If then, in cases of small properties, the court cannot procure the undivided services of a well qualified Receiver, and if the Receiver, in order to support himself, must unite other business with that of his office, the objection to a solicitor is no greater on that ground than would apply to any individual who would take the appointment in connection with his other avocations. Other reasons may be suggested why the rule should not be inflexible. Suppose the property to be house property in a town: where is the superiority of an agricultural over a legal receiver? Suppose again that the family solicitor had been the family land agent for the last twenty years, and the property were placed under the court for the discharge of a judgment debt which would be paid by the perception of two years rent; in such a case, would it be just or advisable to remove the former agent, with his pre-existing knowledge of the estate and the tenantry, and substitute a farmer, grocer, or absentee land agent in his stead? In discussing the capabilities of the different classes for office, the important testimony of Master Henn and Master Litton cannot be discarded, and their reasoning is almost conclusive in favour of solicitors, but only so long as a system continues to exist, which is so cumbrous and complicated that no uninitiated country gentleman can understand it. The grounds of public policy which his Honour adverted to, but did not state, must in some degree rest on the fitness or unfitness of a person immersed in other pursuits engaging in one, which requires an attention he cannot bestow, and a knowledge he does not possess. This applies very generally, and we concede at once that town solicitors and barristers in practice are unfit to be receivers, and unquestionably none of that class should ever be appointed, or seek the appointment; but there may and do exist members of both professions whose early habits and pursuits, whose tastes and connection with the estate may eminently qualify them for the office, and we should pause before we laid down an inflexible rule of exclusion. Another ground of public policy-stated to be sufficient to disqualify attorneys is the tendency that legal men have to create costs, to "give more law and less money," to look at everything through a legal medium, and if they cannot make costs themselves to create a job for a brother. It is idle to say that too much of this system has not been adopted, and it is notorious that numbers of estates are thrown into the Court of Chancery to create costs, but it is rather the office of solicitor for the receiver ceiver than that of receiver-solicitor that, in this view, is the really desirable appointment. Delinquencies and delinquents should be punished in proper cases, in every case where the office of receiver or receiver's solicitor is procured corruptly, whether it be by attorney, private gentlemen, grocer, land agent, or farmer; no class is immaculate. "En virtue's self will sometimes bear away her outward robes, soiled in the wrestle with iniquity." But an entire body is not to be punished because it possesses unworthy members. The opinion of Master Henn, which, founded on his long practice, is deserving of attention, is, that attorneys are the least expensive receivers, as they cannot charge for attendances, or for advice given by themselves to themselves. We agree that there are certain items they cannot charge for; but there are law proceedings which an attorney receiver will be more apt than a lay man to deem necessary, and which a Master will be sure to sanction. The Master of the Rolls has appealed to public opinion; a discriminating public opinion, we think, will pronounce against the exclusive rule. It is one thing to be convinced that abuses do exist and public opinion will unhesitatingly coincide in that; but the reflecting public will differ as to the mode of administering correctives for those abuses. The Chancellor has pointed out the mistake into which his Honor-actuated, we have no doubt, by the sincerest desire for the public good. has fallen, that he has considered the question more in the character of the legislator than that of the judge. The Master of the Rolls cannot entertain a stronger opinion than we do of the necessity for a thorough reform of the administration of estates under our courts of Equity. We want a concentrated governing body, acting with educated and trained officers on a uniform system. But we must distinguish the evils of a system from the shackled agents who have to carry it out; we should not visit on the latter those offences which are chargeable upon the former. We have felt the question to be of such general importance, that we have opened our columns to the letter of our correspondent P. It was a ques tion on which we knew that we could not be silent; and we cannot close this article without expressing our deep regret at the mode in which the Master of the Rolls has expressed his opinion, towards a brother judge, who never said an ungracious thing; whose courtesy, whilst it never interfered with the firm and conscientious discharge of his duties, has endeared him to every professional man who has had the privilege of practising before him. We can conceive no deeper wound capable of being inflicted on the administration of justice in this country, than that by which members of the same court are shewn to be at variance, one speaking dis respectfully of the opinion of the other, and the other replying in language of strong retort. Men in high official legal position should be guarded in their use of language; an expression by them of approval or of dislike to an individual, may make or mar his fortune. When one judge differs from another, if he wish to preserve the respect of the public for the judicial office, he will treat the opinion of the judge from whom he differs, with courtesy and respect. There never was a better aphorism for judges than that which tells them "to express their own opinions with moderation, and to treat those of others with deference." SIR, To the Editor of the Irish Jurist. careful not to encroach on the duties of the higher powers. If, however, a principle be in itself correct, much allowance should be made for the person, who, in attempting to carry it out, should even exceed the limits of his jurisdiction; but there seems grave doubt as to the expediency of the proposed rule. We may assume that the organization of a staff of In your last number you promised to recur to professional agents-men whose lives should be dethe important question of the propriety of appoint-voted to the management of property, is for the pre hopeless. It would be difficult to find the ma ing solicitors as receivers under the courts. Havterials from which to form such a staff, and the opiing spent some thought on this subject, I take the liberty of addressing you thereupon. The whole nions of many authorities of the greatest weight are question of receiverships under the Courts of Chan- opposed on principle to its creation. For some time cery and Exchequer has been lately brought much longer it is certain that estates under the courts must before the public; but the attention of the profes-be managed by persons not possessing any special sion has been particularly turned to this peculiar branch of it, by a series of judgments, in which the practice of nominating as receivers, solicitors, or persons in any way in their confidence, has been most energetically denounced. It is true that barristers, physicians, and traders were also stigmatised as improper persons to undertake the office; thus including almost all the classes amongst which we can find men trained to habits of thought, of method, or of accuracy; but it is quite plain that the judicial mind was more appalled by the enormity of permitting one solicitor to be appointed, than it would have been by the distribution of all the receiverships of both courts amongst the other disqualified classes. Sir Edward Sugden in his examination before the Select Committee of the Commons on Receiverships, stated that by the practice of the court a solicitor could not be a receiver. Had not the assertion been made by so very eminent a judge, it would have seemed impossible to suggest that solicitors were hitherto disqualified; and the only probable mode of accounting for the opinion is, that Sir Edward Sugden professional qualifications. Is it, under those circumstances wise, that barristers, physicians, traders and solicitors should be absolutely disqualified from becoming receivers? Such is the question. * meant to confine it to solicitors in the cause. The Master of the Rolls, however, stated to the Committeef that Sir Edward Sugden was under a misapprehension on the point, and the doctrine of the text books, the reasoning of Master Litton in Molony v. Nugent, (1 I. J. 322), the constant practice of both courts, and the Lord Chancellor's decision in Geale v. Nugent, leave no doubt that no inflexible rule exists which binds the Masters to reject a solicitor in exercising their discretion as to the fittest person to be appointed receiver. It does, however, seem very doubtful, whether any single judge has it in his power now to lay down any such rule, with no higher authority in its favour than the recommendation of a select committee of the Com. mons, which can hardly be considered as effecting a change in the law; still less ought any one to be punished by the infliction of costs for having acted upon the law as heretofore understood. Many of the members of the Select Committee seemed impressed with the idea that much might be accomplished by the exertions of individuals; but in acting on the great maxim "Aide toi et le ciel l'aidera," the self-dependent reformer should be Examination of Select Committee, p. 47. ques 518. † Examination Select Committee, p. 95, ques. 1098. Almost all those best acquainted with the man, agement of property in Ireland dwell much ou the necessity of the agent residing upon or near the property under his care. Amongst those who have expressed this opinion most strongly may be Brooke; † the report of the Select Committee also mentioned the Master of the Rolls* and Master presses on this point, while the evidence taken by the Land Tenure Commission contains many complaints of the non-residence of agents. With out this principle all hope of improvement seems vain, aud its operation will certainly exclude any man, law or lay, who does not reside for the greater part of the year on or near the estate, if any one can be found who does. If the estate be one where the fees afford a sufficient remuneration for the whole time of men of character and intelligence it seems but common honesty and common sense that the whole time of the receivers should be devoted to it, and the court may well, in such cases, annum. Who will give up all other employment for such a salary? Is it likely to be a "independent character and personal influence?" man of When the estates under the courts are concen. trated it may be possible for one person to undertake the management of several; but they are frequently much scattered, and the choice must then be made between a man whose active labour is worth but £50 per annum, who cannot procure any higher remuneration, and one, a portion of whose more valuable time is already occupied. Can there be a doubt which to choose? Surely where the receiv ership is so small that its fees cannot purchase the whole attention of a competent person, the best possible arrangement is to employ a portion of the time of one who has already some other occupation. It will be conceded then that the receiver may have Ev. Sel. Com. p. 98, qu. 1116; p. 103, qu. 1165. † Ev. Sel. Com. p. 13, qu. 148 to 151; p. 16, qu. 192, 193. Ev. Sel. Com. p. 139, qu. 1564, 1565, reason for their exclusion. some other employment. We have seen that he must was convicted of such a fraud would very probably live on or near the estate; the most suitable resident be struck off the roll, and that any attorney perin the neighbourhood must, therefore, be appointed. mitting his name to be so used, violated a solemn Now, what are the component parts of rural society? oath, we must believe that if such cases do occur, which of its members are best qualified? Clergy- they are very exceptional, while the appointment men are excluded by statute; traders, physicians and of farmer receivers does not prevent at least an solicitors by the proposed rule; there remain land equal suspicion of similar fraud.* Master Litton, proprietors and farmers. But what proportion of in his very able judgment in Molony v. Nugent, the land proprietors would accept receiverships? (1 Ir. Jur. 322,) shows how much the legal knowWhat proportion of those who would accept them ledge and business habits of a solicitor receiver are capable of fulfilling the duty? Do they in ge- may often save and benefit the estate, and without neral manage their own estates so well as to make going quite so far as to say that they should be prethem models for imitation? If not, why do we ex-ferred, there certainly does not seem any sufficient pect more favourable results where there are less powerful motives for exertion? It is to be feared that too many of our country gentlemen are sadly deficient in those habits of business and accuracy by which alone property can be satisfactorily administered. As a normal school for proprietors the arrange ment might be valuable, but it would hardly be just to complete their education at the cost of encumbered estates. Farmers, when men of intelligence and education, frequently make excellent receivers; but, unfortunately, the number of farmers who possess those qualifications is very limited. In many parts of the country there are few, if any, above the rank of manual labourers; and even the agricultural knowledge of too many of those who consider them. selves of a higher grade is limited to the alternation of exhausting white crops with scanty pasture. Al-provement of the practice in appointing receiver; most all who live in the country have, at least, such a knowledge of farming; but those whose chief profession is not agricultural, have, in general, the additional merit of not being wedded to old and erroneous systems. It does indeed seem difficult to say why the classes mentioned in Reynolds v. Reynolds [cited in Geale v. Nugent, (1 Ir. Jur. 321)] were singled out. If inconsistent occupation be an objection, (and we have shewn that it cannot be considered a disqualification), it applies as much to those who were admitted to be qualified. The business of a large farmer must demand at least as much of his time as that of a trader in a small town, a country doctor, or a local attorney. That seems to be the only objection pressed against two of the classes; but with regard to solicitors as receivers, a further prejudice seems to exist, apparently founded partly on a species of legal fiction, that they are always in the superior courts attending to their clients' interests, and a complete ignorance of the existence of such beings as country attorneys; but chiefly upon the idea that they are in some way or other interested in increasing the law costs of the estate. The simple answer to this is, that they are not, and can not be so interested, for the practice of the court will not permit them to act in their own behalf. It is sometimes hinted, that in order to evade this rule, they, while actually doing the business, and receiving the profits, use the name of other solicitors. It might be a sufficient answer to say, that even the Select Committee, though not a little actuated by something of the prejudice against lawyers which distinguished the Lack Learning Parliament, could procure no evidence of any such case; but when we recollect that the court exercises a most summary jurisdiction over its officers, that any solicitor who The report of the Select Committee recommends "that the receiver should be resident on or near the property, acquainted with agriculture, of inde pendant character and personal influence." How is such a man most readily to be procured? By narrowing or by extending the qualification? There are not so many such men in every district in Ire land, that it is expedient to reduce the number from whom to select. Let the office be made less hazardous, let the difficulty of arranging security be diminished, let the Master have more opportu nity of testing the fitness of the candidates, and we may hope for at least some such appointments. The report of the Committee of the Law Society gives some most valuable suggestions for the im going pretty deeply into the details requisite to carry out the principle of careful selection advised by the Master of the Rolls and the Select Committee; and by the working of some such principle may we hope to see a better class of receivers, which is not likely to be produced by any rules of exclusion-of all systems, that most opposed to the feelings, the tastes, and the tendencies of this age. P. Report of the Committee of the Society of the Attor neys and Solicitors of Ireland, on the subject of managing Estates by Receivers under the Court of Chancery in Ireland, with the suggestions of the Committee for the improvement of the present system. WE have considered the subject of the management of estates by Receivers under the Court of Chancery in Ireland, and beg to state that we conceive the change of property likely to take place in con sequence of the measures now before Parliament, the probable decrease in the number of orders for Receivers, which will be consequent on the bill to amend the law concerning judgments, should it be passed and the capability which exists of improving the present system, render it exceedingly unadvisa ble, that any new tribunal, or new machinery for the management of estates in the hands of the Court of Chancery should be established; any measure of the kind must entail serious expense, on owners of estates, and the suitors of the Court, and it must be difficult, if not impracticable, to foresee to what extent officers and assistants would be required by Ev. Sel. Com. p. 15, qu. 182. † Infra Ed. such a tribunal for an efficient discharge of its duties. The present system secures the important principle of making each estate defray its own expenses of management, and no more, and all that is required is to add to the despatch of business, to diminish expense and to place the management of estates under the Court upon an improved footing, and we are of opinion that this can be accomplished with ease and by reforms involving no fundamental changes. For the purpose of carrying out these views, we suggest that the jurisdiction of the Masters in reference to the management and setting of estates under the controul of the court should be enlarged, and in particular that they should be enabled to make leases for terms not exceeding 21 years, without the consent of the inheritor, adopting in suitable cases the form of lease prescribed by the 9th & 10th Vic. c. 112, and that they should be empowered in all causes and matters to entertain applications for reductions in rents, and with or without the consent of the parties, and whether the tenants hold leases or not, to make such reductions as they may think proper for any period not exceeding the pendency of the cause or matter, and that the Masters when letting property should be at liberty to dispense with security, or take any description of security they may think suitable to the circumstances of each particular case. by That the Master should have power to delegate to the receiver authority to act in certain cases on his own judgment without coming to him for formal orders; but in such cases the receiver should be responsible for his acts, and should on the next proper occasion bring the matter before the Master for his approval and confirmation; and that the Master, on the application of any party interested, should be at liberty to enquire into any matter connected with the management of the estate, and the conduct of the receiver, without any order of reference from the court for that purpose. With the view of securing in every case the appointment of the most eligible person as receiver, that it should be the duty of the solicitor having the carriage of the order for the appointment of the receiver, to insert advertisements in the local papers, stating shortly that a receiver is to be appointed over the property in question; and that all persons are at liberty to send in applications to the Master and the solicitor; and that any applicant may be put in nomination, and that the Master may be at liberty to appoint any such person, although he may not have been put forward on behalf of any of the parties in the cause or matter, and in furtherance of the same object of having the most efficient and eligible persons appointed, that the present node of giving security should be altered. That the security of the Guarantee Society, or of any other public company approved of by the Master should be accepted, or that the receiver should be at liberty to transfer to the credit of the cause or matter an amount of Government Stock not exceeding one year's income to be dealt with in a summary way on the order of the Court or Master, or that the security by recognizance should be limited to one year's income; and that every receiver within six months after his appointment, and within six months after passing each account, without any special direction for the purpose, should file an affidavit in the Master's office, stating the amount received since his appointment or last accounting, the amount disbursed by him, and the net balance then in his hands, and that such balance should be then invested or otherwise disposed of as the Master should direct. That in all cases, unless the Master should otherwise direct, applications in reference to the man. agement of estates, and the letting of lands should be made to him on notice to the parties without a statement of facts being filed, and that the Master should make such order thereon as may be necessary. That a separate book should be kept in the office of the Master, in which should be exclusively entered all orders and directions in reference to receivers, and the management and letting of estates; that copies of such orders signed by the Master's examiner should be a sufficient authority to the receiver for acting thereon; and that this receiver's book should be open to the parties and their solicitors, to inspect and extract therefrom without fee, (certified copies when required to be paid for.) That receivers' accounts, after being vouched and passed, should remain in the Master's office, and at regular periods be bound up and indexed, and should not be filed in the register's office, but that the Master should certify to the court that he had passed and allowed the account, and stating the amount of the receipts and disbursements, and the balance due to or by the receiver on foot of the account, and which certificate should be of the same effect as that now annexed to the receiver's account, and that the receiver's solicitor should not be obliged to take out an office copy of his own account. That the expenses attending the management of estates under the court may be curtailed by a more careful and economical mode of advertising, and by diminishing the present heavy fees payable on office copies, which, in most instances, are much higher than those paid in England, and as we un. derstand there is a large surplus arising from the fees paid to the credit of the "Suitors' Fee Fund" account of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, we suggest that those fees should be now reduced in pursuance of the act 6th & 7th W. 4, c. 74. Signed on behalf of the Committee of the So- PRESIDENT. Solicitors' Buildings, Four Courts, 4th July, 1849. HOUSE OF COMMONS. James A. Lawson, Esq.-May 18. 9798. Mr. Bright.] What is your profession? -I am a barrister of ten years' standing, and I have been Professor of Political Economy in the University of Dublin. 9799. Have you ever considered the laws relating to the sale and transfer of land in Ireland ?— Yes, I have; I have practised in the courts of 9803. Will you state what are obstacles to the transfer of land in Ireland, which have come under your notice? I think the principal obstacles are, the expense and delay of searches, the difficulty and uncertainty of title, and the number and complication of encumbrances. 9804. With regard to searches, is it not a fact that in making out a title it is necessary to search for a very long period, say 50 or 60 years, so that the purchaser may be certain that there is no encumbrance nor any past settlement that may endanger his title ?—Yes; the rule is this: the abstract must commence 60 years back; the purchaser then will require searches against every party who, during those 60 years, appears on the abstract to have had an estate in the lands; searches must be had in the registry against that party during the whole period in which he had any estate or interest which could enable him to affect the lands. 9805. Will you explain why there exists that necessity of making searches for 60 years back? -There are several reasons for it; the principal, of course, is the existence of family settlements and the law of entail; another is the present length of the period of limitations. According to the present law, a party having a right, may assert it at any period within twenty years; and if he is under what is called, technically, disability, a still further period is given to him, so that very frequently, after a lapse of 30 years, a party may come forward and assert title to the lands. I met a case very lately, in which a party had been in America for thirty years; he left this country for America before his right accrued, and after seven years he was believed to have died; the property was dealt with by his brothers during all that period as if it had been their own; he came back at the end of thirty years; there was no statute of limitations to bar his property, and of course he recovered the property. All these circumstances render it necessary that the abstract should go back for a period of sixty years. 9808. Does the cost of transfer depend upon the amount of the purchase-money, or is it dependent upon a variety of other circumstances?-The cost of the transfer does not bear any proportion to the amount of the purchase-money; if I am proceeding to sell a small portion of a large estate, it is very nearly the same expense as if I sold the entire of it, because there must be the same searches both in the registry and for judgments, and the only difference would be, perhaps, the stamp upon the conveyance. The expence of the investigation of a title to a very small lot of land is very nearly as great as the expense of investigation of a title to a large lot. 9809. And is it not a fact that on large properties there is likely to be greater number of encuinbrances, and that as they all attach to the small 9810. Therefore with regard to many large and deeply encumbered estates in Ireland, there is almost an entire impossibility of a portion of the estate being disposed of? There is; and in the same way, when parties are going to sell by private contract, it deters them from setting up the land in lots, which otherwise would be a very advantageous proceeding, because, generally speaking, the pur chase-money is higher when the estate is set up in small lots, but the expense which falls upon each of these lots deters parties from doing that: and this is a very great evil. 9811. Does not that tend to prevent the growth of a middle proprietary class, a yeomanry class in Ireland, and therefore is it not injurious?— Certainly; it has that effect. 9812. Generally, with regard to the effects of this heavy cost of transfer, you would say that it acts injuriously upon the proprietary class, and upon the industrious class in Ireland?-It acts very injuri ously, both on those who have to sell, and on the public, who are always interested that there should be as free a circulation of land as possible. 9816. With regard to waste lands, is the cost of transfer which arises, especially in the sale of por tions of a large estate, not such as to make it absolutely impossible that portions of waste land should be sold in many cases, by making the cost of the transfer greater than the value of the land which is waste?-It is; it has that effect. If there is a judgment against the party it over-rides the entire of his estate. 9817. Waste and cultivated?-Waste and cultivated. Then if you come to sell a small portion of the waste you must trace the devolution of that judgment through the different parties to whom it passes, and you must procure the party in whom it is then vested to release the land. I may also observe that until very recently even that could not be done, because it has been held that a judgment creditor could not release one portion of the lands without losing the security of the judgment altogether; that was the law until lately. 9818. Therefore that which is a very serious injury with regard to retarding changes in culti vated laud, acts as an almost entire prohibition with regard to waste lands? It does; the purchasemoney frequently would not pay for the cost of making out the title. 9820. Can you suggest any remedy for the expense and delay of searches which you have described? I think that a very simple and practical remedy can be devised for the expense and delay of searches; the way in which the searches are made now is this: When a deed is executed which affects the particular lands, a memorial of that deed is brought into the registry and lodged there. When advising searches, you direct searches against A. B. from such a year to such a year; then the officer must go over all the books of the registry for that |