of Inland Bonding Warehouses in the large | lished a Landed Estates Court in England, manufacturing and commercial towns of to which a person, being seised in fee-in England I have to state that the question other words having the fee simple of prohad for some time been under the consider-perty or possessing absolute dominion over ation of the Government, subject to its it should be entitled to apply for a judicial being referred to the Board of Customs, declaration of his title, and that judicial who have sent in a Report within the last declaration being made the title was to be day or two, but which I have not yet had registered, and be conclusive against all the world. In other words, upon this judicial declaration would be granted a Parliamentary title. In the able speech with which his hon. and learned Friend introduced the Bill he referred to the Report made by the Commission of 1854, which reported in 1857; and he stated that the time to read. TITLE TO LANDED ESTATES BILL. COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read. House in Committee. On Question that the Preamble be post-perusal of that report had produced a proponed, MR. SLANEY said, he rose to bear the testimony of his gratitude to the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Solicitor General) and Her Majesty's Government for having brought in the measure. He happened to have been Chairman of a Committee relative to the condition of the working classes, and he was satisfied that nothing could aid those classes more than a Bill whose object was to simplify the transfer of landed property. He looked upon this measure, therefore, at once as a boon to the landed interest, as of much value to all who wished to make investments in small portions of land, and of the greatest possible benefit to the country at large. It had been long wanted, and he believed that without injuring any one it would give increased value to landed property, and enable many persons in the vicinity of towns to obtain small portions of land, which they could not do under the existing complex system of law, unless they first went to the expense of examining intricate questions of title. MR. MALINS said, the House was going to consider in detail the provisions of a measure the merits of which they had not yet discussed. For himself, he had very great doubts whether it would be found very extensive in its operations, or prove so beneficial as his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General (Sir Hugh Cairns) anticipated it would. As he had accidentally lost the opportunity of raising a discussion on those points when the Speaker put the Motion, he should now, with the permission of the Committee, proceed to do so, and for that purdose move, pro formâ, that the Chairman report progress. [Mr. HADFIELD: Hear, hear!] That the object of the Bill was a most desirable one to be attained no one would deny. Its principle was this-that there should be estab found impression on his mind. That being so, he (Mr. Malins) certainly expected to find that the Bill was in conformity with the report, but to his surprise in some of its most important points his hon. and learned Friend's proposals were diametrically opposed to it. Thus, the Bill proposed to constitute a court which should make a judicial declaration of title, the registration of which would be conclusive against all the world; but the Report of the Commissioners was altogether opposed to such a system. He would now, however, mention some of the practical difficulties which stood in the way of an extensive application of the Bill. In the first place, the Bill did not propose that the application to the Court should be compulsory; on the contrary, it was to be entirely optional; and that of course would greatly diminish its operation. In the next place, the measure was to apply only to lands of which the owners were seised in fee, that was, several persons seised in fee, or one person for life, with remainder to others in fee. The person making the application, however, must have control over the fee, and come before the court voluntarily. That provision again would greatly abridge and narrow the operation of the Bill. It would exclude all settled estates, all copyhold estates, and all estates held for years, for lives, or for any other estate less than a fee simple. Now it struck him (Mr. Malins) that no measure of this kind could have any great value unless it were general and even universal in its application; yet his hon. and learned Friend proposed that it should apply only to tenants in fee. He also proposed that before the first judicial declaration fifteen months should elapse, and before the final declaration two years. It happened that bad titles were very rare. The titles that were rejected by mortgagees or purchasers because they completing their contract the period be. were bad were almost infinitesimal in num-tween the commencement and the comber. He had recently applied to an emi- pletion of the contract was from three to nent conveyancer in Lincoln's Inn, and four months. asked him what he thought was the proportion of titles which he had investigated on behalf of purchasers and mortgagees, and which were ultimately rejected because they were bad; and the reply he received was that they were so few that he was almost afraid to name them. A man might treat for the purchase of air estate over which other persons had rights interfering with the absolute doninion, such as a right of sporting, but with the concurrence of the parties interested those rights might be released and the title perfected. As the owners of estates were to come to the proposed court voluntarily, they must be divided into two classes namely, those who had good titles, and those who had not. Let it be borne in mind, however, that changes in the ownership of land in this country were not very frequent. True, there was always a large quantity in the market, but taken with reference to the aggregate in the country, it had been found that land did not, on the average, change owners oftener than once in thirty years. Particular estates might often change hands; but taking a thousand estates they would find that they did not change more frequently than once in thirty years; and in such cases all a man had to do was to refer to his own solicitor to make out his title. A man who had bought land ten or fifteen years before and had enjoyed undisputed possession ever since was not likely to incur the expense and delay of an application for a declaration of title whenever he wanted to borrow money or sell his land. Did the Committee believe that land was being depreciated in value? Had it touched a low price in consequence of doubts with regard to titles? Did they not know that every year land was increasing in value, and that the minimum price for which it was now sold was thirty years' purchase, whilst in some cases it reached as high as thirty-five. If, then, it were argued that land was not valuable on account of the difficulty in mortgaging or selling, he begged to deny the fact. He had received assurances from the most experienced conveyancers that although occasionally a title might be delayed considerably, yet the average of purchases were completed as soon as the parties desired to complete them; and that in all cases where they were desirous of VOL. CLIII. [THIRD SERIES.] Supposing, then, that an owner of land had a good title would he go to a court and wait two years for a judicial declaration of that which he knew already to be true, and of which he was in the daily enjoyment? On the other hand, if a man suspected that he had not a good title, was it likely that he would go to the court, expose it to a Judge, and have it decided and proclaimed that he could not show a title? What would become of the estate of a man when it was known that he had applied for a judicial declaration of title and that a declaration had been made that he had none? How many years' purchase would be struck off the value by this means? The fact was that time removed all these difficulties, and the title that was bad in 1860 would be found to be good in 1870 or 1880. The suitors in the court, therefore, might be divided into those who had good titles and those who had doubts whether they had or not. In other words those who would not apply and those who could not apply those who would not apply because they were satisfied with their titles and did not want a declaration; and those who could not apply because they had doubts and feared they would not obtain it. The principle of the Bill being that there should be a judicial declaration and a Parliamentary title, let the House see what the Report of the Comissioners said upon the subject; but first observe what took place last year upon the Irish Landed Estate Bill. For the first time it was proposed last year to extend the principle to unencumbered estates, and to allow a man who did not mean to sell to come before the court and obtain a judicial title. He objected to that on principle, because it was unknown to the law that absent parties should be bound in any way by a judicial declaration. Indeed, he did not think it very likely that persons would so come; and he was confirmed in his opinion by what was stated by the hon. and learned Member for Ennis (Mr. FitzGerald) the other night on another subject, that since this Bill came into operation in Ireland there had been only two applications made for such a judicial declaration; and he (Mr. Malins) understood that both these applications had since been withdrawn; so that practically there had not been a single application. His hon. and learned Friend had referred in support of his Bill to the E The Report of the Commission on landed titles, I would exclude many others; so that the but he maintained that that report gave Committee would observe this report was him no support whatever. But before go- diametrically opposed to the provisions ing into that report he desired to say that of the Bill which required that there it was contrary to the law of England that should be a judicial declaration. the rights of B, who was absent, should be report was also diametrically opposed to prejudiced on application of A, who was the establishment of a Landed Estates present. His hon. and learned Friend Court. His hon. and learned Friend in alleged that due provision had been made this Bill proposed the establishment of a for such a case by advertisements in the court to consist of two Judges whose busipapers, and by placards posted over the ness should be to investigate all titles and estate. That was all very well; but how to declare whether they were or were not often did it occur that parties did not good. What was the object of all this? know they had a title. He remembered He knew it was a favourite scheme with a case where he was counsel for an hon. many gentlemen to simplify the registraGentleman who for many years had been tion of titles and the transfer of land. To a Member of that House; he was applied a certain extent he was an advocate for to to concur in the conveyance of an both those objects; but let the Committee estate, and he replied that he had no never forget that the same system could objection to concur, but he would like first not be applied to land as was applied to to look into the rights of the matter. When ships or to money in the public stocks. If, his advisers came to look into the title, indeed, the House declared that land should he found, to his great surprise, that he had not be settled to secure portions, jointures, a legal claim to the estate. The claim was and the like, then undoubtedly they might contested, of course, and he (Mr. Malins) simplify the transfer of land. The great fought the gentleman's case through all difference between land and stock might be the Courts of Westminster Hall, and finally seen in the usual settlements of land. An established him in possession of a consider- estate in land was settled upon a man for able estate, of which he would never have life, with remainder to his wife, with reheard but by the accident he mentioned, mainder to his first and other sons, with and of which a judicial declaration would remainder to trustees to provide for younger have barred him for ever. But suppose the children, with power to tenants for life case of an unborn child, or the case of an to grant leases, to sell and exchange and infant whose guardians were not aware of the like, and if you abolish those settleits rights, their claims would be equally ments, which seemed to him the most barred by the operation of this principle. rational the world had ever seen, then, to In fact, if this principle were adopted gen- be sure, titles might be simplified. The tlemen would require to spend their lives land tied up in such settlements as those inreading advertisements and in keeping he had referred to, comprised a large poragents to look after placards, lest some tion of the surface of England, and all persons should unaware sell the estates to that portion of land was excluded from the which they had some claim. His hon. and operations of this Bill, because his hon. and learned Friend professed to found his Bill learned Friend applied it only to that land on the Report of the Commission, and that of which persons were seised in fee. report had gone into the question of Par- knew there were many persons who had no liamentary titles, but its conclusions were experience whatever of the operation of setsomewhat different from those of his hon. tlements in this country, who could not unand learned Friend. The report was in derstand why land should not be transfavour of a register of titles, but the Com-ferred as easily as money in the stocks missioners objected to any scheme for giving Parliamentary and unimpeachable titles. Such a scheme would be oppressive to claimants, and would be still more oppressive to those who were put upon their defence. They considered that to make a judicial or a quasi-judicial declaration of title an indispensable requirement to being put upon the register would be objectionable. The expense would exclude all the small proprietors, and the trouble He [Hear, hear!] Yes, he heard that cheer. secu land? If they intended to maintain the old character of English settlements, it was a sheer delusion to suppose that the transfer of land could be made as simple as the transfer of stock, or of a chair or table. How, then were they to attain further simplicity in the transfer of land? Why, it was in the course of being simplified. It had already been greatly simplified in the course of his own experience, in consequence of the old causes of delay and other abominations that had been swept away by those reforms that had followed on the Report of the Commission moved for by Lord Brougham in 1828; and as they went on with the simplification of the law, so the titles to estates and transfers of land would also be simplified. If his hon. and learned Friend should succeed in passing this Bill, it would be many years before it came into extensive operation, because a large portion of the property of England was excluded from its operation; and of the rest, the owners might be divided into two classes-those who had good titles, and those who had bad; and of these, the first class would not go, and the last, could not go to the Court. If the Bill passed, he apprehended that its operation would be so limited that you would be establishing Judges with nothing to declare, and a Register Office with nothing to register. If, however, the House thought that the experiment ought to be tried, he should offer it no opposition, and though he belived that some of the principles which he had already pointed out were dangerous in their nature and mischievous in their operation, he should be very glad to find himself mistaken, and this he would promise the House, that if hereafter he found that his hon. Friend was right, and he wrong, he would not be slow to acknowledge it. MR. HEADLAM said, he wished to take that, the earliest opportunity, to express his admiration of the manner in which his hon. and learned Friend had introduced this Bill, and to express his cordial concurrence with the scheme contained in it. To say that the principle of these two Bills was a judicial declaration of title was not either a full or accurate statement. The principle of these measures was the registry of the land itself that is to say, that each piece or parcel of land should be registered in the names of certain individuals as ostensible owners to whom, and to whom alone, a purchaser would have to apply, so that the onus of investigating the title would not be as now, cast upon the purchaser, but he would be able to say, if you can put my name upon the register, then I will try. If you cannot do so, then you have not made a title to the land, and there is an end of the bargain. In this way a purchaser would obtain when his name was once upon the registry a perfect and indefeasible title. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wallingford had told them that there was a great difference between land and funded property; and that was no doubt true. They differed in many most important respects, but it did not follow that the mode of transferring the one should be totally different in land from the mode of transferring the other. The difference between the titles to them even at present was one of degree rather than of principle. Stock might beneficially belong to one, and yet stand in the name of another. Stock might be made the subject of settlements of all kinds; a description might be beneficially given to one for life, with remainder to children, born and unborn, and yet consistently with all this people bought in the market without difficulty and with perfect security from those whose names appeared in the books of the Bank of England. So also land might be settled for a term for life, for further estates to arise upon certain contingencies, and for estates in favour of younger children; with power of jointuring, power of leasing, selling and exchanging; and yet in a well-drawn settlement cont emporaneously with all these estates and in terests there would be a power in trustees to revoke these trusts and to sell, and the purchaser would obtain a perfectly good title from the trustees. That was the case now, and it was a similar principle which was embodied in this Bill, and he saw no insuperable difficulty in giving by statute the same power to the registered owner which was now possessed by trustees. At the same time he did not deny that there were difficulties in the way of this change, as there would be in the way of all great changes. A case was stated by the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford when the heir-at-law discovered his title to the land which he was asked to concur in conveying. The example proved nothing against the Bill-the same investigation which, under the present practice, brought to light the title of the heir-at-law, would, if the Act were in operation, havh a similar effect, and the title of the heir-atlaw would be discovered and established, A case might undoubtedly be conceived when injury would be done under the sys 104 Take | tions of sale, for the general rule would in future be that a purchaser would insist upon an indefeasible title, and not be satisfied with a title, the merits of which he was precluded to investigate by conditions of sale. He would also ask whether his hon. and learned Friend had sufficiently considered the cases of leases of coal, iron, and other articles of value under ground, which occurred in the North of England chiefly, and in other mineral and manufacturing districts. These leases were often held by very complicated titles, not only as regarded what was below the soil, but also with regard to surface rights. Some of these rights were secured by personal covenants only, and others by covenants running with the land; and he wished that his hon. and learned Friend would direct his attention to the point, and meet the objection by adding further clauses to the Bill. In conclusion he (Mr. Headlam) did not understand the object of the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) in making the speech he had done at this particular period. After the statements they had heard that this Bill would interfere with the well-being of society, and disturb the settlements of the country, he thought he should have taken some step that would have tested the opinion of the House upon the merits of the Bill. Had the hon. and learned Member taken that course he (Mr. Headlam) should certainly have given his vote in favour of the measure. tem to be established by this Bill. MR. BOWYER said, he did not rise to oppose the Bill, but to make a few observations on the important question to which it referred. He believed, that the discussion of the subject would be attended with advantage, but he was by no means sanguine as to the utility of the Bill if it should pass into law. He objected to the measure because it was apparently a sort of palliation of the bad state of the law of real property. In his opinion, the proper mode of dealing with that question was to ascertain what were the defects of the law, and what were the reasons which prevented the easy transfer of real property, and consequently diminished its value. But what did this Bill propose to do? The Bill attempted to facilitate the transfer of land irrespectively to the law which governed real property. posed to create a Court of a most anomalous description, upon which it was proposed to confer a jurisdiction unparalleled in the history of jurisprudence, unparalleled anywhere except in Ireland; and even there The Bill pro |