person who might thus be reduced to difficulties or ruin, might bring an action against the chief registrar; but what chance of redress would any gentleman have in pursuing that course; he would have to contend with all the power and influence of the Government, as the action was to be defended by the Attorney-General, and the expense of this defence was to be paid out of the public purse. And what was it short of an insult to tell a person that be might seek redress by contending against such fearful odds, in a system which was thus to tax Ireland and Scotland for registering the title-deeds of English proprietors, or paying damages for their loss. Should the measure be persevered in, that certainly would not be the last time that the House would have to direct its most serious attention to the subject.

thought, that the member for Yorkshire had advanced nothing like argument against the Bill. The hon. Gentleman taunted his hon. and learned friend with having adopted this measure after he (the Solicitor General) had seen reason to abandon it. He had not abandoned the measure, and he had the most perfect confidence in the benefits which would result from its adoption. The only reason why he did not proceed with it was, because he was connected with his Majesty's Government; and it was not desirable that the subject should be brought forward as a Government measure. He believed, that all the members of the Government were favourable to it; but it was considered better that the measure should be brought forward by his hon. and learned friend than by him. He anticipated that the opposition to this measure would be extremely slight. It would be recollected that the matter was referred to a Committee up-stairs, which consisted of Gentlemen of all opinions and very many of them directly hostile to the principle; but, after a long and deliberate inquiry, the Committee, with almost the single exception of the hon. member for Yorkshire, all concurred in the propriety of the principle of the measure. He would venture to assert, that a majority of the landed proprietors of the country were agreed in the principle of the measure, in holding that it would tend much to their interest if there was a registry of deeds in this country. And, notwithstanding the hon. Member was pleased to designate the register-office as a "mausoleum of deeds," he believed that the general feeling was in favour of one office in the metropolis, rather than of having a number of offices scattered over the kingdom. The chief opponents of the measure were those very active persons, the country solicitors. He was not surprised that these persons should be opposed to the establishment of a general registration, and prefer a number of local registers; if the latter plan were adopted, they would expect to become registrars; and then all the business would be in their hands. He had no doubt that they would be most active and zealous advocates for a local registration. He was not astonished at the opposition of the country solicitors, but he was utterly at a loss to account for the opposition of the hon. member for Yorkshire, and other country Gentlemen. He could not understand upon what principle they acted. It reminded him of the observation of the conveyancer, who said, that he would rather submit to have his bowels dragged out by wild horses than agree to the abolition of fines and recoveries. So the hon. member for Yorkshire in his warmth against a system of registration, would rather submit to anything than consent to support this measure. At present a man could hardly toll whether his title were good or not, as a deed of which he was previously ignorant might be brought to light at any time. What, then, was the object of registration. A man would be able to learn at once whether there were any deeds in existence connected with a property he wished to purchase, or which he inherited? If the deeds did not appear to exist on the face of the register, they would not be allowed. Of course as was said by his right hon. and learned friend, this enactment would have reference only to deeds executed after the passing of the Bill. There were many grievous cases constantly occurring to show the oppressive operation of the present state of the law, as regarded property; his hon. and learned friend had adverted to some cases of this kind; and there would be no difficulty in adding to the list. The great opponent of this measure, before the Committee, was Mr. Preston, the eminent conveyancer; but his opposition was rather to the details, than to the principle. He dwelt on the necessity of being cautious of guarding against alterations in the law relative to real property; but he did not point out any evils that would result from the adoption of this specific measure. The hon. member for Yorkshire, had stated, that he had seen a marriage settlement of 150 skins of parchment. Now, it would be necessary to take a copy of all this; but with a register, he would reduce the abstract of the deed to little more than half a folio. All that was necessary might be described in that space, so that the expense of registry would not be so great as the hon. Gentleman imagined, even in so extreme a case as that. The hon. Gentleman said, this was a lawyer's Bill, and that it was brought forward for the purpose of creating offices with large salaries. He could only declare, that as fir as he was concerned, he was not in the slightest degree interested in the matter; for, if he had the opportunity, he would not become registrar, or deputy-registrar, or clerk, in this "mausoleum." The present system was so full of difficulty and risk, that borrowers on real security had to pay much more than they otherwise would. The amount of this tax, which such borrowers had to pay, was much more than a set-off against those evils which the hon. member for Yorkshire said would follow the adoption of the measure before the House. A system of registration already existed in Ireland; now, if it were found to succeed in that country (and there was no doubt that such was the case) there was no reason why it should not be equally successful and advantageous in England. Similar registers existed in France, Germany, America, and other foreign countries, and in each of these States the plan was found to answer. It must, therefore, be shown that there was something peculiar to the people or Government of England which would prevent its being advantageous here. The hon. member for Yorkshire said, that, calculating from the expense of the Yorkshire register, the charge for a general register for the whole of the country would be enormous. He had no hesitation in affirming, that the Yorkshire register was full of jobs; it annually cost not less than 20,000l.; but he would venture to say, that, for less than that amount—and with the exorcise of a proper economy—a general register-office for the whole country might be maintained. Again, so far from such an institution causing delay, it would prevent delay, in transferring property. Those protracted and tiresome inquiries which it was now necessary to institute would be avoided, as the necessary information could be immediately obtained at the Register office. So far the disclosure would be wholesome; and at the same time, the utmost care would be taken to prevent any information being given to any person who could not show that he had a real interest in the matter. He did not see why England should not have a general system of registration as well as almost every other civilized nation on the face of the earth. All countries where it had been once adopted had uniformly adhered to the principle; and therefore he said that experience afforded every evidence of its utility. The hon. member for Yorkshire referred to the Law Commissions, and the expense attending them, hinting that the proposals for reforms in the law originated in the remuneration given to the Commissioners for their professional aid. He had no hesitation in saying that, as far as regarded himself, the compensation he had received for his services on that Commission, fell far short of what he should obtain for similar professional exertions between individual and individual;—that, in short, if he looked at the matter merely in a pecuniary point of view, he made a very bad bargain in holding the post at all; as it was, however, he was influenced, chiefly, by the anxious desire to do that which was of the most essential importance to the well-being of the country; namely, to amend the laws; and he had laboured night and day for that object. If he should succeed, that alone would be a sufficient reward for his exertions.

asked the hon. and learned Gentleman to exclude Yorkshire from his proposed Bill, because he felt satisfied that its operation would not be beneficial to that county. He would not oppose the measure in its present stage, but he should do so afterwards, if Yorkshire was included in it.

thought that, in common courtesy, they ought to allow the present Motion to pass, and that afterwards improvements might be suggested, which, if not attended to, would afford a fairer opportunity of opposing the measure.

rose to call in question the right of his late Majesty to grant a pension to Lord Dunglass. The question he was about to bring before the House was one of great importance, because it involved a principle which, if disallowed, would put an end to all sinecures and pensions. The Country was staggering under the weight of its burthens, and one way to relieve it would be to repudiate the principle he alluded to. He held a table of pensions in his hand, from which he would select one or two, to show the evil effect of granting civil pensions. There were two sinecures which dated from the year 1694, and which had, calculated to the present time, cost the country 50,000,000l. sterling. The sinecures he meant were those of the two Chief Justices in Eyre. Another instance of this system of civil pensions, was the money paid to one of the predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, to Mr. Sergeant Onslow. The money which had been paid to him and his son was 163,000l., which, calculating principal and interest, would now amount to the sum of about 373,000l. paid by the country for services he was sure no Member of that House would be willing to pay so highly for. Another instance was the pension of 276l. paid to the Earl of Home, the father of the young nobleman whose claims he was calling in question, for services no one knew anything about, and which, calculated with interest from the time it was granted up to the present time, would amount to 36,560l. or thereabouts. Happening, in a Committee up-stairs, to make an inquiry as to the disbursements paid out of the Scotch Exchequer, he found one which struck him exceedingly. It was the sum of 300l. paid to Lord Dunglass as Chamberlain of Ettrick Forest. This sinecure dated from before the Union, and was originally 8l. 10s., Scotch money. In a Committee of Inquiry on sinecures and pensions held in the year 1810, a Resolution was passed relative to this identical pension. Now, what he complained of was, that, after that Resolution, the sinecure should be renewed. He contended that the Sovereign, having a right to the Crown revenues only during his life time, had no power to make any grant out of them which should endure beyond the period of his life, because such a grant would interfere with the rights of his successors in the event of the grantee surviving him. This was the case with Lord Dunglass, who had survived George 4th. He (Mr. Hume) thought that they should put an end to proceedings of this kind, as a useless and improper expenditure of the public money. He concluded by moving, "That a humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he would be graciously pleased to issue a Commission to the law-officers of the Crown to inquire into the validity of the right of Lord Dunglass to hold the office of Chamberlain of Ettrick Forest after the demise of George 4th, and if necessary, to bring the question of its validity to trial."

said, that his own opinion was, that this grant was illegal; but he thought that it would be indecorous in the House to adjudicate upon it, and to deprive the noble Lord of it in his absence, and without hearing what he might have to urge in support of it. He was, therefore, of opinion that the best plan which the House could follow would be the adoption of the Motion of the hon. member for Middlesex. It was certainly a curious thing to give Lord Dunglass 300l. a-year for the collection of quit rents which did not amount to more than 230l. a-year. It was unfortunate for the noble Lord that this appointment of 300l. a-year had not been a pension upon the Scotch pension-list; for in that case he might have continued to hold out, inasmuch as the pensions on that list, which expired with the Sovereign, had been continued by the liberality of Parliament.

said, that the object he had in view was to induce the House to pass a Resolution directing that in every Inclosure Bill hereafter passed, a clause shall be inserted to provide for the allotment of a certain portion of land, to such of the labouring poor as shall be willing to hire it at a moderate rent. He apprehended that would be one of the best modes of withdrawing the agricultural labourer from illegal or profligate pursuits, and of restoring to him, at least in some degree, those habits of steadiness and providence which were wont to be his chief characteristics. The plan had already been tried in several places, and particularly at Saffron Walden, with complete success; and by the Report of a Society, calling itself "The Labourers' Friend Society," it appeared that it had led not only to a considerable increase of the comforts of the poor, but also to a material diminution of the Poor-rates in every instance in which it had been carried into operation. What he proposed was, "that a portion of land be allotted out of the commonable lands, or waste grounds to the incumbent of the living, and the parish officers, for the time being, and the owners of 100 acres of land, in such parish, as trustees, to let the same in small portions at low rents, to all labourers resident in the parish, who may be desirous of hiring the same—such rents to be paid to the parish officers for the time being, in aid of the Poor-rates." And in contemplation of any objection that might be raised as to the impossibility of particular parishes being able to comply with such a regulation, he had added this proviso—"unless any special reason can be shown why such allotment cannot conveniently or properly be made in that particular instance." He trusted, therefore, that he had so worded the Motion, as effectually to shut out any objection that such a resolution or such a plan could not be adopted, because it could not be made applicable in every instance. One of the arguments which he had heard urged against the proposition was, that it would interfere to the prejudice of private property. He maintained that it would have no effect of the kind—on the contrary, by improving the condition of the poor—by rendering them more contented, more happy, and more orderly, and, at the same time, by diminishing the Poor-rates—it would confer a great benefit rather than effect any injury to private property. Of the few instances in which the experiment had been tried, he would mention two. In one parish the plan was adopted in 1819, at which time the poor-rates amounted to 2,000l. a-year; but in 1830, after it had been in operation for ten years, the Poor-rates were reduced to 1,400l. a-year. In the other instance—that of Saffron Walden, in consequence of the adoption of this plan, the poor-rates had been reduced from 3,000l. to 2,000l. a-year. Independent of this reduction in the Poor-rates, there was another point of view in which the plan seemed to have worked most advantageously. During the period of the disturbances in the agricultural districts, although the surrounding country was nightly alarmed by fires, and the day rendered dangerous by tumultuous bodies of machine-breakers, the parish of Saffron Walden was wholly undisturbed, and no destruction of property took place there. It appeared, too, that the rent of the small portions of land allotted to the labourer had always been punctually and cheerfully paid, without any demand for reduction, although all other rents of land had been lowered nearly thirty per cent. Further, it appeared that where the plan had been adopted, the idle and mischievous among the rural population—the thief and the poacher—had been converted into honest and industrious men. Having mentioned the general objects of his Motion, as well as some of the results of previous experiments, which should recommend it to the adoption of the House, he might, perhaps, be allowed to cite another instance, which was, perhaps, stronger than any to which he had yet alluded, and which seemed to afford conclusive evidence of the propriety of a general resolution of this kind being adopted. In an Inclosure Bill passed for a parish in the county of Huntingdon, in 1830, a clause was inserted for the allotment of about twenty acres of land, to be let out in the manner that he proposed, to the agricultural population of the place, which consisted of about 400 persons. The inhabitants of this parish had previously been rather idle and disorderly than otherwise; the Sunday was commonly spent in drunkenness and riot—pauperism prevailed to a very great extent, and little of providence or industry was to be found amongst them. The Bill had now been in operation for little more than twelve months; but, during that short period, the change effected in the disposition of the inhabitants had been most striking; they were become industrious, provident, steady, happy, and comfortable. Many burnings of agricultural stock, and much breaking of machinery, took place around them; but the inhabitants of this parish, though formerly of a disposition to join in such proceedings, not only abstained from doing so, but, in the only instance of a fire which took place within the parish, they turned out a man, to save everything that it was possible to save. The hon. Member concluded by moving the following Resolution:—"That the Committee, on every Inclosure Bill, shall, in their Report, certify whether a portion of land, as near to the village as conveniently may be, and not less than in the proportion of one acre to every twenty-five inhabitants, according to the last population census, has been by such Bill directed to be allotted out of the commonable lands or waste grounds, to the incumbent of the living, and the parish officers for the time being, and the owners of 100 acres of land in such parish, as trustees, in trust to let the same in small portions, at low rents, to all labourers resident in the parish, who may be desirous of hiring the same, such rents to be paid to the parish officers for the time being, in aid of the Poor-rates, or whether there be any special reason why such allotment cannot conveniently or properly be made in that particular instance."

did not rise to oppose the Motion, but he thought that on one of such importance the Resolution ought to be printed, and full time allowed for its consideration. He would therefore propose that the debate on this question be adjourned to that day week.

proposed a clause, to the effect to give Magistrates the power of punishing persons who kept places for bear-baiting, dog-fighting, and other cruel sports of that kind, which tended so much to demoralize those who assisted at them, and also to punish those who were present at such sports.

said, he felt it to be his duty to oppose the clause which the hon. member for Durham wished to introduce. He saw no reason why the sports of the poor should be interfered with more than those of the rich. If individuals had cause to complain of any riot or disturbance occurring in places where such sports were carried on, it was open to them to indict such places as a nuisance.

said, those practices might be described by some as amusements; for his own part, he viewed them as cruelties. He, therefore, should support the clause. It was true, that individuals might proceed by indictment; but the process was so dilatory and so uncertain, that it was almost useless to resort to it. He concurred in the propriety of the clause, and was glad that the hon. Member had brought it forward.

opposed the clause. He did not see how it could be fairly agreed to, unless the House was prepared to put down coursing, pigeon-shooting, angling, &c. The House would not surely proceed on the puritanical principle and

Compound for sins they are inclined to,

By damning those they have no mind to.

contended the clause was very desirable with the view to prevent the practice of frequenting these pits for fighting dogs, and pursue other such inhuman sports, by disorderly and dishonest persons. They were too often the haunts of vagabonds and thieves. The clause, too, was to be confined to within five miles of the metropolis, and that with the view to prevent the congregating together of loose and idle persons, who often met in these places for no other purpose than to plan the robbery of individuals, burglary, and rifling of banks in this city.

was convinced that the argument used by the last speaker, when calmly considered, would be deemed an objection strong enough to induce the House to reject the clause. If these consequences were to be anticipated from the continuance of the practice, why was not a Bill of a general nature brought in to repress these sports throughout the country? The interests of morality would seem to require a general measure instead of beginning to legislate for a district in the manner of an experiment.

was of opinion, that the proposed clause ought to be agreed to, because it would have the effect of putting an end to practices which had a demoralizing influence on the people.

objected to the clause. It was, us he thought, improperly introduced ill a Police Regulation Bill. In a Bill for the prevention of cruelty to animals it might fairly be inserted.

thought the present opportunity afforded by the proposition the hon. member for South Durham ought not to be suffered to pass unimproved. This experiment to repress these cruel and immoral associations he hoped would lead to a more general measure being adopted by the Legislature to accomplish so truly desirable an object.

in reply, observed that his sole object in bringing forward the clause was to aid the Magistracy of the metropolis ill putting down these places, which it was admitted were the constant haunts of the idle and immoral, and in the continuance of which the police found the greatest obstacle to the coercion of the guilty, and the repression of plans for robbery and outrage.