GENERAL REGISTRY BILL. (Hansard, 11 October 1831)

Mr. Ewart
presented a Petition from the Corporation of Liverpool, against the General Registry Bill. The petitioners feared the Bill would greatly tend to increase litigation, and cause much inconvenience to persons desirous to transfer landed property.

§ Mr. John Campbell
said, that undoubtedly the petition was entitled to consideration, but the petitioners were wholly mistaken in supposing the Bill would increase litigation. One of its great objects was, if persons would but observe ordinary caution, entirely to prevent litigation. Under the existing system, it was impossible for any person, even acting under the most skilful advice, to secure himself from litigation. When a Register Office was established, a purchaser, by inspecting the index, could obtain quite as much information relating to any property as the seller himself possessed.

§ Sir Edward Sugden
maintained, that many of the provisions of the Bill were of a very injurious tendency—a fact which he would be prepared to shew whenever the measure came to be discussed. He believed that the evils would more than counterbalance the benefits.

§ Mr. Crampton
did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman would be able to substantiate his objections to the Bill.

§ Mr. Hunt
was of opinion that the Bill would occasion great inconveniences. There was no difficulty in making titles by the present system. He had bought and sold several estates, and had no cause to complain.

Mr. O'Connell
observed, that there was no civilized country in the world but England that was not in possession of some such institution. He therefore regretted that the hon. and learned member for St. Mawes had brought the weight of his authority against it, in a summary manner, without assigning his reasons. He was convinced that the adoption of the Bill would be a great public benefit.

§ Sir Edward Sugden
claimed credit to himself for the purity of the motives by which he was actuated in opposing the measure. He did not dare, however, to consent to any change in our legal system which he thought erroneous, although he had a sincere desire to correct what could be proved to be wrong. He was as little in love with the abuses of our legal institutions as the hon. and learned Gentleman, and would endeavour to show that he was quite as competent to form an opinion of the merits of any scheme to remedy them. He knew something of the system of registration which existed in Ireland, from having had many Appeal cases to argue, and he believed that it caused a great deal of mischief.

§ Mr. John Campbell
was convinced, that the objections which had been raised against the Registration Bill were wholly owing to ignorance and artful misrepresentation. He would, at the commencement of the next Session, bring forward a Bill (it was then too late to persist in it for the present Session), and he hoped, in the meantime, that a better understanding of its provisions would remove at least the misimpressions of ignorance.

§ Mr. Daniel W. Harvey
conceived the object of the Bill to be most desirable, but was not then prepared to say whether the present Bill was calculated to attain it.

§ Sir Edward Sugden
said, the hon. and learned Member had said the Bill was opposed by misrepresentation. He hoped he was not liable to any such imputation.

§ Mr. John Campbell
said, he by no means intended to allude to his hon. and learned friend, but it was true, the Bill had been opposed by the grossest misrepresentation. It had been said, the Bill was to have a retrospective effect, that title-deeds were to be locked up in a mausoleum, and that London Attornies must be consulted in every transaction relating to landed property. These were all gross errors, but the opposition to the Bill was founded upon such delusions.