adopted by Parliament," from those who have suffered, and are most interested in correcting it. It was stated at a meeting of the South Eastern Railway Company, in the month of March last, that the Parliamentary expenses of that Company during the last ten years, had amounted to the enormous sum of 479,7117., being at the rate of 53,000l. a-year. These expenses, it was explained to the unfortunate shareholders, “had been quite unavoidable, owing to the bad system of railway legislation."* It might have been further explained, for their comfort, that in return for this monstrous outlay they had obtained from Parliament the privilege of constructing the most tortuous and ill-contrived system of railway communication in the kingdom; for in the county of Kent every error and curiosity of Railway Legislation is exemplified, to the injury of the public, and the damage of shareholders.

Again, on the 6th of April, when Mr. Cardwell introduced his new Railway Bill, several of the leading speakers complained of the expenses and injury to which railways had been exposed by the system, or want of system, for which Parliament must be held responsible, and begged that if additional securities are to be provided for the public, the railways may at least be protected from the perpetuation of evils from which they have already suffered so much.

Mr. Cardwell is not likely to deny the justice of their complaints, for, as Chairman of the Committee of last Session, on Railway Legislation, the magnitude of these evils was forced upon his attention; and his able Reports leave nothing to be desired, except a remedy. He has, indeed, attempted to improve the constitution of Railway Committees in the House of Commons; but his experiment has not been very successfully inaugurated, and has merely served to demonstrate the incurable infirmities of the system which he had hoped to reconstruct. So far, therefore, as railway interests are concerned, there cannot be a more favourable opportunity than the present, for ensuring to any suggestions of practical improvement a candid consideration. And the

1 "Times" Report, 17th March, 1854.

experience of the last fifteen years must have satisfied all persons concerned in other public works and improvements, that even when they have obtained from Parliament what they needed, they have secured it with the utmost difficulty, and at a disproportionate cost.

And while the public and the suitors are thus favourably disposed towards a change of system, members of Parliament are growing weary of their attendance upon Private Bill Committees, where little credit is to be gained, and much drudgery is inevitable. In 1845 Sir Robert Peel counselled the younger members to go and learn statesmanship in Railway Committees. This advice was received with some derision at the time; and, whether good or bad, has been neglected ever since. The members attend, it is true, because they cannot help themselves; but they are always ready with excuses. "We are willing to serve," they say, "but let it be later in the Session: it is not convenient now." Or, "we are quite ready, at once, but we cannot sit upon that great railway group, which will last a month, as we are shareholders in one of the rival lines." And this last excuse points to a growing evil. The capital invested in railways and other public undertakings is now so enormous, that probably three-fourths of the members are shareholders in some scheme or another, which is affected by Private Bill Legislation. It is therefore becoming daily more difficult to secure the services of disinterested Committeemen, and still more difficult to find men who are supposed to be impartial.

All these circumstances must force upon the attention of Parliament and the Government the necessity of devising an effectual remedy for evils, which are universally acknowledged, and which, if not corrected, will be a growing reproach to both. The remedy is to be found, as we believe, in Lord Brougham's resolutions, which we commend to the serious attention of every one concerned. They strike at once at the root of the evil, by proposing to discontinue altogether the present system of Parliamentary Committees, without impairing the legislative authority of Parliament. It is proposed to attain this important object by the constitution of a new tribunal, common to both Houses, which shall perform all

the functions of inquiry and judicial determination now entrusted to Committees.

If no other result were to be secured by this plan than the discontinuance of the separate inquiry which is carried on in either House, the advantage would be sufficient to recommend its adoption. Every matter is now required to be proved twice over, once in the Commons and once in the Lords. When the promoters of a Bill have at length triumphed over every opposition in one House, they have to pass through the same ordeal in the other. Nor is this by way of appeal to a superior tribunal, in exceptional cases of error and injustice. Each inquiry is independent of the other; the same issues of fact are tried twice over, and even the most formal proofs are given a second time, with as much minuteness as if they had never been offered before. Perhaps the best example of these truly absurd and vexatious proceedings is to be found in the proof of Standing Orders. Since 1847 the Standing Orders of the two Houses have been almost identically the same, and yet compliance with them is invariably proved twice over, as if each House were determined to ignore the existence of the other. And while the Commons permit many formal matters to be proved by affidavit, the Lords reject such evidence altogether, and require the personal attendance of every witness from England, Scotland, and Ireland to be sworn at their bar.

In order to avoid these double inquiries, it has been suggested that Bills might be submitted to joint committees of Lords and Commons; but there are insuperable obstacles to such an experiment, in the dignity, the privileges, the jealousy, and the proceedings of the two Houses. By Lord Brougham's plan, all these obstacles would be at once overcome. By the independent orders of each House, the Court would inquire into the merits of every Private Bill: its reports would be made to both Houses independently, and the Bill would then pass through its several stages, like a public Bill, merely omitting the Committee. Each House would retain its independent legislative authority; but would delegate certain inquiries to a competent Court instead of to incompetent Committees.

But there are even greater evils than the double inquiry, which would be corrected by this plan. Under the present system there is so much of chance, and so little of consistent principle, that litigation is directly encouraged. It is impossible to predict the result of any application to Parliament, as it depends upon the particular committee to which its ex amination may be allotted. The most ruinous contests are thus excited, and are carried on in the most costly manner. Fifteen or twenty committees are sitting all at the same time, affirming one doctrine here, and denying it there; while counsel gifted with ubiquity, as well as other accomplishments, are gravely arguing both sides of every question, two or three times a day, before half a dozen different Committees. But even their ubiquity is continually at fault; and if clients would reckon upon a single counsel, in time of need, they must retain at least three times as many as they want, for the proper conduct of their case. These are the abuses that have ruined railway companies, hap-hazard legislation, devoid of principle and sound policy, and contests costing a thousand pounds a day.

Parliament has long been sensible of its own deficiencies, and has endeavoured to supply them by the aid of Government departments. It sought for help in Lord Dalhousie's Railway Board; but it was impossible to rely upon reports not founded upon evidence. It tried the Railway Commissioners, but gave them up in despair. It tried preliminary inquiries in the country, but found them worse than useless. In some cases it was wisely provided by general laws for matters which had previously been the subject of private Acts of Parliament. But still a mass of impracticable legislation presents itself, in dealing with which the present machinery is at once inadequate and mischievous.

Amidst so many failures, it is curious to observe that the only successful experiment was founded upon the same principle as that recommended by Lord Brougham, and introduced in the very year in which he propounded his plan. In 1846 the Commons discontinued the appointment of Committees for inquiry into compliance with their Standing Orders, and confided the very same duties to two Examiners.

These inquiries had previously engaged the services of forty or fifty of the most useful members of the House for two or three months of every Session. Yet their exertions failed in making the tribunal satisfactory, while the expenses to which the parties were exposed by delay, arrears, and the detention of witnesses were absolutely appalling. All these evils at once disappeared on the appointment of Examiners. The improved tribunal has now been in successful operation for eight years. It is no longer a novelty, and has worked so smoothly and steadily as scarcely to have attracted the attention it deserves. But it affords an encouraging precedent for the further changes which we have proposed. The railway interest have readily admitted the advantages of one improvement, and they have only to urge the adoption of the other, in order to secure its speedy introduction. The whole scheme has been carefully matured, and nothing is wanting but the will to give it a trial.

ART. XI. — TRANSFER OF LAND, WHAT IS NOW TO BE DONE?

Report from the Select Committee on the Registration of Assurance Bill, with the Minutes of Evidence.

1853.

WE had only time in our last number to notice the appointment of the Registration of Title Commission. We need not tell our attentive readers that it has been one of our objects for many years to obtain "a commission for the purpose of considering the subject of Registration of Titles with reference to the sale and transfer of land," and here it is made to our hands.

And then who are the Commissioners Her Majesty calls them her "trusty and well-beloved;" but may we not also claim them for our councillors by the like terms, our trusty and well-beloved Richard Bethell, Solicitor-General, our trusty and well-beloved Thomas Emerson Headlam,