require a man of great ability and high qualification, a person with £300 or £400 a year ought to be put in it. While that House voted the salary, the Lord Chancellor would probably place in office some relation who would be dear at a tenth of the money.

MR. MALINS said, he thought that the qualification ought to go further than was proposed by the Amendment, and that a barrister of five or ten years' standing should be required, otherwise a man might be called to the Bar for the purpose of get. ting one of those appointments. The officers to be appointed under the clause were to be substituted for men who now performed most important duties in Lincoln's Inn as conveyancing counsel. When it was considered that every man interested in land would in the most important cases have to depend on the knowledge of those officers, the Committee would see how necessary it was that a high qualification should be required. Was the Committee prepared to leave it to the Lord Chancellor of the day to say whether the salary given should be £2,000 or £1,500 a year, or whether the men who were to fill the offices should be barristers or solicitors called yesterday? Unless they took care that proper persons should be appointed, the working of the Bill would be most mischievous. He would strongly recommend his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General to postpone the clause for the purpose of considering who were to hold those offices, and what was to be the qualification.

and it was quite impossible to say at present what would eventually be the extent of the establishment required to work the system. If it should prove successful, then, no doubt, a considerable establishment would be required; but as by the 125th clause fees, payable into the Consolidated Fund, were to be charged, it might in such case be expected to be self-supporting. Clause C enacted that the salaries should be paid by money to be provided by Parliament, and in accordance with Clause 111, the number of asssistant registrars and other officers, and the amount of their salaries, were to be fixed by the Lord Chancellor, not at his own discretion, but with the consent of the Commissioners of the Treasury. Therefore, there would exist the check of those who were responsible for the vigilant control of the public expenditure, and who had never shown an undue disposition to facilitate needless expenditure of this kind. Another check would be the necessity of applying to Parliament to vote the requisite money. It was impossible, until they ascertained how the Act would work, to form a definite estimate of the expense of the staff that would be required, but he presumed that it would not be so much as £8,000 or £9,000 a year at starting, the estimated amount under a former Bill. If the measure should prove successful, a larger establishment and a greater expenditure would then be required. With regard to defining the precise qualifications for the assistant registrars and clerks, he agreed with the hon. Member for Hertfordshire (Mr. Puller) that it would be inconceivable that persons should be appoint

MR. PULLER said, he was of opinion that the clauses defining the qualifications of officers would only produce mischief, as they would relieve the Lord Chancellor from a portion of the liability which would otherwise devolve upon him. It was absurd to suppose that any person other than a barrister, solicitor, or conveyancing counsel would receive any appointment, unless, indeed, it might by chance happen that a person not so qualified was peculiarly fitted for the office. It would be best to trust to the unlimited responsibility of the Lord Chancellor.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL observed that the Bill must be tested by its results,

of the classes named in the Amendment; he was, however, opposed to any attempt to define exactly any particular period of practice as necessary to qualify for any one of the officers named. He thought it would be safer in the first instance to rely on the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor, who would be anxious to see the system work in such a manner as to reflect honour on those who had introduced the measure. Examiners of titles would, he presumed, be called in on the same footing as conveyancers were at the present time.

MR. SCULLY said, he trusted that the clause would pass without any amendment; for he should like to send the Bill back to the House of Lords unaltered. The Lords had sent down a Bill establish

ing the two important principles of registration and indefeasibility of title, and he hoped the House of Commons would not "lose the sheep for the sake of a hap'orth of tar," by giving the Lords an opportunity of backing out of the important propositions they had agreed to. With regard to the assistant registrars and clerks, he thought the Bill provided sufficient security both as to the qualification of the parties appointed and the salaries; and with regard to the examiners, it would be easy to introduce a proviso to the effect that they should be barristers of a certain number of years' standing or certificated conveyancers.

MR. MALINS said, he for one, was unwilling to give the Lord Chancellor for the time being, whoever he might be, unlimited discretion in making such appointments as that of assistant registrar. Practically, the responsibility which had been spoken of had no place in the making of those appointments; and as the officer in question was to have a fixed salary, he could see no reason why the same security should not be required for his competency as was to be exacted in the case of the registrar. The assistant registrar would have to examine letters and transact a variety of business of the first importance in his office. It was therefore extremely expedient that he should be a duly qualified person and a man of standing in his profession. He would remind the Committee that Mr. Hargreave, to whom reference had been made as having been appointed to the Encumbered Estates Court in Ireland, was previously well-known as a conveyancing counsel, and that his selection could not as a consequence be urged with justice in favour of the course proposed by the clause under discussion. Those being his views, the Solicitor General would, he hoped, consent to modify the clause.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS said, he did not think it would be expedient to fetter the clause with a description of the qualifications of the persons who were to hold office under its operation. It was the wiser course, he thought, to place confidence in the noble Lord at the head of the profession for the time being, with whom the appointment would rest. For his own part, the circumstance that a barrister happened to be of five, or seven, or ten years, by no means appeared to him to insure his being possessed of any particular qualification; while he was of opinion,

that if the Lord Chancellor were disposed to make an unfit appointment, he could do so with less difficulty if a certain number of years' standing were required as the necessary qualification, because he would then be enabled to urge in favour of any selection which he might have made the circumstance that he had complied in making it with the Act of Parliament, and had chosen a person who had been the time insisted on at the profession. The best security, therefore, for the making of proper appointments was, he thought, the responsibility to which his hon. and learned Friend seemed to attach so little importance. He had at first supposed that the examiners of titles contemplated by this Bill were to be officers similar to those who, under that name, were attached to the Landed Estates Court in Ireland. Such, however, it appeared would not be the case; because, while the duty of the lastmentioned officers was simply to compare the deeds with the abstract, and they were paid by salaries, these examiners were to be conveyancing counsel, to whom the title was to be referred, who were to do the very work for which the registrar was to be appointed, and whose fees would have to be paid by the person applying for a declaration of title, in addition to the other payments which he would have to make. On both these accounts he objected to their appointment, and he must remind the Committee, that when in 1858 the Landed Estates Court of Ireland was made perpetual, that House refused to give to the Judges power to take the opinion of counsel upon titles, on the ground that it would diminish their responsibility.

MR. AYRTON said, he would remind the Committee that the Act regulating the registry in Chancery required that the assistant registrar and all persons capable of succeeding to that office should be solicitors. He did not see why a similar safeguard should not be provided with regard to the registry created under this Bill.

MR. HIBBERT said, he wished to ask whether these appointments were to be made on the passing of the Bill, or only as business required them?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL said, that he had no doubt that it was intended to make the appointments from time to time as the state of business rendered them necessary, but he could not undertake to state what staff might be required at first. The remarks of his hon. and learned

MR. HADFIELD said, he regretted that no means should be afforded for registration in the country, but that all business connected with titles should be centralized in London.

MR. HENLEY said, he hoped the Solicitor General would reconsider the superannuation arrangement proposed by the Bill. If a man was only fifty years old, and was able to work, why should he be superannuated merely because he had performed twenty years' service?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL said, he thought it would not be expedient to enter at that time upon the question of super

annuation.

MR. WALPOLE said, that further explanation was necessary as to the remuneration to be given to the officers under the Bill. There was obscurity as to the different functions these different officers were to discharge, and he thought it should be stated what were the functions respectively of the examiners and registrars of titles.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL said, he would make inquiry in the proper quarter. He understood that the functions of examiners would include every branch of examination as at present discharged by examining counsel of the Court of Chancery and solicitors. The clause, however, involved nothing except what was contained all through the Bill. Therefore he trusted the Committee would pass it, and it would be very easy to modify it on the report, if necessary.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS said, that if his hon. and learned Friend were right as to the duties proposed to be cast upon the examiner of titles, they were inconsistent in themselves. If he were to compare abstracts of titles with the originals, that was a duty properly devolving upon an attorney's clerk, while the duty of examining titles ought to devolve only upon a conveyancing counsel.

MR. MALINS said, he would express a hope that his hon. and learned Friend would postpone the clause. It could not be discussed properly on the report. Amendment negatived.

MR. PULLER said, he thought it much better that the Lord Chancellor should bear the whole responsibility, and that the First Lord of the Treasury should represent a sort of court of appeal.

MR. WALPOLE explained, that the consent of the Treasury was only necessary to the amounts of the salaries. The appointment and removal of the officers was properly under the cognizance of the Lord Chancellor.

Amendment negatived.

remaining Clauses. Clause agreed to; as were also the

MR. W. B. BEAUMONT said, he thought that some further protection would be required for the interests of the owners of mines and minerals.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL said, they had not only the ordinary protection given under the 12th section, but they had it in their own hands to protect themselves by entering a caveat with the registrar against the title of any other claimants. should propose, however, on the report to introduce words for the still more effectual protection of the owners of mines and minerals.

He

MR. AYRTON suggested, that those who were brought into the registrar's office to defend their rights should have their costs paid.

MR. SCULLY said, there would be no difficulty in protecting mines, whether on the ground or under the ground. He would venture to congratulate the House on the prospect of so important and useful a Bill becoming law.

SIR JOHN HANMER said, he regretted that so very important a branch of real property as minerals was not directly mentioned in the Bill. In many parts of Wales and of the north of England the mines and minerals belonged to one person, the surface to another, and sometimes the lordship to a third. If a Bill of this kind were to be satisfactory to the owners of real estate all over the country, this case ought to be particularly stated, and to be dealt with by express words. He trusted that the Solicitor General would give notice of his intention, so that the owners of mines might take advice upon any new clause, because a small

oversight would be the source of more evil than could be easily conceived.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL said, he would give early notice of what he intended to propose on the report. He would move an additional clause to meet the case of lords of manors. [Sir JOHN HANMER : That will not meet the case.] He would only remark at present, that if an owner's title were patent and on the deeds, his case would be provided for by the Bill; if it were latent and not upon the deeds, he must know his title better than anybody else, and might protect himself by entering a caveat.

MR. AYRTON said, that in some cases the fee of the surface was in the hands of one person and the fee of the minerals in the hands of another. The two were distinct; but the Bill seemed 40 treat the property in minerals as ancillary to the property on the surface.

He

MR. WALPOLE said, he was very anxious that the Bill should succeed. did not think a greater boon could be conferred on landed proprietors than to give them the means of obtaining an indefeasible title. If, however, the measure imposed upon those who were unwilling to avail themselves of it the necessity for employing a professional gentleman and of incurring expenses in order to put themselves in as good a position as those who had taken advantage of its provisions, he believed the Bill would break down, and that Parliament would have again to be applied to.

House resumed.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL said, he should not object to the clause, while he at the same time reserved to himself the right of considering whether it was one which it would be desirable should pass into a law eventually. If so, it might be expedient to introduce such a clause into the other Bills on the same subject. Clause agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered on Monday next.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members not being present,

House adjourned at Eight o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS,

Friday, June 27, 1862. MINUTES.]-PUBLIC BILLS.-2 Liverpool Fire

Prevention Acts Amendment; Elections (Ireland); Elections for Counties (Ireland); Bleaching and Dyeing Works Act Amend. ment; Unlawful Oaths (Ireland) Act Continuance.

3 Saint Thomas's Hospital; Landed Property Improvement (Ireland) Act Amendment; New Zealand; Artillery Ranges.

EAST GLOUCESTERSHIRE RAILWAY BILL.

CONTEMPT OF THIS HOUSE.

The Order of the Day being read for

DECLARATION OF TITLE BILL.

[BILL NO. 102.] COMMITTEE.

Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.

Clauses, as amended, agreed to.

MR. ROLT said, he wished to move a clause providing a register in which any person claiming any estate, or interest in land, or any encumbrance thereon, should be at liberty to enter his name and address, with the name of the county, parish, and township in which such land was situated, in such form as the Chancellor should order; and that after such entry the Court should not make an order under the Act unless notice of the application had been given to the person who should have made the entry.

to Mr. Boodle, Solicitor at Cheltenham, and John Preston, Town Crier at Cheltenham, at the Bar of this House, at Four o'clock, in reference to their Conduct with regard to the Signatures to the Petition of Barbara Robinson and others of Cheltenham, presented on the 22nd of May last, praying to be heard by Counsel against the "East Gloucestershire Railway Bill," the Yeoman Usher informed the House that they were in attendance: They were called in.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: My Lords, In consequence of what took place before the Committee on the East Gloucestershire Railway Bill, of which Committee I was Chairman, the Committee went into certain points with regard to the mode in which signatures had been obtained to a Petition against that project; and in consequence