many of whom took a growing interest in the debates of that House, and that they would be led, with time and increasing knowledge, more and more to adopt securer methods of providing against old age and evil days. INCUMBERED ESTATES COURT (IRELAND)-EARL OF LANESBOROUGH'S Government, whose duty it should be to investigate their tables, to examine their accounts, and see from time to time whether they stood on a firm basis. But what the hon. Gentleman recommended the Government to do on behalf of the Friendly Societies it appeared to him they could do without much trouble on their own behalf. The case of the Burial Societies was a very different one, and the hon. Gentleman had been more successful in establishing the existence of a great evil-which, indeed, had been fully and repeatedly explained in Mr. Tidd Pratt's Annual Reports-than in suggesting a suitable remedy. It was said the more ignorant portion of the working classes were the victims of designing men, who went about the country making attractive statements to them, and inducing them to subscribe to societies which were, in fact, bubble institutions; but the best remedy for that seemed to him to be the spread of greater knowledge among the classes immediately concerned. Parliament could hardly be asked to prohibit the existence of those Burial Societies, although some persons thought they contained the germs of much mischief. The fact was there were honest and dishonest societies. He did not know whether means could be found for bringing the societies into a better condition, except by the one simple method of publishing statements of their accounts, and thus enabling the working classes to obtain accurate knowledge of the good and stable societies as distinguished from those which were of a bad and bubble character. He would leave the remedy, therefore, to time and education. But if his hon. Friend were dissatisfied with that and wished, at a proper opportunity, to move for a Committee of Inquiry into that question, no opposition to the Motion would be offered by the Government. The inquiry need not be a long one, and it would be a matter for rejoicing if its result should be to show that Parliament, without infringing on the laws. laid down for its general guidance in dealing with such subjects, could do something effectual to save the working classes from the evils to which they were exposed. The hon. Gentleman deserved thanks for the able manner in which he had brought that question before the House, and he hoped that the hon. Gentleman's statement would have due effect upon the working classes, ESTATE.-QUESTION. CAPTAIN ARCHDALL said, he rose to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If his attention has been called to a recent decision of the Irish Court of Chancery on an Appeal arising out of a conveyance of a portion of the estate of the Earl of Lanesborough to a Mrs. Catherine Reilly, the purchaser of a portion of a neighbouring property sold in the Incumbered Estates Court; and whether it is intended to propose any amendment of the Law which sanctions the sale of incumbered estates in Ireland? Every man who owned an acre of land in Ireland was deeply concerned in this matter, which was a glaring act of robbery perpetrated by the Incumbered Estates Court. He would beg leave to read a statement of the facts from a letter by the Hon. Cavendish Butler. In the year 1865, a portion of the estate of Loftus Tottenham, Esq., situated in the county of Fermanagh, was advertised for sale by the Landed Estates Court. As this estate was contiguous to the estate of the Earl of Lanesborough, in accordance with the practice of the court, notice of the proposed sale, a rental, and copies of maps of the estate, were submitted to the agent to Lord Lanesborough, in order that he might satisfy himself of the correctness of the boundaries. No error in this respect appearing on the face of the maps, the sale was allowed to proceed. A certain Catherine Reilly rented a portion of the Tottenham estate, containing 16 acres, 3 roods, 29 perches. At the sale she purchased the fee simple of this land, which was separated from the estate of the Earl of Lanesborough by a deep ditch and a high quickset hedge. A Landed Estates Court title was given to her, and nothing further transpired until the year 1867, two years after the purchase, when she claimed a portion of Lord Lanesborough's property, which was bounded on the one side by the portion of land so purchased, and on the other by a public street in the town of Newtown Butler, and which said Catherine Reilly, still she was encontained 49 perches of ground, valuable titled to 49 perches of a property that for building purposes. This claim was, was never sold by the court, bought by of course, resisted, and eventually, as the claimant, or included in the quantity Mrs. Reilly threatened to take forcible specified by the said deed of conveyance. possession, an action for trespass was It appears, therefore, that no matter brought against her in the Court of what the quantity or nature of property Common Pleas. For the plaintiff the described in a deed of conveyance from above facts were stated. The Landed the Landed Estates Court, the map alone Estates Court proved that the defendant is to be considered the basis of the purpurchased and paid for only 16 acres, 3 chase; and the question was whether a roods, 29 perches, which were duly con- man's property could be conveyed to anveyed to her; that if the 49 perches now other, without his knowledge or consent, claimed were added to her purchase, she through the negligence or other default would become possessed of so much of some official? A portion of the estate more land than she had actually bid for, of the Earl of Lanesborough had been paid for, or ever had in her possession; so conveyed to the purchaser of a portion that the said 49 perches formed part of the of a neighbouring estate-no portion of estate of the Earl of Lanesborough, and the estate of the Earl of Lanesborough had been in possession of the family was mentioned in the deed of conveysince the original grant of the estate, ance-and the only grounds on which and that by no act of the present or late Catherine Reilly claimed the portion of proprietor had it been alienated. The Lord Lanesborough's estate, included in defendant, on the other hand, claimed the map, was that it was so included. under the conveyance made to her by The Attorney General for Ireland would the Landed Estates Court, which, al- probably remember that when Ahab though it only specified that it had sold appropriated the land of Naboth he reand thereby conveyed to her 16 acres, ceived a very severe punishment. If 3 roods, and 29 perches, still went on to the conduct of Ahab was bad, the consay that "the portion coloured red, de- duct of the Incumbered Estates Court fined on a map attached to said convey- was worse. Ahab gave notice to Naboth ance, was the land so conveyed." A that he wanted the land, but the Indraughtsman attached to the Engineers' cumbered Estates Court gave Lord Office caused the red line alluded to to Lanesborough no notice whatever. The include a portion of Lord Lanesborough's land, it was true, was of small extent and estate, containing 49 perches of ground, value, but the question was one of prinand thus made Mrs. Reilly's purchase ciple, and Parliament ought to interfere 17 acres and 38 perches, and not 16 to prevent so gross an injustice. acres, 3 roods, and 29 perches, as stated in the deed. Chief Justice Monaghan held the title good and nonsuited the plaintiff. Upon this, reference was made to the Landed Estates Court for redress, and, upon the re-hearing of the case before Judge Lynch, he, in an elaborate judgment, called upon said Catherine Reilly to re-convey to trustees the said portion of ground thus improperly claimed by her, with a view to its restoration to its rightful owner, the Earl of Lanesborough. Against this decision Catherine Reilly appealed to the Court of Chancery, who again reversed the decree of the Landed Estates Court, and held that the line defined by the red paint was a good conveyance, and that, although Catherine Reilly acknowledged, and the body of the deed affirmed, that only 16 acres, 3 roods, and 29 perches were sold and paid for by the He THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN) said, he would not allude to the Scriptural illustration just introduced, but would remind the House that when the Incumbered Estates Court was founded in Ireland some twenty years ago it was thought to be of vital importance that every title given by it should be indefeasible. was perfectly familiar with the facts of the case, for it happened that he had been Counsel against Lord Lanesborough. The estate adjoining to Lord Lanesborough's property was sold in the Incumbered Estates Court, and, through a mistake on the part of an officer of the Ordnance Survey, the strip of land in question belonging to his Lordship, and forming an acute angle projecting from the mass of the property, was included in the conveyance, though the map served on Lord Lanesborough, as an could recoup themselves by bringing an action for damages against the person who had benefited by the mistake that had been made. adjoining owner, showed this strip uncoloured. The mistake was to be regretted, but he did not think it properly described by the term "robbery." It should be remembered that during the operation of the court, which had conveyed millions of property, these mis- now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to. takes had been of the most trivial cha Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do VOTE ON ACCOUNT. SUPPLY considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) racter, this being, perhaps about the SUPPLY-CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES. second or third which had been discovered. The remedy now suggested was an amendment of the law, but the only amendment that could be adopted would have the effect of rendering the title disputable. Now, it would be little short of a national calamity if, on account of a mistake with regard to some 49 or 50 perches of land, the validity of titles under the Incumbered Estates Court was impaired. one. MR. HUNT said, he knew nothing of the case until he had just heard it explained, but he must say it appeared to him that a flagrant robbery had been committed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that there had been a mistake, but pleaded that it was a small Now, they had all heard of excuses made by delinquents where the corpus delicti was a small one, and the excuse now offered was about on a par with that of the female delinquent to whom he referred. If the state of the law in Ireland was that, through the mistake of a Government officer, a man might be robbed of his land, and there was no mode of correcting the error, it was the bounden duty of the Government to see that a change in the law was at once introduced. MR. TORRENS said, the Incumbered Estates Court had proved an inestimable boon to Ireland, but its value would be greatly impaired if any doubts were thrown on the validity of the titles granted under it. At the same time, it would, he thought, be possible to devise a remedy for the injustice here pointed out. In Australia he had introduced a Bill for establishing a court similar to the Irish Incumbered Estates Court, and giving indefeasible titles; but there a small percentage was levied upon the value of the land brought under the system, and out of the fund thus formed the persons injured by such mischances as these received compensation. This system of insurance, which fell very lightly on those resorting to the court, worked satisfactorily. In addition to this there was a provision that the Government MR. AYRTON, in moving that a sum of £1,586,800 be granted to Her Majesty on account of those services, said, it would be desirable that he should redeem the promise given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) desired an explanation of the difference between a statement appearing in a Paper on the table of the House and that made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reference to the amount of these Estimates. The difference appeared to be that the Paper laid on the table showed that the Civil Service Estimates for the present year exceeded those of last year by £387,000; whereas, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the excess was only £281,000. The difference between these two statements was £106,000. The fact was that the original Estimate had been reduced by one item of £28,250. The Committee would also see that the Paper laid on the table only contained what might be called the old Votes repeated in the present year, and several supplemental and original Votes had been omitted in the comparison, and those Votes amounted to £78,000. Therefore, adding to that sum of £78,000 the other amount of £28,250, it would be seen that together they made the sum of £106,000. He would now deal with the proposal to take the Vote on Account. In the first instance, it was intended to ask for a Vote on Account equal to four months' Supply; because, as there had been considerable discussion as to the best mode of conducting the business of that House in relation to the business of the other House, it was thought desirable to postpone until a late period of the Session that part of the business which the other House would not require time to dispose of, in order that hon. Members might devote themselves Civil Service Estimates were not yet laid on the table. He therefore presumed that the usual course would be adhered to, of taking the Vote on the understanding that hon. Members reserved to themselves the right of examining each of the items afterwards in Committee of Supply. He very much regretted that he had not been able to have the Civil Service Estimates printed and circulated by the present time; but, after keeping back the present Vote to the last moment, he now found himself compelled, in consequence of the financial year having expired, to propose it to the Committee. He might explain to such hon. Members as were not conversant with the circumstances which rendered the present Vote necessary that in former times it was the practice to apply the balances of old Votes to meet the expenses at the beginning of the year until the new Estimates should be sanctioned; but, under the system now in force, it was not lawful to apply those balances for the service of the new year without the sanction of Parliament, but they must be paid into the Exchequer. at an early period to the consideration the wish expressed by the House last of the business which it was desirable to Session would be carried into effect. send up to the House of Lords as soon The details of the present Vote on Acas possible. He ventured, therefore, to count were, as might be seen, spread suggest that they should not proceed over almost all the items in the Civil with the Civil Service Estimates until Service Estimates. In proposing a Vote the Bills now under consideration should on Account it was not usual to enter be disposed of; but he understood that upon these items in detail, the Vote some hon. Gentlemen thought that the being taken in a single sum. Therefore Government would gain some advantage the Committee need not examine them by taking a large Vote on Account. It in detail. Indeed, it would be impossiwas, however, a matter of indifference ble for hon. Members to do so, as the to the Government whether they took the Vote for a shorter or a longer time; for, if taken for a short time, the Government, when that period elapsed, would only have to take another Vote for a further period, though that course of proceeding might give trouble to the permanent officers of the Department. However, as some hon. Members did not wish that the Government should take a Vote for a long time, he now proposed to take a Vote for two months. In taking this Vote, the Committee must understand it was not the intention of the Government to embark under it upon any new expenditure in respect to which the Committee might desire to express any opinion of their own, and the Vote on Account merely provided for the continuation of those services and works which had been sanctioned in the past year. Therefore, the Committee in sanctioning the Vote did not pledge themselves to any new undertaking, but merely recognized the principle that the services were to be continued on the footing on which they were left by the preceding Committee of Supply in last year. His right hon. Friend the Chan-It was clear that if all the Civil Service cellor of the Exchequer stated to the House yesterday the leading causes which led to the increase of these Estimates, and a considerable portion of the increase was only apparent and unsubstantial. The most important item of apparent increase was that for the Diplomatic Service, which was changed from a permanent charge on the Consolidated Fund to a Vote in Supply. A Bill to carry this arrangement into effect would be laid on the table of the House as soon as the necessary details were settled. By that measure the power of the MR. HUNT: Sir, I will not allude to Crown to obtain money for the Diplo- the first observations of the hon. Genmatic Service out of the Consolidated tleman who has just spoken as to the Fund would be taken away, so that discrepancy between the statement of hereafter those charges must be met by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Votes in a Committee of Supply, and the Papers which have been placed in Estimates could not be voted immediately after the commencement of the new financial year, the inevitable result must be that a portion of them must be voted as was now proposed, on account. It was equally obvious that it was impossible to proceed with the whole of the Votes at the present period of the Session, and the Committee would, therefore, he hoped, have no difficulty in assenting to the proposal of the Government, that a certain sum should be granted to meet the wants of the service. per issued on the 5th instant." It is not, I may add, usual to raise discussions on Votes on Account, and I should on this occasion follow that which is the usual course had it not been for peculiar circumstances connected with two items in these Estimates. The two items to which I allude are those on the second page of the Paper which I hold in my hands. No. 10, the Vote for the Charity Commission, and No. 12, that for the Copyhold, Inclosure, and Tithe Commission. Certain proceedings occurred last year in connection with those Votes to which I wish to call the attention of the Committee. On the 24th of April, 1868, my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney) moved a Resolution as an Amendment to the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, in the following terms: our hands, because there will be an opportunity afforded of discussing that point when the House comes to deal with the full Estimates in Committee of Supply. I must, however, say that the original proposition made by the Government to take Votes on Account for a period of four months seems to me to require some comment. The hon. Gentleman has stated that it was of no importance to the Government whether they took Supply for four months or for two. I cannot think that that is altogether the case. At all events that was not the view of the matter which was taken by those who sit on the Ministerial Benches, when in Opposition last year. Last year the late Government proposed to adopt the usual course, and to take a Vote on Account for a period of three months, but we received an intimation from those "To leave out the word 'That' to the end of who then sat upon these Benches that the Question, in order to add the words 'in the they would object to the granting of opinion of this House the expenses of the CopySupply for more than six weeks. We, hold, Inclosure, and Tithe Commission, Inclosure desiring to have no controversy on the and Drainage Acts, and Charity Commission ought not to be borne by the public." point, consented to take Votes for only six weeks, but we found from the There was on that occasion a division, the Papers presented to the House, a few "Ayes" in favour of the words proposed days ago, that the Government, many of to be left out standing part of the question whose Members were opposed to our tak- being 104, and the "Noes" 105. The ing Supply for three months, proposed to consequence was that the next question take Votes for four months. Now, the put that the words of the Resolution practical consequence of voting money should be added to the word "that," for so long a period must be, as the hon. and the numbers were Ayes" 106; Gentleman knows, that the Estimates "Noes," 105. It fell to my lot to take would be hurried through the House at part in that debate, and I stated, in the fag end of the Session, when many reply to my hon. Friend the Member Members would be reduced to such a for Chippenham, that the Government state of lassitude that they would be un- were altogether in favour of the prinwilling to stay in London, and when, ciple of his Motion, but that they practically, the Government would have thought its terms required some qualivery much their own way. It is quite fication. I added that, while conright that the Government should have curring with him in the opinion that supplies to go on with, but then they the proceedings for the greater part in should not be allowed, in my opinion, to those cases ought to be carried out at have them for so long a time as to leave the expense of the parties interested, the discussion of the Estimates practically yet we looked upon the measure which he in the hands of official Members. Cer- proposed as so sweeping that there tainly the Opposition of last year took a would be considerable difficulty in givvery stringent view of their rights in this ing it effect. I therefore suggested that matter, and I was, therefore, all the the word "entirely" should be inserted more unprepared for the course they in his Resolution before the word have taken now they are in power. We, "borne," thus binding the Government of the Opposition, made a suggestion to to the view that the expense ought not the Government; the consequence of to be entirely borne by the public. My which was that another Paper was placed hon. Friend, however, at the instigation in our hands, with a little slip pasted on of the present First Lord of the Admiit, with the statement, "It is requested ralty, the President of the Poor Law that this may be substituted for the Pa- Board, and others who now sit on the - |