voted over again in the next. Upon the next case he would only point out that the Treasury had challenged what the Admiralty had done, and that the Admiralty, in excuse, stated that an oversight had been committed. That was curious and rather unsatisfactory, but the correspondence stated that measures had been taken to prevent such errors in future, so he would say no more about it. In the next case that appeared in the correspondence the Treasury had given a very grudging assent to the Admiralty proposal. Now he did not think it desirable or to the advantage of the public service, to continue a system which had produced such correspondence as had taken place between the Treasury and the Admiralty. Apparently the two departments were brought into uncomfortable relations, and at the same time very little was gained by the control which the Treasury was expected to exercise. In the next case, that of the Achilles, where the additional expenditure was required in the month of September, it appeared to him that the spirit of the Act had been entirely carried out. But then came the last instance-that of the new Marine Infirmary at Woolwich. He believed the first Vote for that infirmary was taken as far back as 1856, and it was then estimated by the Admiralty that the sum of £42,000 would be required for the whole work, and accordingly that sum was inserted in the Estimates. For a time the Admiralty went on taking various sums, until at last it was discovered that the amount first proposed was not sufficient, and in the year before last the estimate given was £65,300, and there was a note appended stating that the original Estimate had been made before the site was purchased. Well, in the year 1861-2 the case of the Estimate stood thus :-There had been voted £52,250, there had been expended up to the 31st of December previous £58,206, and £5,000 was asked for the coming year, leaving to complete the work-nil. So that though Parliament had voted only £52,000, more than £58,000 had been expended, and £5,000 more was asked for ; which, however, the House was led to suppose would be sufficient to complete the work The £5,000, of course, was voted, thus making the total amount voted £57,250. Now, it appeared from the correspondence which had taken place between the Admiralty and the Treasury that, though £57,250 was the amount voted, the total amount expended was | £73,294, making a difference of £16,000 between the sum voted and the amount which had been spent. That was an unsatisfactory state of things, and one which the House would naturally be anxious to look into. The House would also be naturally anxious to criticise the fact, that whereas the infirmary was originally expected to cost only £42,000, and the revised Estimate reached the sum of £65,000, the building had really cost so much more. But the effect of this system of transfers was, that this criticism could not take place, because the Committee had not the opportunity of knowing exactly what had been done with the money until nearly two years afterwards. Nothing within the Estimate of 1861-2 would show the real state of things at the time that the last Vote was taken. Now, the effect of framing the Votes in that manner was to conceal from the House the real state of the case, even though it was within the knowledge of the Admiralty; for when they came to explain the matter, they admitted (in the letter page 100) that some of the items of excess had been ascertained before the Estimate for the current year was framed. They admitted in the last page that the whole expenditure up to the 31st of March, 1861, had been £61,798, and yet they proposed to go on with a Vote of only £57,250, because, they said, "there was no objection to charging the difference between the amount expended up to that date, and the sums voted to the same date, to the aggregate vote, on which there was a surplus." They thought they had a perfect right to make up the difference between what had been spent and what had been voted out of the aggregate voted for other services in the year before, which, in fact, would entirely conceal the real circumstances from the House. He brought forward this matter in no hostile spirit, and he was quite sure that if they went more fully into the matter, they would see that the effect of this system was really to conceal from the House the total sum which it voted for small items, and so to deprive the House of that control which it ought to exercise over those Votes. As long as that course was continued, the same thing must happen. What he wished to suggest for the consideration of the House and the Government was, whether it would not be possible to put an end to the system of transfer altogether. He should like to see something like a Treasury chest fund, or what had been proposed for the civil contingency fund, brought into play in this matter. He meant, that the House should vote exactly what the Government asked them to vote, and that what had been demanded should be the amount which the Government were entitled to expend; but that there should be a fund of a certain fixed amount upon which no final pay. ments should be charged; and if it were necessary to expend more than the sum asked in any particular Vote, that the Admiralty, or other department, with the consent of the Treasury, should take the difference out of that fund by way of advance, to be repaid by a Vote of the House. But it should be a general contingency fund; and if, for instance, it were necessary, as in the case of the Achilles, that some money which had not been voted should be expended, the Admiralty should get an advance of £5,000 or £10,000, or as much as they wanted, out of that fund; and at the close of the year there should be a Vote taken in Parliament to repay to the contingency fund the sum that had been taken from it for the object required. The effect of that arrangement would be, that the House would see exactly what had been taken from the fund. If the Government wished to present to the House the real state of expenditure, he believed they could only do it at the moment they were asking for a vote of money. If it were done afterwards, it was hardly to be supposed that the majority of hon. Members would care to inquire into the matter. MR. WHITBREAD said, that he did not presume to offer any opinion on the suggestion made by the hon. Baronet as to the establishment of a General Contingency fund, because the question involved very grave considerations, and could not be satisfactorily disposed of by any one on the spur of the moment. The correspondence as to the bar at Portsmouth should be read in connection with the Estimates and correspondence of the previous year. The expenditure was unavoidable; without it the bar would have been left in an incomplete state, and the money previously spent thrown away. With respect to the course pursued by the Admiralty he observed that it was not a new one; that the Admiralty had the power to apply sums from one item under Vote No. 11 to another item under that Vote, so long as the total Estimate in the first column was not exceeded; but they were bound to ob tain the sanction of the Treasury whenever any application of money would cause an excess upon that total Estimate, or whenever any new works, not already agreed to by Parliament, were undertaken. When the Estimate of £65,000 for the infirmary at Woolwich was presented, it was supposed that that sum would cover the whole expense; but, as was well known, the construction of barracks and hospitals had undergone careful consideration, and had been reported on by several Committees. The consequence was that vast improvements had taken place in their interior fittings, lighting, and ventilation; and he thought that the Admiralty would not have been held free from blame if they had not endeavoured from time to time to render the infirmary as perfect as possible. That was the real cause of the unforeseen excess on that item; and the check which was given by the publication of the correspondence on the point at the end of the Estimates, appeared to be all that the House of Commons could, under the circumstances, desire. Though the construction of the caisson at Sheerness dockyard came under the head of a new work not sanctioned by Parliament, yet he must tell the House that so long back as in the year 1856-7, a sum was taken in the Votes for the construction of that caisson, but was not expended; and when the last year's Estimates were prepared, the real necessity for the caisson was not then foreseen. However, in June, very urgent representations were made from Sheerness yard to the effect that the existing caisson was in a very bad state, and that the new caisson would make the dock available for receiving ships of quite another class. It appeared to be one of those cases of emergeney which had evidently been contemplated by the Act of Parliament, and the expenditure was really in accordance with the spirit of a Vote of that House on a former occasion. The suggestion made. by the hon. Baronet for an alteration of the existing practice, must be left for future consideration. SIR FRANCIS BARING said, that the subject was one of great importance, and it was extremely desirable that hon. Members should turn their attention to the correspondence and returns to which allusion had been made, which constituted their only check upon the administration. On a cursory examination of that correspondence he thought that there were many points requiring explanation from the depart-, the Declaration of Title Bill be now read a ments; but he was afraid it was hardly second time said, he trusted that this quespossible to strengthen the existing check tion, which was not new to the House, in respect to these outlays. There must would not be dealt with as one exclusively arise cases of sudden emergency obliging of a technical nature, but would be rethe departments to expend for the public garded as one in which the owners and service money for items which did not ap- purchasers of land were deeply and dipear under the different Votes, and all that rectly interested. He sought to deal with should be required under these circum- a practical grievance, and to diminish the stances was, that if that House were sitting difficulty, expense, and complication which at the time, and if there was opportunity at present existed in the transfer of land. for it, a Vote should be taken; but if that The best remedy, therefore, would be House was not sitting, then nothing further that which provided the most expeditious, could be demanded than that the circum- cheapest, and simplest mode of transfer. stances should be explained to the House This subject had been brought under their as soon as possible. It should be recol- Lordships' attention in 1846, and a Select lected that these outlays were not incurred Committee was appointed which came to on the mere decision of the Admiralty, but the conclusion that there were unnecessary that the Treasury was interposed as a burdens in transferring land from hand to check upon the demands of the Admiralty. hand, and they recommended as a remedy According to the existing practice, these the institution of a register for all deeds matters were brought to the knowledge of affecting land. He need not tell their the House by the publication of the cor- Lordships that the mere fact of being respondence, and hon. Members had the in possession of land afforded almost no opportunity of canvassing any breach of evidence of title. Even where the deeds the strict rules relating to the appropria- were of the briefest and most explicit tion of public money. Neither the Educa- character, there was sometimes great diffition Vote nor any other civil service Vote culty in proving the title, because it was had half as much check upon it as the necessary to show that the land had not Votes of the great services, the army and been dealt with by the owner or some navy. With respect to the alteration sug- of his predecessors in a way that would gested, that was too large a subject to prejudice the title. The advantage of a enter upon at present, but he thought it register of deeds would be, that it would would be more difficult to carry out than disclose what settlements had been made the hon. Baronet supposed. Altogether, of the property, and generally how it although he was afraid that the arrange- had been dealt with. In 1853 he introment suggested by the hon. Baronet might duced a Bill into their Lordships' House not prove practicable, it was of great im- with a view of carrying out the recomportance that a proper check on the ap- mendations of the Committee which had propriation of monies voted by Parliament considered this question, and which proshould be secured. posed the establishment in England, as in Resolutions agreed to. Scotland and Ireland, of a general register of deeds. The proposition was very strongly opposed in that House by his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards), and he (Lord Cranworth) confessed, that, although theoretically he believed that such a measure afforded the best means of securing titles, he felt the force of the remark of his noble and learned Friend, that the system would throw great expense and cost upon those dealing with small properties. The Bill went down to the House of Commons, which did not concur in the proposal, but recommended an inquiry as to whether there might not be established a register of titles, which would show on the face of it who was the owner of every piece of land in the kingdom. Her Majesty consequently, January, 2 G House adjourned at a quarter before www HOUSE OF LORDS, Monday, March 3, 1862. MINUTES.]-PUBLIC BILLS.-2 Declaration of DECLARATION OF TITLE BILL. SECOND. READING. Order of the Day for the Second Read ing read. LORD CRANWORTH in moving that 1854, issued a Commission, consisting in principle, and a blot on the measure. partly of lawyers, and partly of non- In the next Session, his hon. and learned lawyers, to inquire into the subject. The Friend Sir Hugh Cairns, then Solicitor Committee reported in May, 1857, re- General, introduced two Bills on the subcommending an elaborate system of first ject of the transfer of land, founded upon ascertaining a good title, and then putting the report of the Commissioners of 1857. it on the register, by means of which it This Bill divided the subject into two heads should thenceforth be transferred like stock and no doubt in principle the subject or scrip. Early in 1858, in conformity ought to be so divided. The question conwith a part of what was so recommended, sidered in the first place was how to obhe introduced a Bill to enable the title of tain safely a declaration that a title is purchasers to be established against all absolutely good against all the world; and the world in analogy to the procedure of in the second, how to continue the effect the Encumbered Estates Court in Ireland. of that declaration, making it operative He must confess that when his attention for all time, and thus preventing any furwas first directed to the subject he was ther necessity for the investigation of title. startled at the possible establishment of a In order to effect the first object, my hon. tribunal for the declaration of a good title and learned Friend proposed to establish a in England; but the difficulty was one Landed Estates Court for England, as in only of a practical character, and the Irish Ireland, and to give facilities for making Encumbered Estates Court had then been the title good by registration, due care in existence eight or nine years, and had being taken that such notice should be disposed of property to the amount of mil- given that there could be little prolions. Indeed, so great were its advan- bability of the existence of any person tages, and so satisfactory its operation, that who conceived himself in any way entitled estates were actually encumbered for the to the estate not having due warning and purpose of enabling them to be sold under ample opportunity to come in and oppose the Court, the sellers finding, it was said, the declaration of the title. That Bill that they could get at least two years' was exceedingly well framed for the purmore purchase-money in consequence of pose, and although it adopted the printheir being sold under the Court more ciple of the Act of 1858 that a person than if they were sold in the ordinary not selling might obtain a declaration of way, notwithstanding that there might title, it contained a provision that that debe a perfectly good existing title. Well, claration should be of no avail except when then, he thought what was so good for he sold so that, so far as he was conIreland could not be bad for England; cerned, it would be perfectly waste paper; and accordingly in the measure he intro- but if he were selling, it would be valuduced in 1858 he had extended the prin- able in favour of the purchaser. ciple to England. Very soon afterwards (Lord Cranworth) was of opinion that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of that was a great improvement upon the Derby) came into power; but his noble Bill which he had himself introduced in and learned Friend opposite (Lord Chelms- 1858. That Bill dropped when the ford) gave every facility to the Bill, which change of Government took place in after having been referred to a Select 1859, and the subject was now revived by Committee passed their Lordships' House, his noble and learned Friend on the Woolbut went down to the House of Commons sack. His noble and learned Friend now too late to become law that Session. It proposed to establish a class of functionwas, however, during that Session that aries called Examiners of Title, who, the Landed Estates Court (Ireland) Bill was if they found the title submitted to their passed, superseding, or rather making per- investigation to be good, were to place manent, the Encumbered Estates Court; it on the register. He also proposed and a new power was introduced which that instead of going before the Exaenabled that Court to make a declaration miners, if the parties thought proper, they of good title even when the estate was not might go to the Court of Chancery, and about to be sold, such declaration being have the title declared by that Court. made after due investigation at the request The Bill also contained provisions for givof the party interested. To that clause ing due publicity, so as to enable all parhe objected at the time; and although he ties who might be prejudiced by such deadmitted that the Bill had worked well, claration of title to come in and dispute he still thought that clause objectionable it. The first Bill which he (Lord Cran He worth) had laid upon their Lordships' to prevent the questions which had once table was precisely similar in its object to been settled arising again after lapse of that introduced in 1859 and to that of time. In facilitating the transfer of land the present Lord Chancellor ; but the dif- they must not create impediments to the ference in the two Bills was, that he pro- rights of dealing with land. To guard posed that for the purpose of obtaining the against fraudulent dealings with land on declaration of a good title reference should the register, it was proposed by the Bill be at once made to the Court of Chancery, of the Lord Chancellor to establish a and that the declaration should be made system of cautions, inhibitions, and inexactly in the same manner as if the party junctions. This did not appear to make had obtained a decree for the performance the process more simple. In cases of of a specific contract and there was a diffi- bank shares, stock, and other property, culty in making out the title. Objection it was necessary to have a name on the might be taken to the quantity of business registry, to whom payments of divithat this would bring into the Court of dends might be made. But how could Chancery, and illustrations would probably such trustees be placed on a registry for be given of the enormous amount which every small landed property? There was thrown upon the Irish Encumbered would be the greatest difficulty in obEstates Court; but he wished to point taining anybody to be trustee for it. The out to their Lordships that the condition proposal was that every owner of an acre of landed estates in the two countries was of land must have a name on the registry. widely different. The chief reason for es- In cases of the sale of parts of a property, tablishing the Encumbered Estates Court instead of the whole, there would be an in Ireland was the deeply encumbered increase of difficulties. Endeavouring to condition of a large portion of the landed meet this, his noble and learned Friend property in that country; in England, proposed to have a record of titles. This however, it was a rare thing for property was valuable, if it could be done; but to be so encumbered as to make it ne- the Bill of his noble and learned Friend cessary that it should be sold before the on the Woolsack was open to the same knot could be cut; and consequently, in objections as those which he had already all probability, such declarations could be pointed out. By the latter Bill, if a perobtained by means of the existing ma- son wished to register, he would have to chinery at a much cheaper rate and in a get his deed printed. Now, he quite much more satisfactory manner. The agreed that a greater improvement than questions which would arise as to title that effected by printing the proceedings were just those with which the Court of in the Court of Chancery could not be well Chancery was now continually dealing, conceived; nothing could more tend to and there could therefore be no neces- simplify and shorten the proceedings than sity for establishing new machinery. The that, and so far as that principal could Court of Chancery, he believed, had never be extended he would always cordially yet passed a bad title; and he appealed support it; but to force a man to print to the noble and learned Lord opposite his deed seemed to him to be compelling whether, practically speaking, the report him to incur an expense for no possible of the conveyancing barristers, who were purpose. To the plan which was pronow investigators of titles under the posed in his own Bill he confessed that Court, was not invariably accepted as sa- he had never heard any practical objectisfactory and acted upon. The next and tion. Suppose a person was entitled to most important point was how a good title, an estate in fee simple. He would get a once declared, could be made perpetual; declaration of title. Twenty years afterfor even in the case of the Irish Encum- wards he might die, and perhaps twenty bered Estates Courts, after a declaration years after that his son, who succeeded had been made, the same questions would him, might wish to sell the property. He arise as existed now, and in fifty years' would show first the official declaration of time there would be the same difficulty title. Then the purchaser would say, in dealing with such cases. The great object in view was how to prevent ambiguity of title arising after it had once been declared. In legislation of this sort Parliament was to some degree legislating for posterity, and the great object was, 66 But how do we know that there have been no mortgages, or settlements, or other dealings with the property?" To meet this objection, he provided that no purchaser should be bound by any mortgage, settlement, or trust deed, unless a |