first report. Referring to Sir John Romilly's Leasing Powers Bill, he
says:--

'The details of these Bills it is not necessary now to refer to; but
there was one principle provided for in them which has been neglected
in subsequent measures. In the ordinary course of business a tenant
does not investigate his landlord's title; the cost of doing so would
be nearly always too great; besides, the landlord would not think of
consenting to the investigation on every occasion of granting a lease.
It follows from this that it is a great hardship, if a flaw should
be discovered in a landlord's title, that leases granted before the
tenants had any notice of the litigation should be bad. Take the
case of the estate which the late Duke of Wellington and Mr.
Leslie recovered from Lord Dungannon after he had been for years in
possession; or the case which is now pending for so many years between
the Marquis of Donegal and Viscount Templemore. Is it not a great
hardship that leases which tenants took, trusting in the title of
Lord Dungannon or Viscount Templemore, who were then visible owners
of great estates, should afterwards turn out to be worthless on some
point of law in title-deeds which they never had the opportunity of
seeing; and which may be so subtle as to take Courts of Law years to
decide?'

Dr. Hancock says the principle that in such cases the tenant should
be protected, was neglected in subsequent measures. Now, what must the
tenants think of legislation that subjects them to be robbed of their
dearly-bought leases because of flaws, frauds or blunders with which
they could have nothing to do? The leases granted to the tenants of
Lord Donegal, however, in Belfast and the neighbourhood were generally
valid, and to these perpetuities we must undoubtedly ascribe the