on the 13th February, forbore, as he afterwards stated, to address the House in explanation of the measure, because the principles of the Bill were exactly identical with those of many previously introduced measures on the subject.

Mr. Barrow moved as an amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, and stated his objections to the Bill at some length. He opposed it because it was an unnecessary and unwarrantable interference with the right of property, and because it was an extension of that principle of centralization and bureaucracy to which the people of this country entertained such a deep-rooted antipathy. He contended that the present system, under which a parish vestry elected a surveyor every year against whom a summons could be obtained in case of neglect, accomplished all that could be wished for. The parish surveyor, under the present system, was bound to produce his accounts at the end of the year, the vestry had power to refuse to allow them, and he was liable to a penalty for neglect of duty. The surveyor appointed by the proposed district boards was expressly relieved from this penalty, and he looked in vain for any provision by which the district boards would be compelled to repair. He complained also of the short time allowed to members to consider the Bill. It had not been in the hands of members much more than twenty-four hours, and instead of precise provisions, there were references to innumerable Acts of Parlia

ment.

Mr. Hodgkinson seconded the amendment. He hoped the House

would not destroy a system which was theoretically right because it had been badly administered. Even its bad administration was to be attributed to the incessant onslaughts which had been made upon it in that House. No set of men could be expected to incur the odium of putting a parish to a large expense when they might every day expect the law to be altered.

Mr. Bass supported the Bill. He said that parish roads were almost always in bad condition, and he had never yet found a highway surveyor who understood his business.

Colonel Barttelot also supported the Bill. Powers were given under the existing highway law to amalgamate parishes, and to appoint a paid surveyor, and although few districts had availed themselves of this power, it had worked well where it had been adopted.

Mr. Dodson did not think the Bill involved any such confiscation as had been asserted. The working of the proposed system would rest ultimately with the ratepayers. In fact, it was but extending the principle of the administration of the poor-law to that of the highways. The area of management was merely enlarged from the parish to the district. There were, however, complicated details to be taken into consideration, which induced him to think the best course would be to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.

Colonel Wilson Patten, though he had opposed similar Bills previously, thought that this measure, when modified by a Select Committee, would be deserving of support.

Mr. Henley was disposed to

support the Bill, provided that the apportionment of counties into districts were left entirely to the discretion of the quarter sessions.

Sir George Grey answered some of the objections which had been made to the Bill by preceding speakers. He denied that the Bill would tend to deparochialize the country. Even admitting that roads were parochial property, parochial rights were not confiscated. The money raised within a parish would be spent within that parish, with the exception of the small proportion required for the expenses of the district board surveyor and clerk. It had been said that the machinery of the board was unnecessarily cumbrous; but the Bill would have been liable to still greater objections if it had authorized the appointment of surveyors by the local magistracy, without the intervention of a body resting upon the representative system. Ratepayers feared that an increase of expense would result from the proposed change, but he was convinced that, though there would be some expense in putting bad roads into a state of efficiency, there would be a great saving in annual repairs.

After some further discussion the second reading was carried by a majority of 111, the num. bers being-Ayes, 141; Noes, 30. After having undergone some modifications, the Bill passed through both Houses of Parliament and received the Royal As

simplify titles, and to facilitate and cheapen the conveyance of land. After long and repeated investigations by Commissions and Committees of Parliament, and almost interminable controversy both as to principles and details, at length, under the auspices of Lord Chancellor Westbury, a measure was produced which gave hopes to those who anxiously desired an improved system of land transfer, that an experiment, at all events, would be made in that direction. The Lord Chancellor laid his measure, which was entitled "A Bill to Facilitate the Transfer of Land," upon the table of the House of Lords on the 13th of February, giving at the same time a lucid exposition of the difficulties imposed by the present state of the law upon sellers and purchasers of land, entailing upon them great uncertainty, trouble, and expense; and he traced the causes, both remote and proximate, which had led to these inconveniences. He described the introduction of the doctrine of uses, equitable trusts, &c., which Parliament had been hitherto unable to remedy, and proceeded to consider the best cure for the present evils, and strongly advocated the registration of titles, so that when once investigated they could be at all times accessible to purchasers, who would thereby be saved much unnecessary trouble and expense. Arguing from the advantages which had attended the titles conferred by the Encumbered Estates Act, he proposed by the present Bill to provide means to obtain a record for regulating future transactions, and to give a statutory title after certain preliminary examinations.

He also proposed that, on the purchaser obtaining a special certificate of title to land from the registrar, he might deal with the estate on such certificate, and so avoid the long, cumbrous, and difficult process now in vogue. For this purpose a registry of titles should be established, divided into two partsthe one for guaranteed titles, and the other for titles not yet guaranteed, but in process of being so. The advantages to be derived by owners from this plan would be a good title, a record of former investigations for subsequent dealings, and provision of a mode by which all dealings might be easily managed, and land easily transferred. In the case, however, of a disputed deed or title being sent in, the record would be made out in the language of the will or deed, but that title would not be statutory until the disputed point was decided. There would be a third registry for mortgages and encumbrances. He then minutely entered into the machinery by which the Bill would be worked, and the means adopted, by insuring publicity, to fence it with safeguards and precautions against fraud in registrations of title. As to registration, that was to be entirely voluntary; but if an estate were once placed on the register it could not be taken off without the consent of all parties interested in the estate. The value of registration without a guaranteed title would be, that all subsequent transactions would be recorded, with a view to preparing for the guarantee of the title by lapse of time. The machinery would be one for registration alone, and one of the

great points of difference between this Bill and that proposed in a former Session by Sir H. Cairns was, that it proposed no new courts for the working of the Bill. After some further remarks on the objects and advantages of the measure, he moved that the Bill be read a first time.

Lord St. Leonard's gave his assent to the principles of the Bill, but expressed much doubt as to the working of its machinery.

Lord Cranworth said that he had not been able distinctly to apprehend all the details of the Lord Chancellor's measure, but so far as he had understood the scheme, it appeared well-deserving of attentive consideration. He had himself prepared the draft of a Bill having a similar object which he intended to offer to the consideration of the House.

Lord Chelmsford also expressed himself favourable to the objects and principle of the Lord Chancellor's measure. He also intended to lay two Bills of a similar character, which had been prepared under the late Government of which he was a member, upon their Lordships' table.

The several Bills thus introduced were then referred to the consideration of a Select Committee. The two which had been introduced by the Lord Chancellor, having been somewhat amended by the Committee, were reported to the House, and read a third time on the 5th of May, not, however, without some objections from Lord St. Leonard's, who found fault with the measure in regard to the expenses it would entail on the country, the trouble it would impose on those who sought to obtain its advantages,

and the possible injustice it would inflict on proprietors of adjacent estates who might be abroad during the time prescribed for showing cause against the title to be established. When, too, the title was once registered, so many registries of different events would be required, that a landowner would need daily visits from his legal advisers in order to insure the fulfilment of every regulation.

The Lord Chancellor declined to enter into minute details after the investigation of the Select Committee into the various measures which had been introduced to establish a registration of title. He showed in what respect this Bill differed and was superior to the Bills rejected by the Committee, and pointed out how a registration of title would be accomplished by the present measure. Many advantages would result from such registration, and, when once made, the record would be a substitute for all antecedent parchments, which might then safely be destroyed. He defended the system of registration of every subsequent event after the title had been registered; for how could the registry be complete unless such transactions were recorded? Having answered the other objections raised by Lord St. Leonard's, he expressed his conviction that the Bill would be of great benefit to the owners of land, and trusted that it would be read a third time.

Lord Kingsdown expressed a fear that the Bill placed too much confidence in the learning and accuracy of the persons who were to conduct the investigation of titles.

The two Bills proposed by the Government having passed through the House of Lords, the Solicitor-General moved the second reading of both measures in the House of Commons, on the 1st of June, explaining the reasons for legislation, and the machinery which the Bills proposed to establish in an able and luminous speech. He said he believed the House and the country were convinced that it was a duty incumbent upon Parliament to endeavour to devise a remedy for the evils arising from the complicated system of the law of landed property. He adverted to some of these evils, and to the main points that should be aimed at in applying a remedy, and proceeded to explain the manner in which those objects were proposed to be attained by the Bill. The transfer of land, it had been said, should be as simple and easy as the transfer of stock, but he showed that there were substantial distinctions between the cases, inherent in the nature of the two species of property, which destroyed the supposed analogy. He examined various suggestions made for reforming this branch of the law, pointing out their defects and the objections to which they were open, compared with the more effectual plan provided in the Bills for giving an absolute Parliamentary title to land, superseding altogether retrospective investigations, and authorizing simple forms of transfer. He briefly noticed certain arguments urged against the Bills, founded, he thought, upon misapprehension and fallacy. The plan embodied in the Bills, which

had been prepared by the Lord Chancellor, had undergone full consideration by a Committee of the other House, including landholders as well as high legal authorities.

Sir H. Cairns said he should be sorry to offer any opposition to the second reading of the Registration Bill, though he dissented from one or two of its principles. He referred to portions of the Bill which would, in his opinion, require large amendments, and observed that its working would very much depend upon the administrative hand to which it was to be intrusted-namely, the registrar, who was to be the sole authority to decide whether he was to adjudicate or not. The only chance of presenting to the country a measure of this kind that would work well was to appoint a person to administer it whose weight would command the confidence of landholders. He trusted that the Government would allow this Bill, part of which was in direct antagonism to the report of a Royal Commission, to be referred to a Select Committee.

Sir F. Kelly said he did not oppose the second reading of the Bill, but it must undergo the consideration of a Select Committee or a deliberate and searching examination by a Committee of the whole House. The machinery of the Bill was, in his opinion, radically defective and imperfect. The Bill, however, could be so modified and improved as to confer a great benefit upon the country. He thought that part of the Bill which was in fact a system of registration of assurances, was an encumbrance.

Mr. Malins said unless such a

measure was compulsory, not optional, it never would work. He believed that, if the Bill passed in its present form, it would be a dead letter. He did not, however, oppose the progress of the measure; but he put it to the House whether great expense should be incurred for the sake of a theory that could have no practical result.

The Attorney-General observed that, the evils being admitted, the question was whether the plan proposed was likely to remedy them, and the ground upon which this measure was introduced was that, though not in every particular perfect, it was as well-devised a remedy as, under existing circumstances, persons of competent skill and experience could suggest. He replied to the specific objections urged by Mr. Malins, Sir H. Cairns, and Sir F. Kelly. He was not deterred, he said, from supporting the Bill because it contained what lawyers called a registration of assurances, against which he had heard no real objection, except that the landholders of England would not submit to it. But he contended that such a registration of assurances had been submitted to by them.

After some further discussion the two Bills were read a second time. On the next stage being moved, Sir Hugh Cairns strongly urged that they should be referred to a Select Committee. He moved an amendment to this effect, which was supported by Mr. Walpole and Mr. Rolt, but opposed by Mr, Collier, Mr. Scully, and Mr. Malins, on the ground that the delay thus incurred would be fatal to the Bills, at least for the present Session.