HC Deb 02 June 1862 vol 167 cc261-4

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. ROLT

, in moving the second reading of this Bill, stated, that its object was to enable every landowner having a good title to obtain a judicial declaration that his title was good and indefeasible. The declaration of indefeasibility of title was by no means necessarily connected with a registry of title, and registration of title might be very useful without any declaration that it was indefeasible. When a person had obtained judicial declaration of title under the Bill now before the House, he might enter it upon the register under the Government Bill which had just been read a second time, or he might abstain from so registering it, at his discretion. If he wished to sell his land without registration, he had only to show that from the time of his declaration of title till the proposed sale nothing had been done affecting the title to the property. It was only after the lapse of a long time that he would need another judicial declaration o1 title. Every person who claimed to be an owner in fee-simple might apply for a judicial declaration, and this Bill would effect that object through the instrumentality o the Court of Chancery, It was not proposed therefore to create any new court, and it would, in the first instance at all events, entail no expense upon the country. It was introduced as an experiment; and if that experiment should be found to work successfully, a separate court might afterwards be formed, in case such a step was found expedient, for the purpose of extending its advantages. The mode in which the abject of the Bill would be attained was as follows:—The person seeking to obtain a judicial declaration of title would make an application by petition to the Court of Chancery, in which he would state the title under which he held the property. If the Court, assuming his story to be true, came to the conclusion that a good title was shown, it would make an order for an investigation of the title. If upon his own showing there was no title, there would be no order. If upon investigation no title was proved, his petition would be dismissed. But if a title were established, the Court would make an order that a declaration should be made upon a future day, at least six months being given for the admission of objections. If upon the day fixed by that order no objector should appear, the Court would give orders for the issue of advertisements, and for the serving of notice of the order upon every person who in the opinion of the Court ought to be served. If objectors came in and sustained their objections, the order for a declaration previously made would be set aside; hut if the objections failed, the order would be made absolute, and the applicant would be declared absolutely entitled. There would be liberty to appeal from the Vice-Chancellor to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. When an absolute declaration was made, the applicant might obtain one certificate or several certificates of title, as he preferred. The declaration of title would be conclusive in favour of any purchaser for value from the person whose title had thus been declared. The Bill would entail no expense upon the country, and this House and the country were greatly indebted to the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cranworth), who had prepared it with great consideration, and carried it through the other House. He understood that the Government did not intend to object to the second reading; but they proposed to embody the Bill with that which had just been discussed by the House. To this he should greatly object; he thought the Bill should be allowed to stand by itself; and he doubted not that it would be found a safe and valuable addition to legislation on a subject in reference to which every attempt at change must, at the best, be experimental.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

intimated that he bad no objection to the Motion, stating that there was no difference in substance between the present measure and one introduced by the Lord Chancellor. He took the opportunity of adverting to a suggestion made in reference to the Bill last under consideration, and which applied likewise to the present Bill —namely, that it should be referred to a Select Committee. He was quite sure that that suggestion was made bonâ fide, without any view to obstruct the passing of the Bill; but his present impression was that the adoption of the measure in the existing Session was not likely to be attained by the course recommended. It was often convenient to send measures of inferior moment to a Select Committee; but with regard to a Bill dealing with a question of such great and general importance as that under consideration, a question which had been before the public for a series of years, and upon which it was desirable to legislate during the Session, he thought a Committee of the whole House would be much the more fitting tribunal. His hon. and learned Friends, he had no doubt, would feel it their bounden duty to give that close attendance upon a Select Committee which would be requisite, though great sacrifices would thereby be entailed upon them; but, all things considered, he believed the gravity and importance of the subject would be better consulted by considering the Bill in Committee of the Whole House.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS

said, the Bill was an admirable one; the only point in which it failed was in making the Court of Chancery the medium through which the declaration of title was to be obtained. The Judges of the court would certainly not be able to undertake the duty; and if it were left to conveyancers employed by them, the weight attaching to the authority of the court would no longer exist. Before the next stage of the Bill, he hoped the Government would reconsider their decision in reference to a Select Committee. Only one or two of the principal points had yet been pointed out, but at the proper time he would be able to show that in every clause of the Bill there was ample ground for referring it to a Select Com- mittee, and to a Select Committee alone. His hon. and learned Friend had spoken of the gravity and importance of the subject requiring it to be discussed in a Select Committee; but not an hour previously, at the very crisis of the debate on this Bill, it was only by the exertions of the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Brand), whose energy was worthy of all praise, that the exact number of Members requisite to constitute a House could be brought together, and two-thirds of those had not heard any part of the previous discussion. He did not believe that the consideration of the Bill in Committee of the Whole House would save any time; on the contrary, he felt disposed to think that it would take up more days if that course were followed than it would if it were sent to a Select Committee.

MR. VINCENT SCULLY

said, the Bill was not fairly open to many of the objections made. It was not intended for the register of assurances, nor yet for the registration of titles. It was simply a Bill constituting the Court of Chancery the Encumbered Estates Court for England; though seeing that three judges were required to do the work in Ireland, at least a dozen Lord Chancellors would be requisite in England. Some of the clauses were borrowed from the Bill which he himself brought in, and which was read a second time in 1853.

Bill read 2°, and committed for Monday 16th June.