COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 10 July 1884)

§ MR. ILLINGWORTH
said, he had had a number of letters sent to him on the subject of the Bill; and as they required consideration, he trusted that no further progress would be attempted at that hour (1.55).

§ Mr. STUART-WORTLEY
said, he was, of course, in the hands of the hon. Member who had just spoken. But there was this to say. It was open to the gentlemen on whose behalf the hon. Member spoke to have made their representations with regard to the Bill at an earlier stage. The Law Societies in Yorkshire had sent to London a committee who, after a full conference with the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, had expressed themselves fully satisfied with its provisions as amended by the Select Committee.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN
said, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Motion to report Progress. The Bill had been referred to a Select Committee, of which he was Chairman, and had been most carefully considered; and he believed it had been received with almost unanimous approval by those persons in Yorkshire who were interested in the matter.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, this Bill might be good for Yorkshire; but he doubted whether it would be good for the country at large. The fact was that the passing of these good measures for particular localities would prevent the adoption for the country as a whole of a thorough system of registration of title. He believed it would be better to drop both this Bill and the Middlesex Registry Bill, and wait until some comprehensive and settled scheme had been worked out which was capable of application at once to every county in the Kingdom. That was a work which would be worthy of a great and statesmanlike Administration. If the matter was to be dealt with in this piecemeal fashion — if there was to be an Act passed for a county in the North and another Act passed for a county in the South—he was forced to the conclusion that the rest of the country would be left in its present disgraceful condition with regard to the registration of titles.

§ MR. A. PEASE
thought the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) hardly understood the position. There was a registration in Yorkshire now; but an improved one was desired. If Yorkshire had to wait for the whole country it might be required to wait for ever. Personally, he could not understand how the passing of this Bill would be a barrier to the adoption of a scheme of registration applicable to the country at large.

§ MR. ILLINGWORTH
said, he was afraid he should be obliged to oppose the Bill unless considerable Amendments were made. At any rate, he must ask that the debate be adjourned. He must therefore press the Motion that the Chairman do now report Progress.

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, he objected to this clause, inasmuch as it provided for the abolition of the Stamp Duty on Memorials. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) would see that it was impossible for him (Mr. Courtney) to assent to the clause.

§ Mr. STUART-WORTLEY
considered the proposal was founded on the principle of justice. As his hon. Friend (Mr. Courtney) knew, he (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) had no choice, in face of the opposition of the Treasury, but to assent to the omission of the clause. He, however, assented most unwillingly.

§ MR. A. PEASE
said, he thought the Committee ought to be told how the matter stood. In Yorkshire they had to pay Stamp Duties on title deeds; but, in addition, without any service rendered, they were, by Act of Parliament, charged 2s. 6d. for Memorials of registration of deeds. Every cottager, therefore, who bought a small cottage had, in addition to the expenses of conveyancing, to pay 2s. 6d. He (Mr. A. Pease) agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) that there was no justification whatever for the charge. It was rather remarkable that the Treasury should seek to retain this charge when the people of the country were demanding that the transfer of land should not only be made simpler, but less expensive. By the Bill which had been introduced by the Government relating to the transfer of land in Ireland, very considerable reductions had been made in respect of the Stamp Duties. He thought the Treasury might have treated Yorkshire a little more liberally.

§ MR. ILLINGWORTH
said, he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would attempt some defence of his opposition to the clause. Especially when there was no service rendered, this seemed to be a very arbitrary charge.

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, in answer to the argument that this duty was an exaction of payment for which no service was performed, that in the case of every stamp duty no service was rendered. Stamps were a portion of the machinery by which the taxation of the country was levied. The general law required that all Memorials, wherever registered, should pay a stamp duty of 2s. 6d.; and by this clause it was proposed to exempt Yorkshire from the operation of 791 the general law. To make an exception in favour of Yorkshire would be most invidious.

§ MR. DODDS
said, he did not think the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury was justified in saying that this would be peculiar to Yorkshire. There was no registration of deeds in any county of England, except in Middlesex and Yorkshire; and why the people of Yorkshire should have to pay this exceptional and additional charge he could not understand. In 1853 a Bill relating to the registration of land throughout the Kingdom generally was introduced in the House of Lords by the Lord Chancellor, and that Bill contained a stipulation that the Memorials should be free from Stamp Duty. The Bill, however, never came down to that House. There was no justification whatever for the charge; and he hoped the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) would not consent to the striking out of this clause.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, that if the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) thought fit to go to a Division he, for one, would support him. He confessed that he heard a Radical Secretary to the Treasury defend this charge in Middlesex and Yorkshire as a very proper charge with considerable astonishment. It always had been one of the chief points of the policy of the Liberal Party to make the transfer of land as cheap as possible. This was a wholly indefensible charge; and he could not help thinking that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) had received a mandate from the Treasury to oppose the clause, on the ground that it was a blow at the Stamp Duties.

§ MR. COURTNEY
pointed out that the Stamp Duty of 2s. 6d. on Memorials extended to all Memorials wherever registered, as, for instance, in the Court of Chancery. Indeed, any Memorial registered in any Court in England or Ireland was subject to a 2s. 6d. Stamp Duty. If hon. Gentlemen referred to Clause 97 of the Stamp Act of 1870 they would find the duty distinctly laid down.

§ Mr. STUART-WORTLEY
said, he supposed that, as a matter of fact, the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue could not afford to part with the duty, because, in case the Revenue 792 shrunk hereafter, they would not be able to re-impose the duty. They, however, knew that all the charges on registration ought to be done away with, as being charges which restricted the conveyance of land.

§ MR. DODDS
said, he might, perhaps, be permitted to point out that if a small conveyance was now registered at full length in the North Riding of Yorkshire no additional duty was payable; but if, with the view of saving expense, a short Memorial was registered, a duty of 2s. 6d. attached. It was a most unjust and indefensible charge.

§ MR. HEALY
said, it was very gratifying to see the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) take an interest in registration. He should like to ask whether the hon. Gentleman's son was the solicitor for the Bill?