§ Mr. Blamire,in presenting the Petition of the Bankers, Merchants, and Traders of Carlisle, against the General Registry Bill, said, that the petitioners, among whom were the principle inhabitants of that city, and the vicinity were apprehensive, that if the Bill passed into a law, the result would be, that, either as lenders of money or borrowers, it would be impossible to carry on business, as it would completely prevent one party from receiving, and the other from depositing, original title-deeds, a method now frequently had recourse to. The Bill would put an effectual stop to all equitable mortgages upon landed estates.
Mr. Philip Howard,in bearing testimony to the respectability of the petitioners, and supporting the prayer of the petition, would not go so far as to pledge himself to oppose any plan of local registration, which might, after due consideration be introduced. He had the strongest objections to the hazardous project of making the safety of all the authorised attestations of property depend upon that of one building; to the additional expense it would entail on landed proprietors; and to the injurious effect of drawing to an already overgrown metropolis a large share of country professional practice. In several countries, in France and Italy, by the Code Napoleon, district registries had been established and found to work well; but the cumbrous machinery of a metropolitan registry had never entered in to the contemplation of those who drew up that celebrated code. The success which had attended the establishment of a registration-office in Edinburgh was no argument for one in London, when the difference of the two countries in point of extent, population and wealth was compared.
§ Mr. Trevorassured the hon. member for Stafford, that there was a manifest and decided feeling against his bill throughout the whole county of Durham and the North of England; and, in pursuance of the duty which he owed his constituents, he should oppose it to the utmost of his power.
§ Sir Matthew White Ridleyfully concurred with the sentiments just delivered by the hon. Gentleman: he saw no other use or advantage in the measure, except that it would drain the pockets of the people in the country, to fill those of the lawyers in London.
§ Mr. John Hodgsonsaid, he never knew such a unanimity of opinion prevail against any measure as that which obtained against this Bill. He regretted that the hon. member for Stafford, in bringing the matter forward, had alluded to the opinions of a learned authority, a member of Government; he trusted that a Government which had obtained office by popular opinion, would not sanction the adoption of a measure which was opposed to the sentiments of the majority of the people.
§ Colonel Sibthorpmust add his testimony to those of other hon. Members. In Lincoln the Bill was most unpopular.
§ Mr. Huntsaid, as it had been declared 978 that if the Bill came to a second reading, a motion would be made to except the North of England from its provisions, he must observe, that the Bill was quite as unpopular in the West as in the North: The people of Somersetshire were to a man opposed to it.
§ Mr. John Campbellobserved, as so many personal allusions had been made to him, he must be permitted to say, that he knew attempts had been made by the petty lawyers of the provinces to persuade people, particularly the Statesmen of Cumberland, that they were to be deprived of the title to their estates, and that Government was to be put into possession of all documents relating to their lands. Whenever the proper opportunity arrived, he would explain thoroughly what the real object of the measure was.
§ Mr. John Hodgsonsaid, the hon. member for Stafford was unjust in the imputations he had attempted to cast upon the country lawyers. He believed they conscientiously entertained the opinions put forth in their petitions without looking exclusively to their own individual interest. He also believed that they had no considerable numbers of people under their influence, and he would further venture to say, that, in the counties of Northumberland, Cumberland, and Durham, there were not twenty persons worth 10l. of property each, who were not opposed to the measure, as would be shown by petitions from all classes of persons.
§ Mr. Stricklandsaid, many more petitions would be brought up from Yorkshire against the measure, which would convince the hon. and learned Member that all classes of persons of property were opposed to his Bill. He (Mr. Strickland) had always advocated the necessity of local registries for attested copies of title deeds, but there were no doubt difficulties attending the case. He did not see how they could form one regulation for a large proprietor, and another for a small one.
Mr. O'Connellobserved, that he was fearful of the propriety of passing a General Registry Bill; but as to the expense attending the registration of deeds, he could speak from the experience of Ireland. There the charge was 1l. 11s. 6d. He hoped the opposition that was getting up against the Bill would induce Gentlemen to look with a favourable eye towards local registration, if the Bill for a General Registry should fail.
§ Mr. Blamirefelt himself placed in rather an awkward position with regard to this Bill, because he had understood last Session that its provisions would not effect customary tenants and copyholders, and he had told them so; but it now appeared they were brought within the operation of the Bill, and these persons turned round upon him, and said he had deceived them.
Mr. Pagetthought it would be generally allowed that grievous evils were sustained daily from the expense of the transfer of real property by the existing laws. He had seen frequent instances of hardships growing out of their operation, he had seen possessors of estates, who had enjoyed them for centuries, reduced to absolute want by being dispossessed of their patrimony and completely fleeced by lawyers and law expenses. He, therefore, thought that if such an amendment of the law could be brought about as would enable a safe plan of registration to be carried into effect, it would be a great point gained. He hoped, that, when the measure was better understood, it would be found to be based upon a plan which united simplicity with utility.
An Hon. Memberremarked, that a difference of opinion prevailed in the minds of those best acquainted with the subject as to the measure being useful or safe. He objected to it, because it would interfere with every man's private affairs.
§ Mr. John Campbellhad no doubt the opposition to the measure would die away as the Bill came to be better understood. He would have hon. Members remember the difficulties which were now experienced in purchasing property, and how it was frittered away by law processes and expenses. The landed proprietors smarted severely for every transaction which had relation to their property—they paid for their mystery and secrecy, and their business was badly done into the bargain.
§ Sir Edward Sugdencould not agree in the observations just made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he was certain, that if the Bill was looked at as a matter of profit and loss, the latter would preponderate against the debtor, and against the necessitous. The evils resulting from the inattention or neglect of an agent could not afterwards be overcome. Without entering further into the matter, in his opinion, the Bill could not pass that House.
§ Petition to be printed,