:^* Mr. Speaker, in the present stage of this measure it is not my intention to address any observations to lawyers. Up to this point it is purely a landowners' question; the lawyers have no interest in it whatever; if the landowners are content with things as they are, the lawyers have no cause to complain. I shall, therefore, address myself to the landowners alone, and endeavour to point out to them the real state of the position in which they stand, and then the method by which it is proposed to extricate them out of their difficulties. In order to effect this end it is necessary to consider by what means we have got into our present embarrassments, because the same causes which induced them at the first, continue to operate still. I am not stating this to you as my own opinion merely, for that would not be worth your receiving, but I am stating it as a fact, recognised by all who have considered this subject, and I will read as proof of this an extract from the work of an eminent lawyer, addressed to his brethren; to men, therefore, who would immediately detect any misstatement in the matter, and to whom he would not venture to address as admitted facts observations that he knew they could dispute, He says—

"I must be permitted to consider laud as a commodity, the value of which depends on the rules which govern the value of every other commodity. In a former age we know that it was treated differently. It was considered as a means of affording a defence to the State. It was governed by a different policy. Every piece of land had an armed warrior to maintain its possession for his lord. You may smile at this, but the remnant of this system is in existence at the present moment as a legal fiction. The ideal seisin of land, as it is called, is ever present to the eye of the law, and must not be disturbed for one moment; and many absurd consequences still arise from this state of the law It is of no great practical consequence; put I mention it to show that

^* From a speech published by Bosworth.

we are in the habit of treating land as if it were essentially different from other commodities, when the reason for so considering it has entirely ceased. We make a mystery of it; we blindfold our own eyes in all dealings with it: before we can even talk respecting it correctly, we must learn a new language. We have been, hitherto, taught to consider it as a distinct article to be dealt in by a ion, under circumstances not existing in anything else."—(Stewdrt's Lectures.)

In former times the possession of land was held by military service. At the time of the Conquest the whole of the kingdom was divided into about 720 baronies—or honours, as they were sometimes called, amongst the largest of which were those of Clare and Richmond—the owners of which were bound to bring to the King's assistance, when called upon, a certain number of armed retainers. These barons, in their turn, leased out to others portions of the lands on terms similar to those on which they held their own from the Crown. The King would not suffer any alienation of these lands without being assured that the person who was to receive them was also capable of rendering him efficient service; hence fines were levied by him for giving permission to an heir to succeed to his father's inheritance; and when the inheritance came to females, they were compelled to marry as the King pleased, in order that he might be sure that he did not lose by the marriage the services which the owner of the property was bound to render. Then, as now, however, landowners would run in debt; and when they did so, they borrowed money of the Jews and such few merchants as inhabited the towns; and as now, also, they disliked to pay their debts. The creditors could not seize the lands, because the King would not permit them to be alienated; they, therefore, applied to the Judges, and, although the creditor dared not go to the baron's castle and seize his person, the Judge could order the sheriff to go with his civic guard and seize all the produce growing upon the land. The landowners, therefore, kept the land without enjoying any advantage from it, and the creditor enjoyed all the produce under the name of the usufruct. In addition to this mode of running in debt, they devised another, by which, instead of giving a part of their lands to their children, as they did at the beginning, they fell into the habit of giving a right to their wives, younger children, and other relations, to receive annually certain sums from the produce of the land. Hence arose trustees, or persons to whom the whole property was made over in order to pay these charges first, and then to give to the owner the residue that remained. Hence, too, it frequently happened then, as it happens now, that the use and profit of the land was taken from the owner, and nothing was left to him but the empty title of owner and nominal possessor of that over which he had no control, and on which he could exercise no power except the equivocal advantage of the right to kill the wild animals found upon it. Much of this died out by degrees, partly under the Tudors, finally under the Stuarts; but those who became possessed of property when landowners were empowered to sell, began to ape the customs and manners of the barons, into a sort of fellowship with whom they had become associated; and they, in attempting to establish names and descendants, vainly endeavoured to foresee every possible contingency that could occur to their children and grandchildren, and placed their lands in the hands of trustees in order to carry out their intention towards their descendants. But they neither did nor could foresee all these contingencies—many arose in the development of time; and, consequently, it was necessary to have a court and an officer, whose duty it should be to decide on what would have been the intention of the devisor if he had foreseen the contingency, and also upon the best means of carrying that intention into effect. The employment of lawyers, then, in real property transactions is in correcting the errors which the follies of landlords have occasioned; and landowners complain most unjustly of the lawyers who are so occupied, whilst they have none but themselves to blame for the whole. The expense of sales is immense, owing to these causes. Before making a sale it is necessary to prove that, with respect to your father, your grandfather, your great-grandfather—and I know not how much farther back—all the settlements that have been made are exhausted, and that every single person who could by possibility become entitled to the property is either dead or disposed of somehow. I have before me a list showing the heavy costs which have arisen in nine cases of sale of small properties, but will trouble the House with reading only one or two of them. There is, first, the case of a property which sold for 12,000l., on which the costs of sale amounted to 200l. or about 17 percent; another, which sold for 500l., on which the costs amounted to 124l., or 25 per cent; a third, in which the property sold for 150l., and the costs were 50l., or 33 per cent; and a fourth, in which the property sold for 620l., and the costs of sale amounted to 200l., being about 33 per cent also. Every attempt which has been made to diminish the expense of sales under the present system has been futile. People talk of long recitals being the cause of the expense of preparing deeds; but I should be glad to know how they were to predetermine the length of a recital without knowing the nature of the deed. The length of the recital must depend upon the matter to be recited. You cannot expect a boy to recite the whole of Homer's Iliad in twenty minutes. Under the present system, therefore, it was hopeless to expect to derive any benefit from shortening recitals. But this is not the worst of it. The owners of property are completely in the hands of solicitors. They know no more about their lands than they do about what is going on in China. They know that there is a box of parchments belonging to them, and that some of those parchments have a bit of red wax tied to them; but that is all they know. Their solicitor brought them a paper to sign, and they signed it; and after putting a seal upon it, they delivered it as their act and deed; but what it contained they knew no more than a blushing bride of the marriage settlement to which she was led forward, covered with a veil, to put her name. Now, I contend that unless you will cut up the whole system by the roots, you will do nothing. What I want to make the country gentlemen understand is this—that it is their business to deliver themselves out of the hands of the solicitors. You are a solicitor-ridden people. It is possible to have the expenses of a court of law taxed; but how can you possibly tax any attorney's bill? It is impossible. Everybody complains of them; the more respectable part of the profession denounce them; but still the evil is unredressed. Complaints are also made of the cost and the length of legal instruments, of conveyances, &c.; but these, too, cannot be curtailed to any great extent, so long as the present system is continued. The landowners must resolve to emancipate themselves; no real and efficient help will ever come from the lawyers any more than has come from the reports of the Committees of the two Houses of Parliament, the labours of Crown Commissioners, and all other machinery which has hitherto been put in operation. The landlords must not rest satisfied until they have obtained the means of transferring any portion of their lands which they please to sell in as easy and simple a manner as they could transfer stock in the books of the Bank of England. The principle, then, upon which the House has now to decide is this—first, that there shall be a registration of deeds and lands; and, secondly, that sales shall take place by transfer in the books of the registry just as stock is transferred and sale of it made at the Bank. Every other method but this is futile. Registration, except with the view of making transfers in the books, is merely making a catalogue of deeds, or appointing some building in which they shall be deposited. Many objections have been made to registries, but they seem all to be summed up by Sir Edward Sugden in his Vendors and Purchasers, vol. iii. p. 373, 10th edition. This being decided, the question that next arises is, "Who is to register?" The country gentleman, in his simplicity, answers, "I, the owner, am to register." Yes, but first you have to prove that you are the owner. An equity lawyer is very like a policeman in this respect; the policeman, when he sees a man in a good coat, thinks that he ought to be" had up" before a magistrate, and made to give an account as to how he came by it; and a Chancery lawyer says to the country gentleman, "Ah! it is very well for you to suppose that those broad acres belong to you, but has your title ever been examined?" Here, then, is the difficulty: if you are to have an examination of all the titles that are to be registered, you may call it by what name you please, but it is, in fact, instituting quoad hoc another court of equity. On the other hand, if there be no examination of titles, there is no security against a man entering lands as his which do not belong to him, and effecting a sale of them the next day. There is great question amongst the lawyers as to the number of titles which are good, as also as to what constitutes a good or bad title. By the kindness of a friend, I have been enabled to peruse a part of the evidence which is about to be published by the Commission that is now sitting, which states the matter very clearly. One of the able Commissioners puts this leading question to a witness, and it will be observed, that in the terms of it, he gives also his own opinion; he says—

"Knowing very well that there is not such a thing, to my belief, as a strictly marketable title in the kingdom, and knowing that a court of equity will not compel any man to take a title that is not free from doubt, cither as to matter of fact or matt or of law, we then submit, on the part of the vendor, this abstract of title to counsel, and request him to advise on that title, with a view of stopping all loopholes (if I may use such a term), or any objection that may be taken on the part of the purchaser. Counsel give their opinion. Whatever can be supplied in accordance with that opinion is supplied. What cannot be supplied is matter of consultation again with the counsel; and then conditions of sale are made and approved by the counsel to meet rather than to obviate any such objection," &c.

To this the witness answers—

"I do not differ with a word of what you state," &c. &c.

Again it is said—

"The present haw is evaded by conditions of sale. The holes in the title are stopped," &c.

"I think the great bulk of the titles in this country are good holding titles, although they are not easily transferred, being unmarketable."

"Sir Edward Sugden says, that out of fifty titles, the fiftieth only is bad, and that the examination of forty-nine is useless."

I do not see how it is possible to compel all owners of land to expose their title-deeds to the view of every one; for there would be hundreds of attornies who would find out the means of stirring up dormant claims which, whether valid or not, would create immense loss to the landowners, and gain to the attornies; and unless some equivalent be afforded to landowners to induce them to make such disclosure, I would certainly advise them not to consent to this Bill. This, therefore, is a great objection to making the registry compulsory; and another objection, equally strong, is the necessity of having previously in operation an immense machinery. The number of landowners is variously stated by statistical writers from between 80,000 to 280,000; nor is it easy to point out whether copyholds of inheritance and on fine certain, long leaseholders, leaseholders on lives, and many others, are included in cither enumeration. In this case the registrar, his office, clerks, and all attendants, books, and schedules, must be pro-pared and ready for instant operation on the same day when all these deeds shall be brought in to be registered. Now, it is impossible to ascertain beforehand how many books, clerks, &c., shall be required. In Edinburgh, there are sufficient entries to require four hundred folio volumes to be annually filled. On the other hand, if the registration be voluntary, it gives the opportunity of feeling our way, of commencing with a few hooks and a small office, and a moderate establishment of clerks, all of which I can be enlarged as business increases; and as in Scotland they have both a general and provisional registry, so there may be here first a central registry-office in London, which may be expanded so as to have provincial registers in every county, under, the superintendence, however, of the registrar general in London. I have been compelled to draw this Bill in such a way as that it may be contracted or expanded, because I had to consider, not what was abstractedly right or wrong, nor what I even, with the assistance of others, judged to be best, but to consider to what extent this House was prepared to go, and also to consider my own position in it; since, not being backed by the Government, nor by any party in the House, it was not possible to force anything, and I could only embody so much as the House is already disposed to consent to. I am prepared, therefore, to limit for the present the operation of this Bill to legal estates only, and to wait for others to be put upon the register when the trusts upon them shall expire. I am also willing that there shall be only one registry for the present, and wait till the landowners demand others elsewhere. If, on the other hand, the House is prepared to go further, and not only require all incumbrances to be registered as well as estates, and to curtail for the future the power of devisors to lock up indefinitely their lands, it is easy to add clauses that will allow of this also. At the same time I ought in fairness to add, that I think the best plan would be to register only legal estates, and to refuse all conditional trusts whatever. I do not believe that any substantial injustice would be done if you were to pass a declaratory Act, enacting that all present holders of lands, in the profits and rents of which they have been in the undisturbed possession for a certain number of years, should not have their titles disputed from this time; you would do substantial justice in ninety-nine out of every hundred cases, although I admit that one out of every hundred might be defrauded. I think also that it would be a great advantage to curtail still farther the power of entailing, and not to suffer any person to tie up his lands for the benefit of more persons than those that are alive at the date of his making the devise. Some people, when they cannot find out an objection to a measure itself, which is plain before their eyes, think that they have sagacity sufficient to see into indiscernible things, and to divine the motives which have actuated the authors. For the benefit of such persons, it may be as well to observe, that I can have no personal motive in the success of this measure, because I cannot be benefited or injured by its becoming law, since all the property I have is in settlement, and I have only a life interest in it. My object in bringing forward this measure is to endeavour to enhance the value of landed property, and to enable landed proprietors more easily to effect sales of small portions of the same, in order to liberate them out of their difficulties, and to give them facilities for investing more capital in the cultivation of their lands. In uncivilised countries land is the only possible property, for all other is insecure; in civilised countries it must always possess more value than any other. Landowners have an influence in the neighbourhoods where they reside, especially where their possessions are hereditary, which no other capitalists possess; and hence the jealousy of them by upstarts of every degree: but land ought to have no legal immunities superadded to its intrinsic advantages, and its sale ought to be as free, and its transfer as easy, as that of any other commodity.

could assure the hon. Member for Surrey that he would not find amongst the present profession of lawyers one gentleman who would deny the evils of which he complained, or who did not agree with him as to the great importance of so simplifying the transfer of land that it could be made over with as much case as if it were so much stock. On his own behalf, as well as on that of those gentlemen, members of his own profession, with whom he was in the habit of conversing, he could assure the hon. Member, that the strongest desire was entertained to bring about that simplification. The only difference of opinion between the hon. Member and those gentlemen to whom he (the Solicitor General) referred, was as to the manner in which the proposed changes could be best carried into effect. When the hon. Gentleman introduced this Bill, he (the Solicitor General) had come to the examination of it with the strongest wish to find in it a remedy for the state of things now existing—with the strongest desire to aid in carrying it into effect. But, after the best consideration he could give to the measure, he believed that if carried into effect in its present shape, the only persons who would benefit by it would be the whole class of lawyers themselves. His sincere conviction was, that it would give rise to more contests in courts of law, and to more emendatory Acts, than had been the consequence of any other measure passed for a considerable length of time. It was important to observe that the subject of registration had occupied the attention, of lawyers for a considerable time, and that the objections to registration did not proceed from the lawyers. Fifteen years ago, when the report of a Commission on the subject was issued, it was found that only one lawyer of eminence objected to registration. In 1833 or 1834, when he had the honour of a seat in that House, he bad advocated a measure in favour of the registration of deeds; and he remembered that the only opposition to the proposal came from the country Gentlemen. He believed that those country Gentlemen would have been the persons chiefly benefited by that measure; but they were so apprehensive that it would expose to public view not only the title on which they hold their estates, but the incumbrances upon, and other circumstances affecting, them, that their objections to the measure were insuperable. In seeking to establish a perfect system of registration, they must consider the principle on which to proceed; they might either supersede the present system of law, or they might adapt their plan to the existing state of the law. This Bill attempted to unite both these things. It would almost seem as if the hon. Member for Surrey had submitted his scheme, which was incompatible with the existing system, to some lawyer, who had endeavoured to adapt it to the present state of the law. Indeed, he believed that he could point out in the Bill many places where the scheme of the hon. Member stopped, and where the adapting provisions of the lawyer began. He was quite sure that a change might be introduced for considerably improving the system with respect to the registry of deeds; and he thought that something analogous to the plan suggested by the hon. Member for Surrey for the registry of facts evidencing titles, and for the transfer of real property, might be adopted. In the report about to be made by the Commission to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, no doubt a very valuable body of evidence would be given upon the whole subject, from which might be worked out a scheme well worthy of attention, but which it would be impossible shortly to explain to the House; but he doubted whether this would be assisted by the Bill under discussion. Now, in reference to the Bill itself, after passing over the first six clauses, which related to the establishment of a Registration Commission, the House would perceive that by the 7th Clause it was provided that all documents should be registered, and also all evidence relating to the title of land which the owner should think of importance for the purpose of establishing his title to the property; and then, further down, there was a direction that it should be lawful for the owner to register a description of his land. It was by this clause left doubtful whether the owner was to register merely the deeds relating to the land, or whether he might register letters, or any papers containing what the owner considered to be important as the evidence of title in the land. It was also clear from the language of the clause that when any registration was effected, it would not be necessary for the owner to prove the execution of the deed, the authenticity of the document, or the truth of the fact he sought to register. By the existing law, however, no deed could be registered without an affidavit that it had been duly executed; and this observation was the more important, because this Bill provided, by the 29th Clause, that the party who had registered the document and evidence of his title, after the lapse of thirty years should become the absolute owner of the lands to which the deeds and evidence referred. Now, by the interpretation clause, the owner of the land meant a tenant for life. Now, suppose a man to be possessed of an estate settled on himself for life, with remainder to his children, and if he died without children, to his brother in like manner; if that man were to register himself as owner in fee of the property, live thirty years, and, leaving the property to a stranger, die without issue, his brother and his brother's children would be deprived of their estate. That might, indeed, not be the intention of the framers of the Bill, but that really would be the effect of it. The Bill, in fact, took no notice whatever of the remainders, while all the protection that was given to the public that a man should not register himself as the absolute owner of another's property was, that the party registering should give six months' previous notice in the Gazette of his intention to do so. But how could that notice prevent a party registering himself as the owner of his neighbour's estate as if it were his own? True, the Bill provided that any party doing so should be guilty of felony; but what protection was that when it was taken in connexion with other parts of the Bill? For probably the person would be dead long before the time arrived for the infliction of the punishment, whatever that punishment might be, for it was not very clearly defined. But, further, the clause making it felony to put forward false claims would have no species of operation in the great majority of instances, because many persons really believed themselves to be the owners, when they had no earthly title to be considered anything of the kind. There was one society in particular, which he considered a very pernicious institution, he meant the Heir-at-Law Society, which was in the habit of fostering and encouraging people to fancy that if they could only once show that there was an entail attaching to lands 100 or 140 years ago, and that they were the heirs of the man so seised in tail, they had the absolute right to get possession of the property as against any present holder. It would be impossible to convict of felony a man having such a belief as that, who made a false entry on the registry. But it appeared to him that the Bill was still more absurd than that—if he might be allowed the use of the expression. The registry it proposes to establish is not to be an open registry, the hon. Member for Surrey having expressed his great objection to an open registry. Here he was directly at issue with the hon. Gentleman, on what he considered the leading principle of his Bill, because he held it to be vitally and essentially necessary that the registry should be an open one. If it were not open, this result would follow, that you receive a notice that some other man has registered a title to your estate; and you want of course to go to the office to search the registry, but this you are not allowed to do. By this Bill you must prove your title to the land as a preliminary condition before you are to be allowed to search, although no such obligation is imposed on any one for the purpose of registry. This was certainly a singular anomaly. You must prove your right, in order to search the registry; and unless this be done, it is the registrar who makes the search. Probably you may not be satisfied with his search, and think it very hard that a title should depend upon a possible mistake in search for a title admitted to be very often long and complicated in its intricate details. You are not at liberty to search yourself without an order of the court; and although it was not stated in the Bill how that order was to be obtained, he would assume that it was to be obtained in the cheapest and easiest manner—that was by summary application to one of the courts of law, or of equity. It was clear there must he a power to contest the order of the court, or it would be a mere idle form. You must give notice of your intention to apply for this order of the court; of course, the man whoso title to your estate is upon the registry, without the title having been proved for the purpose of registry, will contest your right to an order to search the registry before you have proved your title; and the consequence is, that a lawsuit must be litigated on both sides before you are at liberty to ascertain what it is that is upon the registry. Could there be any more monstrous provision than that? And the result would be, that you would bring the whole property of the country into endless litigation; and there would not be a single man who fancied himself the owner of another man's estate—and the number of those who laboured under such a delusion was legion—but would make entries in the registry, and afterwards compel you to go into a court of justice to disclose your title, and litigate your right to see the registry. Then, again, by this Bill there was no means of setting the registry right—there was no appeal from the decision of the registrar upon the subject; and no means (which he held to be essentially necessary) of immediately correcting an error in the registry. The man that registers might add as much as he pleased, and amend from time to time; but nobody could set the registry right without a lawsuit, and even with a lawsuit it was doubtful whether it could be set right. Now, be maintained that it was essentially necessary that they should be able to make the registry as perfect as possible, and that would be impossible if they were not allowed to correct it. Then, again, the Bill provided that copies of the register should be received as evidence. Now by this Bill the register itself was a copy, and very great evils arose from copies and copies of copies being admissible as evidence. Supposing any two copies to differ, which should have preference? There was no moans to provide against that difficulty afforded by this Bill. There was also great inconsistency between different parts of this Bill—one part said the register was to be final and conclusive as against all previously existing charges upon the estate, while another provided that the charges existing at the time of the registry should not be affected. This inconsistency was between the 17th and 23rd Clauses, the former of which allowed no effect to non-registered incumbrances; and this, no doubt, was part of the plan of the hon. Member, who wished to make the register final and conclusive in all cases; but here again the lawyer stept in, and, shocked at such a result as that a man should gain an advantage by his own fraud, and destroy the mortgages on his own estate by suppressing their existence, provided by the 23rd Clause that prior unregistered incumbrances should not be prejudiced by such omission; possibly this clause might control the former one, but this union in this Bill afforded a striking-instance of the working of the two minds in preparing this Bill to which he alluded at the outset. Such were a few of the defects of the scheme of the hon. Member, though they no doubt might be amended, if it were as a whole desirable to be adopted. One part of the scheme, although not worked out by the Bill, might, he thought, be useful, namely, the recording from time to time, as they occurred, events on which the title of the owner might thereafter depend. Undoubtedly one of the evils connected with title was, that a man was often called upon to prove matters of a long anterior date respecting which all evidence of the acts had often perished with the acts themselves, but as to which there was no doubt at the time. Registrations of births and marriages would, no doubt, do much to remove that difficulty; but it was essential to secure the truth of the statement entered on the register, whatever might be the intent of any one: if the registry were secret, errors accidental or intentional could not be corrected, and yet what injuries might not arise hereafter if the owner was allowed to register a pedigree of his family according to his own fancy—the provision against false representations being a mere brutum fulmen, which in most cases could never be used at all! The first great objection in principle to the hon. Member's plan was that it was secret. Another great evil of the proposal was, that registration was not compulsory, and that deeds not registered were not declared to be inoperative and void. If that were done, and if persons were compelled to register the whole deed—if that were done, great advantages would follow; every deed would soon be registered, and then every deed would be well known. The principal evil of the present system in registering counties, next to its being voluntary, was, that persons registered memorials of deeds, and not the deeds themselves, by which the real nature and effect of the deed were concealed. The enormous number and complication of the instruments that would be registered under any effective system, made it a matter of vital importance to have an index so certain and complete as to enable any one to turn in an instant to the existing state of the title in the registry. The Bill before them did nothing to provide for such an indispensable adjunct to a useful system of registration. The Bill of Mr. Duvall, brought in by Mr. W. Brougham in 1834, provided a very complete system of indexing registered deeds, which was in a great measure adopted from a system pursued for the manor of Isleworth, where there was a large number of copyholds, and which system might serve as a model in any future attempts of a similar character, He had considered the Bill, with the view of seeing whether it would form a useful measure that could be wisely adopted by the House; but he must assure the hon. Gentleman, that notwithstanding his, as He believed, most sincere desire to be able to make this an effective Bill, he (the Solicitor General) did not see how it was possible for him to approve of it in principle. It was vicious because it was secret and voluntary, and in its details it would require complete remodelling even if the principles of the hon. Member were adopted. A good system of registration would most undoubtedly be found very useful; but with regard to this Bill, if it were referred either to a Committee of the whole House, or to a Select Committee upstairs, he was satisfied the hon. Gentleman himself would find he would be obliged to give up clause after clause, and to substitute fresh clauses even if his principle of a secret and voluntary registry were sanctioned by the House, so that either none of the Bill would be left standing, or an entirely new Bill would have to be substituted in its stead. A Commission was now in existence, consisting of several very eminent individuals, who had no desire to be tied by existing forms; and he thought the House should wait to see their report before any measure should be adopted. He had had some information from one of the Members of the Commission, and although he believed it to be true that their report itself would not contain any very definite suggestions on the subject, still it would doubtless contain a great body of evidence that would be found extremely valuable to any person who would bonâ fide set to work to prepare a Bill not with objects similar to those now sought to be effected by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Surrey, but with a view of introducing an universal, open, and compulsory system of registration; and, therefore, he would venture to suggest to the hon. Gentleman that his course ought to be to withdraw this Bill; for he must confess, feeling the strong desire he did in favour of registration, that he did not like to meet the hon. Gentleman's Motion with an express negative, although he was decidedly opposed to that principle of legislation on which his Bill was founded. He would ask him whether it would not be better for him to withdraw his Bill for the present, to allow time to examine and consider further a subject which he (Mr. Drummond) would allow him to say was one involved in very considerable difficulty to persons totally unbiassed by any desire to retain their old legal habits, but sincerely desirous to effect the general object proposed by this Bill, unfettered by any technicalities and trammels derived from their previous studies and legal knowledge; and if the hon. Gentleman consented to withdraw his measure, he would afterwards have the opportunity of seeing whether, with the report of the Commissioners before the House, another Bill might not hereafter be introduced that would effectually carry out his own views upon the subject.

had listened with great anxiety to the speech of his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, for the purpose of seeing whether or not there were any hope of some measures being at last taken to carry into full and complete effect so desirable an object as that which was sought to be accomplished by the present Bill. He feared, however, from the mode in which the Solicitor General had terminated his address to the House, that they were still at as indefinite a distance from that desirable object as they were in the year 1832. In that year, after a laborious investigation, a Committee, composed of the most eminent men in the profession, who were perfectly acquainted with the whole theory and practice of conveyancing, came to a unanimous report that a Bill for general registration was imperatively demanded. That was not a new idea—it was an idea entertained by every eminent lawyer, from the time of Sir Matthew Hale down to the period when the hon. Gentleman the Member for Surrey brought forward the question on the part of the country gentlemen, who really were the parties most interested in the matter. Whatever might be the views of lawyers on this subject, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Surrey did not, he conceived, do them justice; for they were the only persons who had agitated the question until the hon. Gentleman took it up; and their greatest opponents had been the country gentlemen, who, he (Mr. Wood) believed, after all, were the parties mainly interested in the matter. He could not help referring to the words of Sir Matthew Hale, who, in the time of Charles II., saw the necessity of some measure of this kind, and who took that large and comprehensive view of the manner in which land should be dealt with, which seemed now to be entertained throughout the country, but which at that time was confined to men of his enlightened character. Sir Matthew Hale, in his Treatise on Conveyancing, refers to the mode of enrolling deeds, and points out the mischiefs that might be committed by secret judgments, mortgages, and settlements, whereby purchasers would be deceived, and creditors defeated; and that mischief, he said, was the more considerable in England, because "the great inland trade they had was the trade of buying and selling of land, and great security ought to be given to the lenders of money." Taking an enlightened view of the matter, Sir Matthew Hale thought that the dealings in land ought to be as free and uncontrolled as the dealings in any other commodity, and referred to the difficulties arising from suits in law created by secret mortgages and incumbrances. The subject was followed up by Chief Baron Gilbert, Judge Blackstone, and other learned persons, up to the year 1832, when they had a commission, not only recommending a system of registration, but pointing out a defined plan. The execution of that plan was obstructed, not by efforts made on the part of lawyers, but by efforts made on the part of those who thought it would injuriously affect the country gentlemen. He believed there had been a change of opinion on the subject since that time; but he must at the same time call attention to the fact, that when the noble Lord the Member for Plymouth (Viscount Ebrington) brought forward a measure in 1846 in reference to it, the House was counted out. He (Mr. Wood) had seen with pleasure the notice of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Surrey to bring forward this measure; but though his (Mr. Wood's) name was on the back of the Bill, he must say (without following the examples they had lately witnessed of the general repudiation of measures brought before the House) that the whole credit of the measure was due to the hon. Gentleman. He was, however, prepared to say, that many of the objections which had been urged against the measure by the Solicitor General must have arisen from the circumstance of his numerous avocations not having allowed him an opportunity of perusing the Bill, for some of the objections were inconsistent with its provisions. If his hon. and learned Friend had told them that the Government was prepared to bring forward a Bill to render perfect the system of registration, he would prefer the adoption of that course. But how did the case stand? Nothing bad been done since 1832, until two years ago, when a commission was appointed to investigate this same subject, which previously had been investigated in great detail by their predecessors; and yet those learned Gentlemen had taken two years, and had not yet made their report. Were it not for the notice that had been given by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Surrey, perhaps they never would have got a report, but at last a report was forthcoming. He was glad it was so, because, if this Bill were referred to a Select Committee of the House, it might enable them to put it into an effective shape. It was not his business to say that the Bill at present was effectual—it was enough for him to maintain the principle of the Bill, and show that the Bill was capable of being rendered effective, and was brought forward for a bonâ fide object. It would be seen that the objections of the Solicitor General merely applied to details in the clauses of the Bill, and did not apply to the principle of the Bill itself. That principle was of great importance, namely, that there should be some security for title, and a diminution of the enormous expense that was occasioned by the present system of conveyance. The subject was too large to admit of his then entering at length into the evils of the existing system; but he begged to call attention to certain facts contained in a book which he held in his hand, and which was written by the late Mr. Tyrrell, and the publication of which caused his being appointed one of the commissioners in 1832. That gentleman took a large and comprehensive view of the whole subject, and mentioned all the disadvantages that accrue from the want of a perfect system of registration. He mentioned no less than eight remarkable cases where enormous frauds had taken place. One was a case where a purchaser paid 20,000l. for an estate; but it was afterwards found that the fee was only held for three lives, and, the third life having expired, another claimant came in three years afterwards, and he was obliged to give up the property, and so lost the whole of his money. It was a well-known fact in the profession, that one of their leading conveyancers lost a large sum in consequence of an investment made by him on an insufficient title. Such a state of things should not any longer exist. Not a year passed in which every one of the four branches of the Court of Chancery (he did not speak of the Court of Appeal) had not to decide some question arising solely from the suppression of deeds. Then as to the expense, he could satisfy the House that by the establishment of a registry much expense would be saved, and that would of course greatly increase the value of land. How, he asked, was it that it happened that this was the only civilised country in the world that had not a registry? There was not a civilised country in Europe and America, that had not its registry. Ireland had its registry, and in every other civilised country there was a general register. It was well known that in those countries where they were established—for instance, in France and Belgium—land sold at 35 years' purchase, whereas in this country it sold only at 31 years' purchase, and in Holland it sold at 44 years' purchase. That was to be attributed solely to the fact of having a general registry; and was it right that this country should go on any longer trifling with the subject by succesive commissions and reports, while nothing was undertaken? That being the case, great credit, he thought, was due to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Surrey for undertaking the matter, and bringing forward this measure. He should now apply himself to the objections taken to the measure by his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General; which objections did not appear to him to touch the principle of the Bill, with the exception of the first. The Solicitor General said that two modes were proposed of dealing with this subject: first, by a modification of the existing system of law, and the creation of a new system, by which property might be transferred on the register; and the other was by an adherence to the old system of law, requiring that all deeds and documents should be registered. He would agree with the Solicitor General in saying that the title ought to be a simple title on the registry, and that a person appointed trustee of the lands should be like a trustee of stock, having the whole control and the solo power of transfer over the land. That was done with respect to stock, and frauds might be prevented by caveats being entered upon the register. But he was far from being enabled to say that either the profession or the country gentlemen were prepared for that measure. He thought it desirable that they should make the attempt to establish it; but at the same time they should give parties the option of saying whether they would register the land in that form, and give to trustees the full power of dealing with the property, and making conveyances of it by means of the register, or continue the present system of registration. In either case the public would have the benefit of the title being apparent on the registry. When they were making a change of this description, it was desirable to leave a choice to parties with respect to the mode they would adopt; and the way in which it would be acted upon might afford a reason hereafter to the Legislature for taking a more decisive course. When the Solicitor General said they were not told what they were to register, he must have overlooked the 18th Clause. He would therefore call the attention of the House to that clause, which set forth what was to be registered, and what was to be conclusive on parties claiming an interest in the property registered. The next objection was one which could only arise from his hon. and learned Friend not having an opportunity of reading over the Bill. He said any stranger might register himself as owner of an estate, and thereby ultimately establish a title against any person. He divided that objection into two branches. The first had reference to a tenant for life, who might, he said, raise a complete bar against all persons in remainder and revision. It was true that in a particular case the measure might operate in that manner; but he begged to call the attention of the House to the fact, that there were very serious embarrassments in the way of persons doing an act of that description, for there was the 22nd Clause, which directed that any person who shall register a title in land, not being the owner of it, shall be guilty of felony. In other words, it was declared that he would be guilty of the same offence as if he had registered a forged deed. His hon. and learned Friend had, however, gone further, and said that it was suggested to him by the Attorney General that A. might register B.'s estate—that a person might register a title to another person's estate. Why, the 29th Clause says that any person who shall be thirty years in possession of the rents and profits of the land (not, mind, an entire stranger), may then come and register his title. His hon. and learned Friend, he confessed, had pointed out a slight flaw with respect to a party being tenant for life under a settlement; but that was a matter of detail; and of course it was difficult, in framing a Bill of this description, to avoid all imperfections; but his hon. and learned Friend was not correct in saying that by this Bill a person not having an interest in lands might register a title thereto; but a person in possession thirty years might affect some person claiming under him. However, that would be extremely difficult; for all persons claiming would be on the registry, and no person purchasing could avoid seeing who were on it. He would not say, therefore, that the objection was hypercritical, but it went only to some portions of the Bill. His learned Friend then came to another point, that had more bearing on the question, namely, whether or not it should be an open registry. He believed the hon. Gentleman who brought the measure forward had no objection to its being an open registry, and the clause preventing it might be struck out. He was sure his hon. and learned Friend had, however, exaggerated the difficulties which persons would encounter who sought for an opportunity to look at the registry. If it were to be a close registry, the party applying had only to say that he claimed in a certain respect to look at the registry, and the registrar then would see if that person had any such claim; and if he had, he would open the registry to him. It was also objected by his hon. and learned Friend, that by this Bill there would be no authentication of the documents to be registered; and, there fore, that a forged deed might be registered. That objection was foreseen by Mr. Tyrrell, when he wrote on the subject; and he said, if it were necessary, they could require an authentication; but he considered that it was not necessary; that he never knew an instance of anybody, when a deed was presented to him to make out a title, asking if the proper signatures were attached. All persons looked for protection on that point to the laws relating to forgery; and thousands of pounds were paid for estates on deeds which were not authenticated. Why, then, did they want to have on the registry a more complete authentication than was required on looking to a title in a lawyer's chamber? Why should they, when there was a greater opportunity for exposing fraud, apprehend greater danger than was felt by a lawyer looking at deeds in his own chamber? That, he conceived, was not a valid objection; certainly it was not a valid objection to the principle of the Bill, nor even, in his opinion, to the details. His hon. and learned Friend had also objected that there were not sufficient indices provided by this Bill; and, he thought, so much the better. He was ready to believe the indices were most important; but the best modes of indexing would be presenting themselves in the course of practice. They had precedents to refer to: there was the register of Bavaria, which was the most perfect on the Continent; and there were other systems on the Continent; and there was the system suggested by the Commission of 1832; so that the greatest facilities were afforded to a registrar general to draw up a system of indices that might be submitted for the approbation of the Lord Chancellor or the Master of the Rolls. But let them take care, whatever Registry Bill was brought forward, that they did not hamper the measure by giving a stereotyped form of index that could not be altered. By so doing, they would raise an insuperable difficulty in effecting their system of registration. Notwithstanding all the objections that had been made, it did not seem to him that the House would be justified in postponing this Bill, without hearing something more definite on the part of the Government on the subject, or having some distinct understanding that the subject would be taken up by them. As it was a matter of such public importance, it would be better if it were brought forward by the Government rather than by a private individual; but if the Government did not bring forward the matter, and if they were still to wait for a remedy for some four, five, or six years longer, it was time for country Gentlemen to bestir themselves; it was time for all those to bestir themselves who were anxious to take off an impost upon land. At the present moment every Gentleman in the House must know what an amount was paid for expenses on the purchase of an estate. The charges were frequently as great for the purchase of a small estate as for the purchase of a large one—amounting to a percentage that was absolutely frightful; it being sometimes 5 or 6 per cent. The question was one which ought no longer to be dallied with; and he hoped that before long some measure would be introduced by the Government, if this should not receive the sanction of the House, for relieving the land from the enormous burden to which it was now subjected.

said, he entirely concurred in the view taken of the subject by the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken, and thought that the gratitude of the House and the country was due to the hon. Member for Surrey for bringing forward that measure. At a time when they were addressing themselves to the consideration of the burdens upon land, it was a fair subject to discuss the large charges to which it was subject in consequence of the difficulties and expense of conveyancing, and the legal technicalities and inconvenience attendant upon its transfer from one party to another. Now, when all were agreed about the existence of the evil, it was time that something should be done to remedy it. He hoped, therefore, they would hear some statement on the part of the Government to the effect that if the present Bill was not allowed to be referred to a Select Committee, they would bring in some other measure upon the subject to do away with an acknowledged evil. There was another point of view in which he would look at the question. The great, the rich, and the opulent were able to take care of themselves, and he trusted they would do so; but it was on the part of those of more limited means that some such measure would be most useful to. Many persons of the middle and industrious classes would wish to invest their savings in land, were it not for the obstacles which the present expensive system of transfer threw in their way. If greater facility were afforded that class, an increased stimulus would be given to the industry and prudence of the middle and humbler classes. There could be no greater injustice in the law of real property as it now existed, than was committed towards small proprietors under the present system. If a calculation were entered into of the number of years' purchase, it would be found that there was a decrease of no less than five years' purchase, in consequence of the expenses caused by complexity of title, and in conveyancing. Even if the present system were to be retained with respect to large properties, why not remodel it with respect to small ones, to which the injustice was the greater? He hoped, therefore, they would have an assurance from the Government, that if they would not allow the present Bill to go into Committee, they would be prepared at an early day to address themselves to that great evil, and afford that relief to the landed interest to which it was entitled, and if a Bill on that subject went through Parliament it would be regarded as a great benefit to the country.

said, that he quite concurred in the opinion expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford, that the House was very much indebted to his hon. Friend opposite for having brought this subject before the House in a definite shape. If the hon. Member's object had been to elicit from the House an expression of its opinion in favour of a general system of registration of deeds, and documents affecting land, with a view not only to the security of property, but to the increased facilities for the transfer of real property, and a diminution of the present enormous expense which now attended it, he thought that he ought to be well satisfied with the result of his exertions. There had not been the slightest opinion expressed in that House by any hon. Member hostile to the principle of a general registration of property. Every hon. Member who had addressed the House, whatever might have been his opinions with respect to the details of the measure, had expressed an opinion in favour of the establishment of a general system of registration. It was very satisfactory to compare the present feeling of the House with its opinion some years since on the subject of registration. There was a great change of opinion in the House with respect to that subject; and he believed that the country generally were becoming alive to the benefit which would attend the establishment of a general system of registration. If he were called upon to express an opinion on this Bill, wholly apart from its details, and as merely affirming the expediency of a general registration of deeds, he should have no hesitation whatever in voting for its second reading. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford had put the question merely upon that ground. He admitted, however, that the registration now proposed was a secret one; but he said that it might in Committee be made an open one—that the registration was voluntary, but might, in Committee, be made compulsory. He (Sir G. Grey) thought that that affected the principle of the Bill. It was rather more than a matter of detail to be amended in Committee, whether the registry should be a secret or an open one, and whether it should be voluntary or compulsory. He wished to repeat to the House a caution which he had expressed upon a former occasion against the practice of reading Bills a second time, in the object or titles of which they fully concurred, without any reference to the details of the measures, and then sending them up to a Select Committee, not with a view of amending them, but of having new Bills drawn up and sent back to the House, not at all resembling those which had been previously introduced, and the principle of which had been affirmed. He thought such a system a most inexpedient one. A desire had been expressed on the part of hon. Members, that Her Majesty's Government would give a pledge, that while they objected to much that the present Bill contained, and which his hon. and learned Friends the Attorney General and Solicitor General were of opinion would fail to effect the object the hon. Member had in view, they would take up the subject and bring in some measure themselves. He thought it rather unreasonable to call upon the Government to give an immediate pledge of that sort, when two years since they appointed a Commission to inquire into the whole system. That Commission was composed of Lord Langdale and several other very able persons; but no report had yet been made by them to the House. In a short time their report would be presented to the House; and until he had seen that report, he could not give any pledge with respect to the course which the Government might feel it their duty to take. He would only say, that the Government fully concurred in the principle of registration; and they would be prepared to give attentive consideration to the recommendation of that Commission. Until he had seen that report, it would be premature and rash, and tend only to mislead the House, if he were to pledge himself to introduce at any early day a measure on the part of the Government. He would, however, give this pledge, that as soon as the report of that Commission should be received, it would receive the attention of the Government; and they would be glad to give their assistance to any measure calculated to accomplish the object which the hon. Member for Surrey had in view, which would be free from the objections which had been so ably pointed out by his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General as attaching to this Bill.

said, he thought that there were many persons who might be favourably disposed to the general principle of registration, who would yet consider the details of such an onerous and complex a nature, that they would consider them to more than outweigh the advantages to be derived from the adoption of the general principle. It had been said by some hon. Members that a system of registration would tend to improve the value of property—and the hon. and learned Member for Oxford had said, that on the Continent, where a system of registration prevailed, land was sold for several years more purchase than it was it England. He had not, however, heard it said that land realised higher prices in Middlesex, where a system of registration prevailed, than in Surrey, where it did not exist. The present Bill proposed to arrange the transfer of property on the principle of registration. He did not think the adoption of such a measure either very advantageous or very feasible. The principle of the transfer of property was very different from that of registration. He did not wish to go against the feeling of the House, in opposing the second reading of this Bill; but he wished, in giving his support to it, to guard himself against being considered as pledged in any way to support the Bill in any of its future stages. He thought the matter was one which ought to be taken up by the Government, and not left to the hands of any private Member, however able or talented he might be. The extent of the machinery which would be required to carry out the principle, and the enormous inconvenience that would result from any false step being taken, formed quite sufficient grounds for inducing him to believe that the measure would be much better in the hands of the Government, and he should be very glad if the hon. Member for Surrey would consent to withdraw the Bill for the present.

was satisfied with the assurance given by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that the Government was well disposed to legislate upon this subject. He did not think it would be fair to bind them down at the present moment, in the absence of the report from the Commissioners, to introduce a measure on the subject. When that report was presented, the expectation throughout the country would be that Her Majesty's Government would act upon it. As he considered it would be objectionable to proceed with this measure while that report was pending, he hoped that the hon. Member for Surrey would withdraw the Bill, on the understanding that the Government would take up the question at the earliest moment possible.

could not agree to the principle of the proposed Bill. As one acquainted with the details of one of the largest conveyancing firms in the west of England, through whose hands thousands of properties had passed, he denied that the expense of transferring property would be lessened by its operation. On the contrary, he believed, if the Bill were carried into effect, transfers of property would be attended with a vast deal more of cost. Neither did he consider it would facilitate the sale of lands. When people were about purchasing, it was not so much about the title that an inquiry was made, as the condition of the property. Those were the considerations which governed the purchase of property, and the expense of conveyance did not influence the transaction. The instances of great expense attending the conveyance of property to which the hon. Member for Surrey had referred, must have occurred previously to the abolition of fines and recoveries. Since that abolition had taken place, that which used to cost 100l. in the doing could be done for 2l. If a system of registration were to be established, it should be a general one, to include all documents, and particularly marriage settlements, the deeds with respect to which frauds were chiefly committed.

thought that the lawyers were the last persons to whom they should refer a matter of this kind, as their interest would be to multiply difficulties. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Circenster stated that he had a most extensive business as a conveyancer in the west of England, and no doubt he had found it to be very profitable. There were, however, difficulties in carrying out a measure of this kind which the hon. Member did not seem to appreciate. It was rather a monstrous thing that a man who had never read the title-deeds of his estates should leave it to the lawyers to involve him in litigation. He could not help referring to the present very expensive mode of transferring property. This might be done without the investigation of the title-deeds. What right had a man who was not interested in the matter to investigate another man's title to his estate? He thought that by means of some Act of Parliament, they might adopt a plan by which every man who chose might ask the Government for a re-grant of his estate, with new and simple titles; and this could readily be done, provided, however, he had advertised a certain number of times in the newspapers, stating his intention, and if no one made an adverse claim to the property within a certain period. By such a mode they might have very simple titles, and few papers would be necessary, and this could be effected at little or no expense.

stated that all that he wanted was, some measure for the attainment of a practical object. He did not care about going into the lobby with a majority, but he should persist in his Motion, as he believed this was the best mode of proceeding. He wished to show landed gentlemen that there was no way to got out of the hands of the lawyers but by a registration of deeds. Unless this was made clear to the agricultural mind, they would do nothing.

strongly recommended the withdrawal of the Bill. He protested against the establishment of a system of secret registration, as sanctioned by this Bill. Such a system would give protection to every species of fraudulent conveyance of property. The system of registration in Scotland had been quoted in support of this Bill, but he begged to remind the House that that system was an open one. If the hon. Member for Surrey persisted in pressing for the second reading, he should feel it to be his duty to move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be road a second time that day six months.

seconded the Amendment.

, in reply: I think that to bring forward any subject merely for the sake of obtaining an expression of opinion is complete waste of time; to obtain an opinion is very well as a means to an end, and I will certainly not withdraw the Bill without a pledge on the part of the right hon. Baronet, that he will take up the measure. As to placing reliance on the exertions of lawyers in that direction, I cannot do better than adopt the sentiments and language of my right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department, in his speech a few nights ago, which are as follows:—

"He had alluded to the Act passed last Session for facilitating the transfer of land; and he must say that it was only by slow experience that a conviction was forced upon Gentlemen accustomed to the forms of law and equity, of the necessity of dispensing with some of those forms which in their notions, derived from education and long-cherished habits, were essential for the protection of the rights of property. No doubt those Gentlemen thought it necessary to lay down these rules for the protection of property, and they would be slow in receiving the conviction that they were unnecessary; it was no less true that the Court of Chancery was not a court likely to assist in the removal of the obstacles which prevented the transfer of property. At the same time, it was no doubt very desirable to accelerate the process of transfer."

admitted the fairness of the retort made by his hon. Friend; but be hardly expected that what he had said with reference to the Irish Encumbered Estates Act would be quoted in favour of the abolition of protection to the rights of unborn children; for that it was alleged would be the effect of his hon. Friend's plan. He confessed that he had never thought that a speech of his upon such a subject would have been quoted in defence of such a measure as the present, for his observations had not the slightest reference to such matters. He was desirous that every facility should be afforded—with every regard to the rights of property—to diminish the expense of the transfer of property, by shortening the length of conveyances—by giving short titles, in room of the present system. He could not, however, agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, that if a man wanted to purchase an estate, there was no reason why he should look into the title-deeds.

stated that he should vote for the Amendment, and he did not do so from any dislike to the system of registration, but because he disapproved of the particular plan proposed by the hon. Member for Surrey. On the contrary, he knew that in Scotland it had given great security to the titles of estates. They had had experience of it for upwards of two hundred years, and it had not been found to give rise to litigation, but directly the contrary, as it ensured the greatest confidence in titles. The registration in Scotland was in the first place compulsory; and, in the second place, titles were not acknowledged unless founded on their registration. This registration was not close or secret, but was kept with the avowed object of publicity.

remarked, that it struck him that it was essential that something should be done with respect to a registration of deeds, but he felt that great difficulties were attached to many clauses of this Bill. The present system pressed most heavily on the landed proprietors of this country. The Bill of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Surrey did not go the length which was requisite; but he should vote for it with the view of showing that he thought some form of general registration was absolutely necessary, so that they might get rid of that constant system of fighting and attacking every title-deed.

should also vote for the second reading of this Bill, because he believed it to be the only plan by which they could give effective security to title-deeds. He believed that a measure like the present was of great importance to the poor man who wished to become the proprietor of a small piece of land. He was sorry the Attorney General had not promised to introduce a measure of this kind, as he should have preferred leaving the matter in the hands of the Government; but as they had no intention of the kind, he should vote for this Bill.

was willing to take the whole responsibility of the matter. The Poor Law Commissioners had nothing to do with it; they acted on an opinion given by his hon. Colleague (the Solicitor General) and himself on the construction of this statute; and he was prepared to abide by that opinion. The question was, whether the proviso was retrospective or not. He and his hon. Colleague gave the question the best consideration they could; and they came to an opinion upon the Act, which they gave to the Poor Law Commissioners. They were not singular in that construction; many hon. and learned Members in that House, and many lawyers out of it, gave the same opinion, that the proviso was not retrospective. He apprehended that no blame could attach to him because the Court of Queen's Bench had overthrown an opinion which he had given upon the construction of an Act of Parliament; nor could the Poor Law Commissioners be blamed. They had no power to send a case before the Queen's Bench, though he, in his capacity of Attorney General, mooted this matter in the Queen's Bench on their behalf; but the court held that they had no right to decide sooner for one party than another. In this case, then, there was no ground of complaint at all. He had no objection to the production of the papers.

said, it was a great grievance that the parishes should have been made to pay contrary to the law. He considered that the Attorney General was not quite so free from blame as he imagined. He trusted the papers would be produced.

considered that neither the law officers of the Crown nor the Poor Law Commissioners were to blame in the matter. Certain parishes had applied to the Poor Law Commissioners for advice as to the construction of an Act of Parliament, which led to their laying the Act and case before the Attorney and Solicitor General for their opinion. In their private capacity the Poor Law Commissioners had forwarded that opinion to the various parishes throughout the country, for their guidance in arriving at a proper construction of a difficult Act of Parliament; but it was quite optional for those parishes to adopt the advice or not. He trusted that the House would not agree to any Motion which would have for its object the reopening of the accounts which had already been audited and closed. The Poor Law Commissioners had done all in their power in explaining the construction of a very difficult Act of Parliament.

agreed with the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, that it was desirable it should be understood that there was no intention whatever to re-open accounts between parishes which had been finally settled and audited, and that Parliament would not consent to any Bill for that purpose. What had taken place with respect to payments made by one parish to another, in consequence of the opinion given by the Attorney and Solicitor General, made it difficult to tell what parishes had gained or lost by it. Parishes had usually gained by it upon one set of paupers, and lost by another. Nothing, in his opinion, could be more fair or more entirely within the proper discharge of his duties, than the conduct of the late Mr. C. Buller, in seeking and adopting the opinion of the law officers of the Crown.

considered that a degree of blame attached either to the Poor Law Commissioners or to the Government, because they resisted his suggestion that a declaratroy Act should be passed, which proposition, if it had been adopted, would have had the effect of saving a very large amount of expenditure. But the Government having resisted that Motion, therefore they were to blame.

reminded the hon. Member for Dorsetshire that when he made the Motion, the question was being considered by a Committee which was then sitting. That Committee reported that there was no necessity for a declaratory Act.

was glad that the papers would be laid before the House, because the matter could not rest here. He considered it his duty to follow up this subject, because he considered the House would not sanction so great an act of injustice as that which had arisen from its bad legislation.

rose to move for a return of which he had given notice. The hon. Gentleman said, he conceived that return was of some importance, because the question it involved affected the honour and character of England as a nation. It was a remarkable fact, that in this country, where matters of foreign as well as of domestic policy were so freely canvassed, the representatives of the people in Parliament bestowed but very little attention on our relations with foreign States. There was always some reason ready to be given by the Members on the Treasury bench for not discussing in that House subjects of foreign policy at the moment when they were freely discussed by the public out of doors. It almost always happened that the intercourse which we were carrying on with foreign States was either not sufficiently matured, or else it was altogether too late to enter into any investigation of the subject. Now, if our relations with other countries were in a satisfactory state, it would, perhaps, be only reasonable on the part of the House to refuse to enter into unnecessary discussions; but when they saw that those relations were by no means of the most favourable nature, he thought they ought to direct a larger share of their attention to the subject. It was true that we were not at war with any foreign States; but our relations with other Governments in many parts of the world were by no means of that amicable character which it was our interest, and which it should be our wish, to preserve. He was as anxious as the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department could be for the continuance of friendly relations between England and foreign nations; and he believed that he was promoting that object to the best of his power when he denounced any acts which could irritate other Governments. He would touch for one moment on circumstances to which he had last year called the attention of the House—he meant our relations with the Court of Spain. At an early period of last Session they bad reason to apprehend that our relations with that Court were not altogether of so amicable a character as they could desire. Questions had been put from time to time to the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office on the subject; and very short answers to those questions had been given by the noble Lord. At last a striking and signal fact had occurred—namely, the arrival of our Ambassador, who had been sent away from the Court of Spain in disgrace. The particulars of that transaction had never yet been stated to the House. He had brought forward a Motion on the subject in the month of June, but he had then been told by many high authorities that the Motion was premature. As he had not, therefore, met with that degree of encouragement without which he never wished to load the House into a vote, he had not pressed his Motion to a division; and, indeed, the noble Lord at the head of the Government had not given him an opportunity of taking a direct vote on the question, but had merely allowed him to bring on the subject in an incidental manner. Rumours at present prevailed everywhere, except in that House, to the effect that new arrangements were about to be entered into with respect to our relations with the Court of Spain. But in that House the subject was never mentioned; and he was at a loss to know when the proper time for its discussion could arrive. It was with the recollection of what passed with regard to Spain that he now submitted his Motion to the House with regard to another friendly nation, for the purpose of bringing forward to the notice of the House a very singular transaction, which must not only, in a great degree, compromise the character of this nation as regarded her relations with the King of the Two Sicilies, but which must compromise her relations with every civilised Power on the face of the earth which recognised the obligations of solemn treaties. As he had already observed, they in the House of Commons were more ignorant of foreign matters than any other society in Great Britain. But it appeared that disturbances having arisen in a portion of the kingdom of the Two Sicilies in the autumn of 1847, the King having heard that an English nobleman of high rank was at that time staying in the dominions of his Holiness the Pope, most unfortunately for himself invited that nobleman, who at that moment had been instrumental—perhaps, I indirectly so—in stirring Rome into rebellion against the Sovereign Pontiff, to visit his dominions. He accordingly came, and the result which he had introduced into I Rome he seemed to have introduced—doubtless, without any intentional agency on his part—also into the more southern dominions, which he next visited, and which, from a state of disquietude, broke out into one of entire and flagrant rebellion. The efforts of the Earl of Minto were, no doubt, most honestly and honourably exerted to quench the flame which he had helped to raise, but they were wholly ineffectual to that purpose. He remained there, it appeared, as arbitrator till the April following; and then, having made every place he visited too hot to hold him, he went away. He was perfectly aware of his good disposition; but he was also aware that, under the circumstances which then influenced Italy, any supposed mediation on the part of an English nobleman was almost certain to produce the effects which unhappily resulted, of giving confidence to the insurgents, and the contrary feelings to those who were otherwise disposed. What the relations of this country had been with the King of the Two Sicilies, or with these insurgents, from the moment when the Earl of Minto's diplomatic mission ceased, they had no information whatever. None had been furnished by the Government, and the contradictory accounts to be gleaned from the public papers could not, of course, he wholly relied on. It did appear, however, that there was a period during which the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary recognised these Sicilian insurgents as a separate and independent State and Government; but he was not aware that any one besides the noble Lord had ever made such a recognition. He presumed that the Houses of Parliament had a right to be informed if any such revolution took place as tended to place any Power with whom this country maintained friendly relations in a new position as regarded any portion of its dominions; and when, in point of fact, Sicily did become separate and independent, it was not only right put necessary that the Houses of Parliament should be informed of so great and important a change; more especially when it so happened that those dominions belonged to an ally who was included in the Treaty of Vienna, and whose title we then ratified and acknowledged. That a presumption might have been raised to that effect at the beginning of the Session, he was ready to acknowledge, when, to the surprise of many in that House, it was found that an ancient ally of the Crown of Great Britain, who had been formally recognised as the King of the Two Sicilies, was mentioned by Her Majesty in the Speech from the Throne as the King of Naples. He was willing to admit that a presumption then arose that some change had taken place in the arrangement of those dominions. But surely if such had been the fact—if no earlier intimation could have been given, still the Commons of England had a right to expect that they would have been informed in the Speech from the Throne that a change had taken place with regard to one of Her Majesty's faithful allies, and have had the particulars laid before them. They were, however, left to form their own presumptions on the subject from this singular incident in the Royal Speech. But the suspicion received confirmation in no inconsiderable degree when rumours began to float about that arms had actually been permitted to be sent, by the authority of the Government, for the supply of these Sicilian insurgents, early in last autumn. He would admit to the noble Lord that when he put his question to him on this subject, although he had reason to believe the fact of arms having been sent to be true, he had no notion whatever that the noble Lord was cognisant of the transaction. He could not believe it, and he took the precaution of writing to the noble Lord to acquaint him of the question which it was his intention to put to him, in order that he might have an opportunity of making inquiries, and satisfying himself as to the truth of facts of which he then believed him to be perfectly ignorant. He could not believe that it was with the sanction of a Cabinet Minister, holding the high position of the noble Lord, that such transactions had taken place. What was his surprise, therefore, when he heard the noble Lord not merely acknowledging the fact to be perfectly true, but that he himself had authorised the transaction, and, at that moment, saw nothing objectionable in it! It followed, therefore, that the noble Lord did consider Sicily in the light of an independent dominion; for under no other circumstances could he have viewed such conduct as just or honourable. He would conclude the facts to be these, that this contractor, who was employed by the Sicilian insurgents, did apply to the officers of our Ordnance for the return of a certain portion of the arms which had actually been delivered and were in our stores at Woolwich, because he could not supply the contract which he had engaged to fulfil in time to enable these insurgents to prosecute the rebellion with sufficient activity. He believed that the officers of the Ordnance, exercising due caution, declined to comply with the request of the contractor, and the matter was then referred to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He did not know what degree of control the noble Lord possessed over the Ordnance Department, but of this he was satisfied, that the Ordnance Office would not have acted in this matter without his authority, and that he gave it, and did not deny that he had so acted; and seemed to think that what he had done had been done rightly. He could not conceive under what circumstance it could be right to give the high sanction of the authority which the noble Lord held in this country to the arming of insurgents against their lawful King, supposing there had been no distinct recognition, on the part of their King, of the independence of the revolted province. Such were the facts. There was much more connected with the Sicilian question on which he perhaps might occupy the attention of the House at some future time, although it was extremely difficult to find a time for bringing on anything connected with foreign affairs. The noble Lord, ingenious everywhere, showed his ingenuity in this with considerable effect. The time was never proper for these discussions, and, in the noble Lord's opinion, probably never would be proper. It was, no doubt, painful, however, to find statements solemnly made in that House, as solemnly contradicted in another great assembly—contradicted in the face of our own Ambassador, sitting there as the representative of this country, who was told that what had been said in the House of Commons, and which had been inserted in the Speech delivered from the Throne, was not founded in fact. That the noble Lord had received information of everything he had stated, no man alive could ever doubt; but they might doubt whether, when such events were taking place, and when countries were torn, as Italy unhappily was, by contending factions, foreign Powers bad not a right to ask that information should not be promulgated in our Houses of Parliament—even though resting on apparently good authority—until the real truth had been ascertained. He understood that no objection would be offered to the substance of his Motion, but he adhered to the terms of it, inasmuch as they gave the truth and the whole truth, and he thought it desirable the whole should be stated.

Sir, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has stated, I shall have no objection to produce the accounts for which he has moved, provided he will omit, or, if he does not consent, I shall call upon the House to sanction the omission, of the last words of the Motion he has proposed. I object to the latter words, because those words imply an opinion as to the merits of the question pending between the Sicilians and the King of Naples, which I think this House is not at present in possession of sufficient information to decide upon, and which, at all events, ought not to be decided summarily by a vote of the House of Commons. I therefore shall have no objection to the Motion, for an account of all arms returned for the purpose of being sent to the Sicilians, omitting the words "insurgents in arms against Her Majesty's ally the King of the Two Sicilies." Now, Sir, the hon. and learned Member complains that there is never a fit and proper time found for discussing foreign affairs in this House. He says that while matters are pending Members of this House are called upon by Her Majesty's Ministers to abstain from discussing affairs that are under negotiation, and that when affairs are settled they are told that the time has gone by. Now, taking that representation as correct, I must at all events compliment the hon. and learned Gentleman upon having found a time, to him at least, peculiarly convenient and proper for discussing foreign affairs, the time, namely, when he is totally ignorant of the matter into the discussion of which be seeks to lead the House. I can quite understand that the most convenient time for the hon. and learned Gentleman to originate debates of this nature is when his own knowledge and that of the House is most crude—when he is least qualified for the discussion, and most misinformed. It is to be expected that he should invite us to this discussion at a time when the House is not able to detect his fallacies, expose his inconsistencies, or perceive his total want of information. I can, therefore, compliment the hon. and learned Gentleman upon having solved that difficulty under which he professed to be labouring, and having found that time which to him is most convenient and proper for the discussion of foreign affairs. But I wholly deny the second assertion which the hon. and learned Gentleman has made. It is perfectly true that when discussions are proposed with respect to matters connected with intricate foreign negotiations—when those discussions are started at a moment when it would be inconsistent with the duty of the Government of the day to produce the papers which would give to the House information as to the existing state of those negotiations—it is then incumbent upon Ministers, under the circumstances, to decline entering on a discussion of pending transactions; but I utterly deny, for myself, that I have over made any objection to discussions founded upon papers produced after the transactions are over. No doubt those who, like the hon. and learned Member, have wanted to find fault with the conduct of Government, have not found it convenient to enter on that discussion when the grounds upon which Government have acted and the details of their conduct have been exhibited. It is not we who would have said that was not the proper time, it is they who have wanted to attack us who have found that that was not a proper time when the House was in possession of the information requisite for forming a judgment. Without, however, dwelling upon those topics, I shall rather come to the fundamental difference of opinion which I have with the hon. and learned Gentleman on some of the principles adverted to by him in the course of his speech. I understood him to say, that all who take up arms in vindication of their rights are to be regarded in the light of insurgents; and he seems to belong to that ancient school of political doctrine which vindicates

"The right divine of kings to govern wrong."

He thinks that nations are made for sovereigns and for governments, instead of being of opinion that sovereigns and governments are appointed for the benefit and advantage of nations. It is upon that ground that the hon. Member wishes, by the terms of his Motion, to stigmatise the Sicilians as insurgents and rebellious subjects. I will not now go into that Sicilian question, which is one that would lead me, or any one who might engage in its discussion, much farther than would be expedient at present; but this I will say, that the Sicilians have had a constitution for centuries—that their rights are ancient and indisputable—that those rights were confirmed by the direct and positive sanction of their sovereign in the year 1812, when their ancient constitution was remodelled and reformed, and not, as many persons suppose, when they for the first time received a constitution at his hands. At that time that constitution was sanctioned, article by article, by the word and promise of the Sovereign of the day; and therefore, I say, that if the Sicilians, in recent times, have risen in arms to assert their ancient rights, and to require the execution of the constitution which never was abrogated, but only by an abuse of authority suspended, I will not concur with the hon. and learned Member in stigmatising the Sicilians in the manner which he proposes by his Motion. The hon. and learned Member says, that at present our relations with foreign countries are not in the situation in which he would wish to see them; and he denied, the other day, the imputation which I was led to cast upon him, that the condition in which he would wish to see those relations was one that would be far from that of amicable and friendly. I must say that I think some of the views which he takes of the course we ought to pursue would lead us to that condition which he denies he is desirous of seeing us placed in; but I deny the assertion of the hon. and learned Member, that our relations with foreign countries in general are not in a satisfactory state. I say, in contradiction to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that this country does stand well with the great majority of foreign Powers—that the character of this country stands high—and that the moral influence of England is great—a moral influence which I do not take credit to this Government for having created, but which is founded upon the good sense, and the wise and enlightened conduct, of the British nation. Sir, foreign countries have seen that in the midst of the events which have violently convulsed other countries of Europe, and which have shaken to their foundations ancient institutions, this country has held fast to her ancient landmarks, standing firm in her pride of place—

"Fell not, but stands unshaken, from within, Or from without, gainst all temptations armed."

That has given confidence to foreign countries in the Government and people of this country. When other ancient monarchies were shaken to their very foundations, England stood unhurt, by its evident security giving confidence to other Powers. They have seen that the Government of England is not, like that of other countries, struggling for its existence, and occupied in guarding against daily dangers. They have seen that the British Government acts in unison with the spirit of the nation with whoso interests it is charged. They know that its advice is worthy of being listened to; and that advice, I can tell the hon. and learned Gentleman, is valued and respected, not spurned with contumely, as he would wish us to suppose. The hon. and learned Member adverted to the long interruption of our intercourse with Spain. The papers upon that question were laid upon the table last year, and it was competent for the hon. and learned Member at the time to have made any Motion he chose upon the subject. If he did not do so, let him not cast any blame upon us. Rather let us allege that it was because he found there was no ground upon which an advantageous attack upon the Government could be made. Inclination certainly is not wanting on his part; and whenever that forbearance for which he takes credit is shown, I will claim it as the result of his inability to find any tangible ground of attack. The hon. and learned Member has a wonderfully short memory. He asked me, but two days ago, when it was that the Earl of Minto's credentials were signed, and when they ceased to have effect. I think it was only the day before yesterday I told him that the noble Earl's credentials were dated the 27th of December, that he arrived at Naples on the 6th of February, and that he presented his credentials on the 7th of February. In the face of this statement, the hon. and learned Member asserts this day, that the Earl of Minto's arrival at Naples, in December, was the cause of the outbreak in Messina, which took place in the month before the noble Lord had arrived. I reject, then, with disdain, on the part of my noble Friend, the charges which the hon. and learned Member has condescended to bring against him, of having been employed in Italy in exciting the people of Sicily to rebel against their Sovereign. [Mr. BANKES: I said just the contrary. I said that it was not the noble Lord's intention to do so, but that such had been the effect of his conduct.] Very good. The hon. and learned Member is so accustomed not to produce the effects which he intends, that he has ascribed that misfortune to other persons as well as himself. Now, Sir, I deny the effect, as well as the intention. It is not true that my noble Friend's presence was attended with effects so different from what the hon. and learned Gentleman deems them to have been, but quite the contrary. The Earl of Minto, wherever he went, was useful in bringing together adverse parties; and, as far as it was consistent with his duty, he gave advice, when solicited by opposite parties in the States he was accredited to. His progress was a progress of peace and conciliation, instead of being, as the hon. and learned Member chooses to suppose, a progress giving rise to civil commotion in those States. I suppose the hon. and learned Gentleman means to say that the visit of my noble Friend to Rome, in the beginning of last year, was the cause of the events which took place at Rome in the beginning of this year, or at the end of the last year. These are certainly causes and events which the hon. and learned Member may be able to put together, but which, I am tolerably sure, the rest of the world will see are totally disconnected. Now, Sir, I again say, as I have stated upon former occasions, that the Earl of Minto's interference in the affairs ponding between the King of Naples, or between the King of the Two Sicilies, if the hon. and learned Gentleman insists upon the formal and diplomatic title, and his Sicilian subjects, was at the request of the King himself. That it did not succeed, was the fault of the Neapolitan Government. But, Sir, on this question, the hon. and learned Member again misreads treaties. He says, as I understand him, that the Treaty of Vienna contains some guarantee of the rights of the King of Naples.[Mr. BANKES: It guarantees the King the title of the King of the Two Sicilies.] It contains no guarantee at all. The 104th Article of the Treaty of Vienna says, that the King of the Two Sicilies—I forget what title it gives him, whether it is the King of Naples, or the King of the Two Sicilies—is to enter into possession of his Neapolitan territories, and that the Powers acknowledge him by the title of King of the Two Sicilies. But can the hon. and learned Gentleman say, or will he contend, that that recognition of title alters the constitution of Sicily? Suppose any foreign Powers acknowledged the title of the King of England at the time when he assumed the title of King of France. Suppose they acknowledged or recognised the King of England under the title of the King of England and of France, would anybody have said that that recognition gave to the King of England a right to the territory of France, or a right to overturn the constitution? With regard to these general points, therefore, I think the hon. and learned Gentleman would have done right to the House, though perhaps worse to himself, if he had postponed entering into detail until the papers have been laid upon the table, and until the House is in possession of the history of these Neapolitan and Sicilian negotiations. But I will tell him this—and he will find it when the papers are laid upon the table—we wish, and the desire of Her Majesty's Government from the beginning to the end has been, to continue the connexion between Sicily and Naples—to continue the two crowns upon one and the same head; and that however the views of that possibility may have varied from time to time, according to varying changes and circumstances, it has been the constant desire of Her Majesty's Government, upon European considerations, as well as with reference to the interests of Sicily and the King of Naples, to preserve the union between the crowns of Sicily and Naples. With regard to the papers, I shall have no sort of objection to produce them. The transaction was exactly that which I stated on a former evening. The contractor applied to the Ordnance, stating he had an order from the Sicilian Government, and that with the view of completing the order more speedily than he otherwise could, he wished to have returned to him some iron guns he had supplied, which he would replace afterwards by guns of the same kind. The Ordnance, and not the contractor, referred to me to know if there was any objection to complying with this request. My answer was, there was none; and the guns, accordingly, were given to him. Upon further consideration, however, it was thought that the circumstances might be misconstrued, and that the Neapolitan Government might take a different view of the transaction; and Her Majesty's Minister at Naples was told, if any complaint was made, to explain that it happened to be done inadvertently, and without any hostile intentions whatever towards Naples. We were willing to give that explanation. But when the hon. and learned Member says we went against the invariable practice, and against the law of nations, to supply arms to one of the belligerent parties, I beg leave to inform him there is at least one nation which does not act upon the principle he has laid down. The Government of France are in the habit of constantly selling, indiscriminately, to any party who wishes to purchase them, arms out of the public stores. There is, therefore, one country at least which does not hold the hon. and learned Member's doctrine. In conclusion, I repeat that I have no objection to the Motion, if the hon. and learned Member will consent to leave out all those words which involve the political opinions of the hon. and learned Gentleman upon the merits of the case, as between the King of Naples and his Sicilian subjects.

said, the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had entered into an unusually discursive course on the present occasion, and had been tempted, very much contrary to his wont, into a general discussion of the politics of Europe. He had spoken of the commanding position occupied by this country in the eyes of Europe, and of the general assurances of good-will which she received from foreign Powers. He had also entered, without waiting for the papers of which he had spoken, very much into the merits of the Sicilian question, and had more than indicated his belief that the Sicilians had very good grounds for their quarrel. He would, however, rather follow the noble Lord's precept than his example, and defer any discussion of the general question till they had before them the long-deferred papers. He would only mention one point which the noble Lord had omitted on this occasion, although he had referred to it on the Motion of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, on Italian affairs. The noble Lord had remarked more than once that the Earl of Minto had interfered in the affairs of Naples and Sicily at the request of the King of Naples; but on the former occasion to which he had alluded he had understood the noble Lord to say, that the Earl of Minto was on the point of arranging all points of difference, on satisfactory and amicable terms, between the King of Naples and his Sicilian subjects, and thought he would have accomplished that object had not the Sicilians, in consequence of the stimulus and excitement imparted by the events of February, broken from all the stipulations which had been made by the Earl of Minto, and nearly agreed upon. This he thought an important point, as showing that it was the Sicilians who rejected the terms proposed by the Earl of Minto. The question more immediately before them lay in a very narrow compass, and did not necessarily include any reference to the merits of the quarrel between the King and his Sicilian subjects. It was simply this, were we neutral in the struggle going on between Naples and Sicily—was the position of England that of a neutral Power—and, if so, was this transaction inconsistent with the position and character of a neutral Power? That was the plain question which was raised by the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dorsetshire. It appeared that a contractor applied to the Ordnance for some of the Queen's stores, for the purpose of sending them to Sicily; that the Ordnance applied to the noble Lord, and that they received the sanction of the noble Lord for issuing those arms out of those stores. It did appear to him (Sir J. Walsh) that this veil of the contractor was so transparent and thin a pretext that it utterly failed. It was impossible to argue with the perfect knowledge of the facts which the Government seemed to have had, the contractor not concealing the purpose for which he applied for those arms, but that it was just as much the act of the noble Lord and the Government, as if they had directly sent those arms on the application of the Sicilian Government. If there was a difference, there was something unworthy the character of a great nation in effecting their object by so indirect a means. That was not the whole of this transaction. The noble Lord had very acutely dwelt at considerable length on those general topics, but had scarcely adverted to the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend. He disposed of it in his light easy flowing strain, in some five or six sentences, and then he sat down; but the whole of this transaction was not even now fully before the House of Commons. It appeared that there was a reconsideration of the question. The act of the noble Lord had come more formally before the consideration of the Government, and it appeared that the act of the noble Lord was not approved of by the majority of his Colleagues. His hon. and learned Friend had remarked that the House of Commons was almost the only society in which topics relating to foreign affairs were almost tabooed—a subject on which the House was scarcely allowed to enter; but there was another society in which there was a similar exclusion, and that was the Cabinet. It appeared the noble Lord monopolised the whole management of those things without any communication with his Colleagues, and that afterwards when those subjects were brought on more formally, the Government felt it necessary to disavow them; and then instructions were given by the Government to its Ambassador at Naples, that if any explanation was demanded it should be said to the Neapolitan Government, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, that such a step was inadvertently taken and without due regard to the consequences, and taken hastily and without fully weighing the construction that might be placed upon it. That was a position in which he deeply regretted to see this country placed. Those apologies and those retractations for that equivocal and clandestine act, struck at the honour, the character, and reputation of this great country. He did say, when the noble Lord dilated in his easy flowing manner on the moral force which England possessed, and on the weight which was naturally attached to her great character in all her diplomatic relations, transactions and proceedings of this kind, underhand in the first place, and disavowed and apologised for in the second, were calculated to weaken and destroy that moral force. That was the real ground, and the very narrow ground on which the question stood. Neither his hon. and learned Friend or himself intended on the present occasion to raise the general question of the politics of Sicily, or to go over the field of Neapolitan and Sicilian affairs. His hon. and learned Friend made this distinctive Motion in order to invite the attention of the House to the matter which he had brought before it.

said, if he had known this question would have been brought under discussion, he would have brought facts and statements to bear upon it which would have given it a very different complexion. He would say, if the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs could have been justified in any interference whatever with the affairs of other countries, it would have been in the affairs of Sicily. He did not think there had been anything like that interference with which the noble Lord was charged. He (Mr. Macgregor) knew that country well, and had travelled over many countries called despotic, but in no country did he ever see so many military executions for presumptive crimes as in the island of Sicily. The Sicilians had acted with the greatest harmony, and there was the greatest domestic tranquillity. With respect to what was done either by the English or French admirals, he considered it was neither more nor less than two gentlemen walking across a field, who interfered to prevent a great many people from ill-using a woman and her children. That was what was done at Messina. There never was a greater act of humanity than that performed by Sir William Parker with regard to the people of Messina. He had no hesitation in saying the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had done more to preserve the peace of Europe since the beginning of 1848 than any Minister who had ever had the management of foreign affairs in this country. He said that not from any personal feelings, but merely from his own actual experience and personal knowledge, and the communications which he received from other countries.

congratulated the House upon the full, frank, and absolute admission made by the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, of the natural and just right of nations to the management of their own affairs. He trusted, after this, he should have the benefit of the noble Lord's support when Ireland came to make the same appeal. The case of that country was, at least, equally as strong as that of the Sicilians, whilst, with the exception of a miserable pretext for an insurrection last year among a very small section of the people, she had advanced those rights only by peaceable and legitimate means, which the Sicilians had endeavoured to obtain by blood and rebellion. He congratulated the noble Lord upon this approach to better counsels, and upon his entire recognition of the compatibility of the legislative and administrative freedom of Sicily with the rights of the Crown of the united kingdom of the Two Sicilies. He would find the same compatibility in Ireland towards the Crown of England, if he would only try it. The noble Lord had said there was no divine right in kings to misrule a country. Neither was there any divine right in Parliaments to misrule a country. Nations, he said, speaking of Sicily, were not made for sovereigns or governors. Neither was Ireland. The noble Lord had spoken of the ancient Sicilian constitution, and of its perfect recognition at a former period by Naples. In the same manner he (Mr. O'Connell) might allude to the ancient Irish constitution which had existed for 500 years, and to its distinct recognition in 1782 by the English Parliament, when an Act of Parliament was passed in this country declaring that the Irish Legislature was to be free for ever. But he should not enter further on this subject, as he was sure he must have the support of the noble Lord in a Motion for the repeal of the Union, as of course the noble Lord Would not be so inconsistent as to oppose such a measure after his speech that day. There was only one other point on which he would beg leave to make a single remark, and that was the mission of the Earl of Minto. The noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had described that mission as having been one of peace and conciliation; but in the absence of the papers referring to it, the House could only judge of the character of the mission by its results. The Earl of Minto first wont to Switzerland, and his interference there ended in the persecution and oppression of the minority. He then went to Rome, where he made himself prominent by fraternising with Sturbini, by patronising Ciceromachio and his friends, and by cheering a disorderly mob from a balcony. The noble Earl's next visit was to Sicily, where his efforts were followed by scenes of barbarity and bloodshed that shocked even the noble Lord himself. If such were the results of what the noble Lord termed a mission of peace and conciliation, he should be glad to hear what the noble Lord considered a warlike mission would be.

said, that the noble Viscount the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had made no effort to justify his interference in Sicily, but had put forward one of his hon. supporters on the bench behind him (the hon. Member for Glasgow), to perform that task. The question before the House was the simple and narrow one of the propriety of interfering with people who were fighting in another part of the world; but though the noble Lord had said a great deal on every other subject, he had not made a single allusion to this main question, except one incidental but very remarkable one. The noble Lord had shown extreme sensitiveness—or something more—lest there should be any expression in the resolution that might in any way pledge the House to any opinion as to the matter in dispute; but it was very strange that the noble Lord should, in the very same breath, have himself used the terms "Sicilian Government," with regard to the revolted subjects of the King of the Two Sicilies, while he was so thinskinned lest a word that might be construed into an expression of opinion should proceed from the House. The noble Lord's observation proved that he had himself, at all events in his own mind, recognised a Government in Sicily, distinct from that of the King. This observation of the noble Lord was followed up by the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, in which the hon. Member had expressed his conviction that the noble Lord had done more than any other statesman that ever lived to preserve the peace of Europe during the last year and a half. But surely it was a most extraordinary mode of preserving peace, to countenance the transmission of arms from the Queen's stores to be used in promoting rebellion among the subjects of another sovereign. And what justification did the noble Lord give of this strange proceeding? Why, that the Government of Prance dealt in arms. But the answer to this was, that the English Government had never done so, and that it was nothing to them what the Government of France might think fit to do in that respect. The only matter on which the House had a right to be thankful was, that the noble Lord had not as yet succeeded in breaking down that influence which a long perseverance in an opposite line of policy towards other nations had raised up for this country. But the experiment which the noble Lord seemed to be trying, of how far he could venture to go in the course he was pursuing, was a dangerous one to make, and was one that the House ought to be slow in sanctioning. The naval officers of this country and of France had felt themselves compelled, by feelings of humanity, to interfere in order to stop this war, which, probably, could not have been carried on at all, if the noble Lord had not allowed arms to be furnished from Her Majesty's stores. As to the subject immediately before them, no answer whatever had been given in justification of the course pursued.

said, he rose principally in order to express his gratification at the high position in which, according to the noble Lord, this country stood, in being enabled by its moral force alone to preserve the peace of the world, because, when he brought forward his resolution at a future period for a reduction in the estimates for the support of the Army and Navy, he believed he could now fairly ask the noble Lord for his support on the occasion. The question before the House was a very simple one. That which occurred now might have occurred very often before, namely, that a contractor, having orders from different parties, might ask one party to allow a portion of the arms furnished under the contract, to be returned for the purpose of giving them to another party whose order was of a more pressing character. But at the same time it was certainly very unfortunate that the Government, after having decided to remain neuter in the contest, should have been a party to an act having so much the appearance of being of a partisan character. He did not blame the noble Lord for having done more than had been done by other Ministers at other times; but he thought that questions such as that should have been brought before the Cabinet in the first instance, so that they might be spared the necessity of witnessing one noble Lord, high in office, declare in another place, that this proceeding had not received the sanction of the Cabinet. He had no objection to the production of the papers, but he could not sit down without objecting to the simile of the hon. Member for Glasgow, that the interference in Sicily was as justifiable as that of two men who would act to prevent a woman being ill-treated in the fields. The officers in command of fleets and armies should not be at liberty to go to war, or to decline combats, according as their own private feelings dictated. They should on all occasions act strictly according to the orders they had received. He hoped that the House would have an opportunity of inspecting the letters accrediting the Earl of Minto to the different Courts, and also the instructions that had been furnished to him on visiting these several places. He trusted they would bear out the representation that peace was the object of the noble Earl's mission.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) has complained of my noble Friend having carried this discussion beyond the bounds of the Motion before the House—of my noble Friend having voluntarily taken that course, and having introduced other subjects into discussion; but the fact is, the hon. and learned Gentleman who brought forward the Motion introduced all those topics which have been characterised as irrelevant, and my noble Friend has done nothing more than follow, point by point, the statements of the hon. and learned Member, and given answers to them, which, I think, he has done in a tolerably satisfactory way. But it appears to the hon. Member for Oxfordshire that not only did he go into a great many statements totally irrelevant to this return, but also that the Motion conveys blame to the Government for what it has done in this matter. I certainly had not discovered anything of that sort in the Motion before the hon. Member for Oxfordshire told us of it. I had not been aware that a Motion of censure on a Government could have been implied in an application for an account of the number of guns sent back by the Board of Ordnance to the contractor at his request, which account had not yet been received by the House, and which the Government had shown no unwillingness to give. It was perfectly allowable for my noble Friend to say, "If you want papers, ask for them; if you want this account, ask for it; but do not, under pretence of asking for an account, make a statement which the House has no means of deciding upon at the present moment." That is, in fact, the short question at issue; and nothing more would have been stated if the hon. and learned Member for Dorsetshire had not gone into other questions, and the occasion seemed so tempting that every one else has taken advantage of it to get on his favourite hobby. The hon. and learned Memberr for Limerick gets up and says, "Here is a favourable opportunity for introducing a discussion on the repeal of the Union;" while the hon. Member for Montrose, on the other hand, cries out, "Here is a favourable opportunity for discussing the question of financial reform." In the same manner, the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite thinks that it is a good occasion for introducing his opinions with respect to the question of the dispute between the King of the Two Sicilies and his revolted subjects. Such is the result of the inconvenient precedent set by the hon. and learned Member. But there appears to be some doubt as to what has passed in another place, and what has fallen from my noble Friend on this question. The hon and learned Member said that my noble Friend has stated that what had been done was perfectly right, and that he was ready to maintain its propriety. My noble Friend said nothing of the kind. He stated what the Ordnance Board had done—that they had made an application to him, to which at the time he saw no objection, and that he accordingly gave; his assent; and that this is the fact will appear when the papers are produced. But the hon. Member for Montrose has made this further statement, that a noble Friend of mine in another place had declared that whatever the opinion of my noble Friend at the head of Foreign Affairs might be with respect to the propriety of what was done, the Cabinet were of a different opinion, and that they had thought it necessary to disown the act, through the representative of this country at the Court of Naples. Now, nothing of this kind occurred. The circumstances which took place were these. Some months ago my noble Friend received this application from the Board of Ordnance. Probably he did not pay much attention to it at the time, and his reply was, that he saw no objection to what was required; not that the stores of the Queen should be denuded, and this country left without arms, but that some eight or ten guns should be given back to the contractor. Shortly after, my noble Friend, reflecting farther on the matter, proposed to his Colleagues a course which they adopted—namely, that instructions should be given to Her Majesty's representative at Naples to express our regret at what had occurred. So far from there being a difference of opinion between my noble Friend and his Colleagues on this matter, it was at the suggestion of my noble Friend himself that this determination had been come to. I certainly do not want to enter at present into the merits of this question—into the rights of the King of the Two Sicilies, as acknowledged and laid down by the Treaty of Vienna, and the rights of the people of Sicily, as guaranteed to be maintained to them by the hereditary Prince, and into the constitution which was set up in 1812, and afterwards overthrown. All these are matters which cannot well be understood without reference, not merely to the papers now before the House, but to other papers relating to the transactions which have taken place since 1812 and 1816; but, at all events, enough is known to warrant me in saying that these events do not justify the hon. and learned Member in saying that the Earl of Minto excited the insurrection in Sicily in the month of January, by going to Naples in February. The fact is, that the people of Sicily, finding themselves aggrieved, rose up in arms in the month of January; and before that time the Earl of Minto, understanding that it was very likely the King of Naples might wish to see him, wrote home to notify the circumstance, and to remark that he had no powers to visit the Court of Naples, and these powers were then sent to him. The Earl of Minto afterwards went to Naples, not to raise an insurrection in Sicily, but because the King of the Two Sicilies had applied to him, and had asked him to go to Sicily to treat with, what I will call, the Government of Sicily—that is, with those who were administering the Provisional Government in that island. I am told that no such Government can exist; but I would remind the House that it is not many years since there was a Provisional Government in Belgium—the Government of the King of Holland having been displaced—and that this country did not hesitate to treat with that Provisional Government. But then comes the hon. and learned Member for Limerick, who says, that the case of Sicily is entirely similar to that which he wishes to set up for Ireland. Why, if the Sicilians, having a Parliament of their own, had, through that Parliament, connected themselves with the Parliament of Naples, and had their representatives in that United Parliament ever since 1815 to the present time; and if the Sicilians had the benefit of a legal Government and of a constitution, to which they had agreed, by having adopted a United Parliament instead of a separate Parliament, which they before enjoyed; then I admit that if this state of things existed, there would have been some sort of resemblance between Sicily and Ireland, such as the hon. and learned Member wishes to make appear. Or else, if Ireland had her constitution put down, and her Parliament suppressed by an arbitrary decree of King George III.; and if she had now no representatives in this House; and if there were no statutes in force in Ireland that could ensure the people liberty of any kind—either personal or any other—then, indeed, I admit there would be also some sort of likeness such as that for which he contends. But, at present, the only likeness between Sicily and Ireland that I can see is, that which a little child in Sicily once described to a friend of mine, after expressing a wish that she could like to go to England by land. The child was told, "you cannot do that, because England is an island." "Oh, but why not; is not Sicily an island too?" Sicily is an island, and Ireland is an island too; but there the resemblance ends. But then the hon. Member for Montrose tells us, that as England has so much moral force, this is a good time to reduce the estimates. I think that is rather too hasty an inference, because the hon. Member must know that if we wish to retain that moral influence, it will depend a good deal on our being looked upon by other countries as a nation having considerable power to make its views respected by other nations. As to what the hon. and learned Member for Limerick has said about the Earl of Minto having endeavoured to excite insurrection in Rome, and in Italy generally, so far from that being the case, the noble Earl, when consulted by the Governments of those countries as to the amendments in their constitutions which he would recommend, did not feel it his duty to go so far in any case as to recommend a representative constitution for adoption. It should also be recollected that the King of Naples was the first to give a representative constitution to his subjects, and that that alteration was the beginning of the disturbances which afterwards took place at Rome, Tuscany, Milan, and other parts of Italy. Such I believe to have been the fact; and that the Earl of Minto, far from giving advice of too democratic a nature, advised the sovereigns of Italy, while they preserved their own independence, to make such useful and moderate reforms as would preserve their dominions from that which would be sure to follow if these useful and moderate reforms were refused. I believe that in Italy, as well as in the other countries of Europe, if the advice which the Earl of Minto gave in 1848 had been given, and given with success twenty years before—my belief is, that if Austria, Prussia, and Italy, and the sovereigns of Italy, had made these useful and moderate reforms—if they had allowed liberty of discussion—if they had gone so far as to allow some form of representation—if they had given an outlet to the intelligence and the desire for political power which the progress of knowledge and the long existence of peace, was sure to give rise to in Europe—far from having those bloody civil wars which have lately desolated so many parts of Europe—if that advice had been given, and given with success—we should have been spared the scenes of the past year, and instead of a transition from the most complete and absolute despotism to a wild and rabid democracy, we should have seen the peaceful progress of improvement, the introduction of constitutional modes of government, and a better state of things in Europe, generally, than now exists.

said, he should reserve what he had to say until the question came properly before the House. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) spoke as if he were not Minister of England, but ruler of Europe, as if the cares of every Government were on him, and did so after every Government had been upset or convulsed which he had pretended to put in order. The noble Viscount the Member for Tiverton had declared his readiness to meet every discussion when papers were produced, but took good care that time should never come. He would remind the noble Lord of one transaction when he urged the impossibility of producing papers when negotiations were pending, and the useless ness of doing so when they were over, in the same breath, and by that argument succeeded in evading a discussion ten years ago, on a most important matter, the Danube, which stood again for discussion next week. The noble Lord bad employed that day his usual arm, a sneer, which the House had accepted in its usual manner, by a laugh. Foreign policy began to be interesting, because of the distinction of the noble Lord as a performer. The question before the House was the virtual infraction of the laws against furnishing arms. That act the noble Lord had acknowledged without qualification a few nights ago. Elsewhere it had boon acknowledged, but with contrition—the word deliberately used was "regret." The Cabinet regretted what the noble Lord had done; and in face of that judgment, the noble Lord had again and now justified his act. When then the noble Lord stood up in that House as the advocate of rebellion, it was his own course that be defended, unless he were rather to be looked upon as the master of his Colleagues. If the noble Lord justified the conduct of the Sicilians, why did he not openly adopt that course, and ensure for them the constitutional rights which he insinuated England to be bound to obtain for them? The whole transaction was a tissue of perfidy. In the mouth of the Queen had been placed words which were in the Sicilian Parliament indignantly denounced, in face of her own representative, as calumny. The words in Parliament of Her Majesty's Government had mot with similar derogation. The various statements of the noble Lord had met with direct and formal contradiction from the persons parties to the various transactions. He called upon the House to discard any consideration of the rights of the Sicilians; the question was the conduct of their own Government. Acts more questionable, assertions more bold, excuses more flimsy, contradictions more glaring, even their conduct had never presented before.

, in reply, said the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had objected to the use of the word "insurgents" in his Motion. He was ready, if that would meet with the wishes of the noble Lord, to leave out that word; and he also proposed to alter the last clause of his Motion, in which it was stated that the arms were withdrawn with the consent of Her Majesty's Government. It now appeared that that was not the case; and therefore he proposed to substitute the words—with the consent of Her Majesty's Secretary for Foreign Affairs. His Motion then would run thus:—

"Account of all Ordnance stores, returned from that department to any contractor in the year 1848, for the purpose of being sent to the Sicilians in arms against Her Majesty's ally the King of the Two Sicilies, with the consent of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."

If the noble Lord would agree to that Motion, he should be happy so to amend it. If not, be would say a few words in reply to the noble Lord. He never meant to say that the visit of the Earl of Minto was the cause of the Sicilian insurrection. What he said was this—that the knowledge of the noble Earl's credentials gave spirit and encouragement to the Sicilians, and in that sense greatly aggravated the insurrection. The noble Lord was pleased to say that the nation at large had cause to congratulate itself with regard to its foreign relations. Now, he had in his mind Brazil and the River Plate, and other States, with which this country was not on such happy relations as could be wished. He had in his mind Spain—perhaps Portugal, Greece. The noble Lord shook his bead at the mention of Portugal; but it was important to state, that when he asked for information with regard to the tariffs of Spain and Portugal, be was told that they were laid on the table so long ago as March last. He had made every inquiry—he had inquired for them upstairs—be had asked the President of the Board of Trade—he had even applied to the hon. Member for Glasgow, but none of them knew anything of these tariffs. It was, he believed, this hunting after free-trade tariffs which had disturbed the peace of Europe. England made common cause with the free-traders everywhere, and this was a main ground of all that had since happened. He would now only further say that if the noble Lord would accept his Motion as he had amended it, there would be no need to trouble the House with a division.