GENERAL REGISTRY OF DEEDS.

HC Deb 19 January 1832 vol 9 cc588-9

Mr. Strickland

presented a Petition from Hedon, in the East Riding of Yorkshire, against the Registry Bill, which the petitioners alleged would create great expense and its operation be attended with considerable risk and delay. They particularly complained of that provision in the Bill, which prevented the officers of the Registry being personally liable in cases of mal practices. He could distinctly affirm, that public opinion in the counties of York and Somerset, was decidedly opposed to the whole machinery of the proposed Bill.

Sir Edward Sugden

hoped, that his hon. and learned friend, the member for Stafford, would postpone the further consideration of this Bill, until the House had disposed of the Reform Bill. Whilst the Reform Bill was under discussion he was certain that this Bill could not undergo a sufficient discussion.

Mr. Campbell

could not consent to postpone the further progress of this Bill. He was most anxious for a full and early discussion of it, for it had been strangely misunderstood. He considered it to be a subject which called for the early consideration of the House.

Mr. Cresset Pelham

hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not persevere in pressing this Bill at present on the House.

Mr. Hume

expressed a contrary hope. He trusted that his hon. and learned friend would press this Bill forward on all fitting occasions.

Mr. Cutlar Fergusson

advised his hon. and learned friend to press forward the Bill, notwithstanding the admonition of his hon. and learned friend, the member for St. Mawes. It was not to be tolerated that the Reform Bill should be made to stop all the other business of the country.

Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey

said, the Bill ought to undergo a thorough investigation before it was adopted, but as it was the parent of all the other bills to effect improvements in the laws relating to real property, he hoped that it would be carried forward without delay.

Sir Edward Sugden

said, he was only anxious for so much delay as would enable the country gentlemen fully to understand and appreciate the nature of a Bill which particularly affected them. It ought not to be exclusively left to lawyers to argue it, nor should the laws of the land be altered without having as much information as could be procured upon every subject. The hon. member for Colchester was in error, in saying, this Bill was the parent of other bills; it really had very little connexion with them.

Petition to be printed.