and as it ought to be, are too vain to seek information at the hands of the really learned and experienced lawyer.

The bills abound in minor inaccuracies; for instance, the word "land," to which a particular meaning is given by 13 & 14 Vict., c. 21, s. 4, ought to have been used in all cases in these bills, and yet we frequently find the word "lands" employed.[See Bill No. 2, secs. 6, 8, &c.] No interpretation of the expression "The Court" is given in Bill No. 2, and yet that expression will be found to occur in Bill No. 2 as often as the term "Landed Estates Court;" and this discrepancy is all the more puzzling, as in some sections "The Court is used to signify a court other than the Landed Estates Court.-[See secs. 62 and 63.] Then in sec. 14 of the amended Bill No. 2, we find an estate in fee simple" called a state in fee simple," the like error having occurred in the corresponding sec. 13, in the original bill from which it was copied,

66

وو

With respect to the forms in the schedule, we may remark that but one form of charge is given, and that one contains a power of sale. Section 85 declares that the forms shall be used in all matters to which they refer; but there is no power to vary the forms, or to omit any part of any one of them. The Landed Estates Court may alter any of the forms, but cannot make additional forms; and consequently there is, and can be, no short form of a charge without a power of sale.

We have now given specimens of some few out of the multitude of inaccuracies and defects in the details of these bills. To specify all of them would be useless, and indeed impossible, without devoting more space to this subject than can be allotted to it. We have, however, mentioned a sufficient number to prove that it is untrue that these measures were well-considered before they were brought forward. The brilliancy of the popular speech of the Solicitor-general, referred to at the outset, was derived from the habit which a skilful advocate acquires of getting up rapidly (for the purpose of making a telling effect) a brief prepared for him, and which brief may be indifferently on the right side or the wrong one. The case he opened so plausibly has, so far as the evidence is concerned, failed miserably. If, unhappily, he had forced his bills through the legislature, they would have been wretched abortions, and have done more harm to the cause of genuine reform of the law, than six clever

Solicitor-generals, all making "brilliant" speeches, could have remedied.

"It is not re-assuring," observes the writer of the Letter1 numbered four at the head of this article, "to find, that instead of a great measure, such as you have in hand, having been maturely considered, and deliberately weighed, and tested in all its parts, your bills turn out to be off-hand productions, the clauses and provisions of which shift and vary from day to day.” Such being the case, what proof is there, we would ask, that the principle embodied in these bills has been more maturely weighed and considered than their details? We know that the registration commissioners, in their report of 1856, gave it as their deliberate opinion, that the introduction of such a Landed Estates Court as Sir Hugh M'Calmont Cairns now proposes to introduce here, would not be advisable; on the other hand, with all due respect for Sir Hugh's talents, we are bound to say that he has not, in the details of these bills, displayed so profound a knowledge of real property law as to render his unsupported opinion on the subject of much weight. The commissioners say

"The conclusion to which we have come is adverse to the institution of a Land Tribunal, with judicial powers to decide conclusively upon all titles to land. Such a court may advantageously be established where estates generally are so heavily encumbered, that their owners can neither emancipate themselves from existing burdens, nor discharge the duties which attach to the ownership of land. The object, in that case, is to obtain altogether a new proprietary, and to provide for payment of debts; but the same principle is hardly applicable in a state of society where there is no paramount need of encouraging absolute changes of ownership, as contradistinguished from temporary charges or family settlements, and where a considerable portion of the property will, not improbably, whatever may be the state of the law, still remain in the same family."—(Rep. p. 17.)

And again :

"We think a compulsory investigation of title, though only required as a preliminary to registration, would be highly objectionable; and we do not recommend it. It would involve, as has been pointed out in the evidence before us, the necessity of having every title to every

1 This letter, it is understood, emanates from a conveyancer of the highest eminence, and merits perusal.

acre of land thoroughly investigated by a competent judicial tribunal. It would be distasteful to landowners, who would be very reluctant to disclose their titles, and it would occasion the bringing forward of many stale and ill-grounded claims-would give rise to litigationand would, when completed, be of no practical benefit to any, except those who contemplated selling their estates."-(Rep. p. 26.)

And further:

"We do not think that in order to pass from our present system to a register of title, it would be necessary, as has been suggested, to create a jurisdiction in commissioners, applicable to all land, whether encumbered or not, similar to that of the Encumbered Estates Court in Ireland, by which an absolute or parliamentary title to the land subject to leases or tenancies, should be declared. On the contrary, we concur in the opinion of one of the witnesses who has given evidence before us, that to make a judicial or quasi-judicial examination of title an indispensable preliminary to admission to the register, would greatly narrow the benefits of registration. The expense alone of the examination, would exclude nearly all small properties; and the trouble and expense combined, would exclude many others. Defective titles would necessarily be excluded; and we do not see why a defect in the title to land, anterior to the introduction of registration, need deprive that land of the benefit of an improved mode of transfer subsequently."-(Rep. p. 28.)

Now we freely admit that we have little confidence in commissions or commissioners. But it is not necessary for us to consider whether these Registration Commissioners did their work well or not; it is sufficient for our present purpose to know, that Sir Hugh M'Calmont Cairns thinks they did. Speaking of the report, he said:

* *

* *

"With respect to that report I feel a difficulty in speaking in any terms which can justly convey to the House the very profound impression which its perusal has left upon my mind. * If we look at the names of the commissioners who took a part in that inquiry, I think they will carry the greatest possible weight with the House on a question of this kind. * We have adopted, and we propose to the House a scheme founded to a very considerable extent upon the report of this commission. I say to a considerable extent, because we confine our plan of a register of titles to those cases in which a declaration of title has in the first instance been obtained. I venture to think that if, at the time this commission made their report, they had possessed the knowledge of that which has since been done by this House with reference to Ireland, they also might not have been indisposed to confine their recommendations in the same way; and after devising means of purifying the title once for all, have

said that the registration should take its date from the purification of the title, and not to put the name on the register until a right and valid title should have been obtained."-(Speech, pp. 23, 24.)

Now, what has since been done by the House with reference to Ireland is this:-It "came to the conclusion, by a bill that was passed last session [1858], to arm the court, which before was called the Encumbered Estates Court, and now is called the Landed Estates Court, with power to give indefeasible titles to all purchasers, and to any owner of an estate who could prove a right to the possession, while at the same time its power with reference to the sale of encumbered estates was continued."-(Speech, p. 10.) But to give an already existing court new powers, and to create an entirely new court, are two very different things. In Ireland the machinery was ready, and no risk was run in applying it to new work. Even supposing that all the encumbered estates in that country had been disposed of, yet it would have been impossible summarily to dismiss the judges and officers of the court without pensions or compensation, and, consequently, the experiment was a fair and reasonable one. Should it fail, not much harm will have been done, or much extra expense incurred; and by ceasing to appoint new judges, and discontinuing the powers of the court, the whole matter would fall to the ground, and die a natural death. We cannot, therefore, think that the commissioners who were fully alive to the benefits conferred on Ireland by the Encumbered Estates Acts, would have been induced to recommend the adoption of the Irish system in England, solely because Parliament had thought fit to invest the Irish court with new powers.

But when the Solicitor general introduced his bills he knewor ought to have known something more than he told the House. He admitted in committee on the 14th March last, that in the three months from November to February, during which the new Irish Act had been in operation, there had been only two applications for an indefeasible title under its provisions, and of these applications one had failed and the other was withdrawn. But, said the Solicitor-general, "How did that happen?

The rules framed by the court were published at the beginning of November, and they had afterwards to be maturely considered by the professional gentlemen who would be required to act under them before they could be finally settled." So far, therefore, from feeling any thing like disappointment that only two applications had been made to the court up to the beginning of February, the sanguine Solicitor-general was surprised that in so short a space of time after its constitution even two cases had been prepared and brought under its jurisdiction.

Now, to introduce into England the plan of granting indefeasible titles because, in the space of three months, two applications had been made and had failed under a similar system in Ireland, seems to us clearly to prove that the principle and the details of Sir Hugh's measures were about equally well weighed and tested; and, so far from agreeing with Sir Hugh, we think that his reason for adopting a system diametrically opposed in principle to the recommendation of the commissioners, is insufficient, if not ridiculous; and that, had the commissioners been in possession of the facts alluded to, they would have said, "the success of the Landed Estates Court has not yet been sufficiently proved in Ireland to induce us to recommend its adoption in this country."

A. B., the writer of the Letter we have mentioned above, is not sanguine as to the success of Sir Hugh's plan, but suggests that it should be confined in the first instance to the county of Middlesex, and, if found successful, should be extended to the rest of England; for should the system when tried prove not to be successful, the disturbance would have been local only, and would be capable of being rectified, and the landowners of Middlesex would be amply compensated for the experiment by having got rid of their register.

This suggestion, coming as it does from a very high authority, is deserving of great consideration; but it appears to us that the experiment, unless there be a reasonable chance of its success, is one of too costly a nature to permit of its being attempted. The chance of success evidently must depend upon the solution