HC Deb 16 June 1862 vol 167 cc637-64

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

SIR HUGH CAIRNS

rose to move as an Amendment that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. He hoped he need hardly say that he had no hostility to this Bill. On the contrary, he was most anxious that a measure of the kind should, in some shape or other, be passed; but it was a measure of such gravity and importance that he desired, that if it were passed, it should be made as perfect as possible. Some persons thought that this was only a permissive Bill. Although it was permissive in the sense that no person need take his title to be investigated and registered unless he chose, it was not permissive in this sense, that no sooner did any person take his title to be examined than there commenced a course of action which would bring him into conflict with all surrounding owners of land, who would have no choice or option in the matter. If any owner of an estate desired that his title should be registered, it would be necessary that the boundaries of that estate should be accurately ascertained, and all the owners of surrounding property, with whom there might have been disputes as to boundaries which had laid dormant for thirty or fourty years, must be placed in antagonism with him, in order to see that their property was not encroached upon. The same thing would occur as to rights of road, rights of way, rights of sporting, or rights of drainage. He did not say that this was improper—probably it was necessary—but at the same time it materially detracted from the permissive character of the Bill. In one respect, however, this Bill differed from all others which had been proposed; it provided that after a title had been registered, the contents of all deeds affecting the estate should be placed upon the register; and therefore the state of things which he had represented as arising upon the registry of the title would be reproduced upon the occasion of every subsequent dealing with the estate. The measure, though permissive in terms, was really compulsory in substance. Moreover, the Bill was admitted by the Government to run entirely counter to the Report of the Royal Commission which considered this subject and made its Report in 1854. The present Lord Chancellor, the Vice President of the Council of Education (Mr. Lowe), and the present Speaker were Members of that Commission, and concurred in that Report, and so did, with certain exceptions, the Advocate General. The Commission made a Report totally condemnatory of a system of registration of deeds, as coupled with a registration of titles, a system to which the present Bill gave effect. Under these circumstances he ventured to think that the measure required very peculiar examination. It would doubtless be urged that the Bill had undergone consideration in a Select Committee of the other House, and came down with the sanction of that House. But in the first division, upon the question whether there should be a registry of lands as provided by the measure, there were in the minority some of the most eminent legal Members of the House of Lords. Therefore it must not be presumed that there was anything like a concurrence of the legal Members of the other House in the provisions of the Bill. Another singular circumstance connected with this Bill seemed to put an end to the idea that its provisions had been carefully considered; for there had come down from the Lords another Bill, called the Declaration of Title Bill; so that the other House had passed two measures having identically the same object in view. The Solicitor General intimated the other night that he should be prepared at the proper time to incorporate the Declaration of Title Bill with the provisions of the present Bill; but this, he thought, would be rather a difficult thing to effect. Of course, upon such a Motion as he now made, it would be improper to go into a consideration of the details of the measure; but he would simply refer to three or four clauses, and then ask hon. Members whether the Bill could be satisfactorily discussed in the whole House. By the fifth and three following clauses it was enacted, that if any owner of property brought his title to be examined and registered, the title should be examined by the registrar and the examiners of title in such manner as a general order should subsequently direct. Therefore all the information vouchsafed was that the examination should take place in some way to be defined, not by Parliament but by a general order. Consequently Parliament had no security as to the mode in which this was to be done by the registrar and examiners of title. He had looked through the Bill to discover what were to be the qualifications of these examiners, but he could find nothing except that the Lord Chancellor might appoint as many as he pleased; and, for aught that appeared in the Bill to the contrary, they might be street-sweepers. It was not stated that they were to be conversant with the law, or what was to be their remuneration, which, of itself might afford some indication of the qualifications expected. Another provision was to the effect that no title should be accepted for registration as indefeasible, save such as a court of equity would deem valid and marketable. That principle was wholly unknown in the country, Ireland, from which the present measure was professed to be taken; and the principle laid down as the basis on which the Examiners should proceed was entirely wrong; for a court of equity, having two persons before it, the purchaser and seller, might decide as between those two, and these parties were bound by the decision; but it never decided as to third parties. The sixth clause provided that any question, doubt, or dispute as to any matter of title might be referred to such Judge of the Court of Chancery as the Lord Chancellor might direct. No idea was given of the sort of questions to be referred; so that if the registrar or examiners were bold and rash men, they might decide matters themselves, according to their own discretion; and if they were timid or slothful, they might refer all manner of questions to the court. The seventh was a most strange clause, for it declared, that on investigation, if it should appear that the title was good and marketable, save in respect of some contingency which had not happened—why, whoever heard of a contingency that had happened?—or of some uncertainty which could not be ascertained —as if an uncertainty could be ascertained —then it should be lawful for the Judge of the Court of Chancery to declare the title subject to that contingency or uncertainty. An owner, subject to the contingency, suppose, of his son attaining the age of twenty-one years, would, under that clause, have difficulties to contend with before he could have his title registered; and after he had succeeded in doing so, all the litigation and trouble should be gone through again by his son. But the climax was reached in the eighth clause, which provided, that if the title should be found to be good and marketable, the applicant should then furnish to the registrar, whose duty it was to examine and settle it for the pur- poses of registration, an exact description of the lands to be registered, and also a statement of the person or persons who were or might become entitled to the lands, their respective interest in the lands, and the incumbrances to which they were subject. In other words, the title was, in the first instance, to be declared good and marketable, and then the owner was to produce proofs that it was so. How the title was to be declared good in the absence of those most essential matters which were not to be brought forward until the title was approved of, he could not see. Such a clause as that might be put into working order in a Select Committee; but could not, he believed, by a discussion across the floor of the House. It might be alleged, that referring the Bill to a Select Committee would occasion delay and inconvenience at this period of the Session. He was anxious that the Bill should pass, and pass this Session; but there was a more important consideration than the passing of a Bill, which was, that it should be made as perfect as possible in its details, and likely to prove as efficient as possible in its working. The principal object was not the passing of a Bill, but the passing of a good Bill. It might be inconvenient to members of his own profession to serve on a Select Committee at this time of the year; but he felt no doubt that referring the measure to such a Committee would economize the time of the House. He did not think it was open to Government to object to that course on the ground that it would cause delay, because the Bill had come down from the Lords as long back as the 2nd of May; and if the Government had been anxious to press it forward, they might have done so. Believing that all the objections to the measure might be remedied most effectually upstairs, he begged to Move that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Bill be committed to a Select Committee, —instead thereof.

MR. COLLIER

trusted that the House would not accede to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman even if the Government were prepared to do so. The intentions of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite might be friendly, but his act would be fatal; he never remembered an instance of a Bill refer- red to a Select Committee at this period of the Session having been heard of again during the same Session. This measure concerned more or less every Member of the House, and he therefore hoped that hon. Gentlemen who were not lawyers would take part in its discussion. There was nothing in it so abstruse that its provisions could not be comprehended by a House of landowners. What points had the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned which could not be comprehended by any hon. Member? Moreover, it would be far more convenient to his hon. and learned Friends, who were engaged in their professional pursuits during the day, to consider the details of the measure in the evening sitting. He would not follow his hon. and learned Friend into his minute criticism of one of the clauses, but he put it to the House whether any one of the matters brought under their notice could not be discussed as well in the House as in Select Committee. One question to be determined was, whether the measure should be permissive or compulsory. Why could not any hon. Member take part in determining that question? One of the chief objections of the hon. and learned Gentleman to the Bill was, that it would appoint a new Judge, The House could determine that question, as it had a similar one when the Bankruptcy Bill was discussed. A reform of the system of transferring land was not a new question; it had been debated for upwards of thirty years, and during that period several attempts had been made to effect a reform. The time for detailed discussion had passed. There never was a Session in which the House had so much leisure as in the present; and when hon. Gentlemen went down to their constituents in the autumn, they might have some difficulty in accounting for their time this Session. But he was in hopes that they would be able to say:—At all events we have passed one very important measure, which simplifies the title to land, facilitates its transfer, abolishes laborious investigation into the history for the last thirty years of every plot of land to be sold in the kingdom, decreases lawyers' bills, and increases the value of land. If the House would apply itself resolutely to the task, there was still time to pass that measure.

MR. WALPOLE

joined in the hope that the measure would pass during the present Session, but he was confident that in order that it might do so, it would be necessary to refer the Bill to a Select Committee in order that the details might be settled of that to which there was no objection in principle. He was certain that the Bill could be discussed upstairs in a few days, and put into such a shape that the House would be able to adopt it without much discussion, The Bills for the consolidation of the statute law had failed Session after Session till they were referred to a Select Committee, and then the House accepted without hesitation the points as to which it was reported that there was no objection. If the House went into Committee upon this Bill, they would be taking up by far the most extensive and important measure with reference to the landed property of the country which had been submitted to Parliament for a long period, and no effort should be spared to make it perfect. Other Acts might be passed, and if their operation proved unsatisfactory they could be amended in a future Session; but the difficulties which might arise under the operation of this Bill, if passed in its present shape, would be difficulties which could not hereafter be remedied, for they would be inherent in the subject itself. Much less time would be occupied in discussing the details in a Select Committee than in Committee of the Whole House. He ventured to say that by the adoption of the former course the Bills might be sent down again in the course of ten days; whereas if the House undertook the investigation, they would have to go through four Bills, two of which ought to be amalgamated, one of which, in his opinion, ought to be rejected, and the fourth, he believed, they might easily pass.

MR. MALINS

said, he was sorry to find himself compelled to take a different view of that subject from that which had been set forth by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Belfast (Sir II. Cairns) and his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole). If they wished to strangle the Bill, he thought they had better say so boldly at once, and refuse to proceed with it any further. He had already stated, on the second reading, that he thought the measure was one of no value whatever. He did not think it worth passing, and he believed that no Select Committee could make it worth passing. He was persuaded that any measure upon this subject that was not of a compulsory character would remain a dead letter. He was not, however, prepared to offer any active opposition to the measure. But as the Bill could, at all events, do no harm, and as many people thought it desirable that it should be tried as an experiment, he felt it his duty to object to the Motion for referring it to a Select Committee, which would only have the effect of ensuring its rejection after a good deal of labour had been unnecessarily incurred. More important measures had been discussed in the House, amended, and adopted. The Probate Bill of 1857, and the Divorce Bill, had been passed without the intervention of a Select Committee, and he did not see the necessity in the present case for the proposed reference. He could not but ask himself what would be the effect of referring the Bill to a Select Committee, which could not meet before the end of the week, within a month of the time when it was expected that Parliament would be prorogued? Where were gentlemen of experience in connection with landed property to be found who could give their attendance on the Committee at this season of the year to put the Bill into a shape fit for its consideration by the House? Even if they decided on dealing with the Bill in a Committee of the Whole House, he thought there was no fear that they would be overcrowded. He entirely concurred in all the objections that had been taken to the Bill; he believed it to be ill-conceived and ill-executed: but he would not offer any active opposition to its progress. The Bill came down from the Upper House recommended by the highest legal authorities. The Bill was a very favourite one of the Lord Chancellor's, for whose opinions he (Mr. Malins) had the deepest respect, and who had a theory that the transfer of land might be made as simple as that of money in the funds. The Solicitor General seemed to have adopted the same opinion, though not to the same extent. But, after all, it was an experiment, and an experiment which, with the machinery which would be necessary to put it in operation, would probably cost the country something like £10,000 a year. The real question, then, was whether it was worth while to spend that sum of money for the purpose of making such an experiment. Now, although he had the worst possible opinion of the Bill, he was yet not disinclined to allow the experiment to be made, seeing that it was a measure which the Government had chosen to introduce on its own responsibility. Very few Members of the House would take any part in the discussion, but no doubt some improvements might be made as it passed through the House, and as it was only an optional measure, which could do no harm to anybody, he thought the best plan would be to pass it, and then, if it did not succeed, to amend it next Session in such a manner as to thoroughly cure its defects. He looked upon the proposal to send it to a Select Committee as a snare, and suggested as the best of all courses that the Government should withdraw it, and introduce a new Bill at an early meeting of Parliament, in order that the question might be fully considered, and a Bill passed which would be worthy of the Legislature.

MR. SCULLY

thought that the hon. and learned Member for Belfast bad given very good reasons for referring this Bill to a Select Committee. On the other hand, the present measure had been considered and recommended in every possible form, and to refer it to a Select Committee would be neither more nor less than strangling it for the present Session. The Bill might not be very extensive in its operation, but it established the principle of a registration of title which had been recommended by a Committee of that House, and which it was important to affirm. He was at a loss to perceive what assistance the House would derive from an inquiry by a Select Committee, whose Report would carry with it very little weight. Attendance during the morning would be far more inconvenient than in the evening to legal gentlemen, and some of the most useful Members of the House and all the Irish Members would be shut out from the Select Committee. He should therefore support the Motion, that the House go into Committee at once.

MR. ROLT

thought that the arguments which had been advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) against sending the Bill to a Select Committee, were the very arguments which might be used in favour of such a proceeding: he (Mr. Rolt) contended that only a Select Committee would be able so to deal with the Bill as that it could afterwards be satisfactorily dealt with by a Committee of the Whole House. His hon. and learned Friend said that even if they did not send it to a Select Committee, there would be only a very few hon. Gentlemen in the House at the time it was being discussed, so that it could be discussed here with the same facilities as in a Select Committee; but he seemed to forget, that although there might be a few in the House, there would be a very great number in the lobbies, who would pour in and prevent any Amendment which was unpalatable to the Government from passing. A measure of this importance ought to receive the fullest consideration in a Select Committee before it was brought before the House itself, and there were many reasons why such a course was desirable. Some of the provisions were so badly framed that the House could not properly discuss them until they had been re-shaped by a Select Committee, and it would be impossible to discuss some of the details in the Whole House—the time would be simply wasted. The Commission which had been appointed some few years since to inquire into the registration of insurances, had made one of the most able Reports that had ever been submitted to the House, and yet this Bill totally disregarded its recommendations: a Select Committee would ascertain whether there was any sufficient reason for departing from those recommendations. He believed, also, that if the present measure were sent to a Select Committee, that Committee would be able to deal with the questions raised summarily, and return the measure to the House in ample time to enable it to become law this Session. The measure before them dealt with two questions totally different from one another—namely, the registration of title, and the declaration of indefeasibility of title; but the clauses relating to the latter subject were scattered over the whole Bill, and without close discussion and minute explanations, it would be impossible for any man to make himself fully acquainted with them. It was comparatively useless, also, to proceed with this Bill without taking the next on the Orders of the Day into consideration at the same time—namely, the Declaration of Title Bill. If the two Bills were referred to a Select Committee, they could deal with both at the same time, which would not be possible if the House went into Committee on this. He had endeavoured to acquaint himself with those provisions in the Bill before the House, which dealt with the question of indefeasibility of title, but it was impossible to separate the two main questions involved in this Bill, merely by the excision of some dozen clauses or so. On these grounds he was strongly of opinion that the measure should be submitted to a Select Committee. There would be no difficulty in permitting the Committee to sit in the evening, if an earlier hour should be found inconvenient to the members of the legal profession.

SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID

thought the objections urged were on matters of detail that might be well considered in a Committee of the Whole House. It seemed to be the general desire of the House that the Bill should pass this Session; and as, in his view, it would be impossible for it to do so if it were referred to a Select Committee, he should give his vote in opposition to the Amendment. Those who had charge of the measure seemed to be of opinion that it ought not to be referred to a Select Committee, and might he dealt with satisfactorily in a Committee of the Whole House, and he should be guided by their opinion, and support the Motion for going into a Committee of the Whole House.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, that the Government would, of course, accede to the proposition which had been made if they could believe that it would expedite the progress of the measure, or render the consideration of it more diligent and effectual. They desired, however, that the Bill should pass this Session; and they felt it their duty to ask the House to proceed with the Bill at once, without referring it to a Select Committee. If the Select Committee were to serve any useful purpose, it must include not merely Gentlemen interested in land, but those who were acquainted with the legal questions; and he did not believe that they could secure the attendance of the latter. If there were a Committee, he should himself he compelled, at whatever inconvenience to himself, and at whatever risk of interruption to his other duties, to be constant in his attendance on that Committee; but it was not in human nature to expect his hon. and learned Friends voluntarily to sacrifice their professional engagements for that purpose. The result would be that they would reserve all their objections and Amendments until the Bill again came before the House, when the same objections which had occupied the Select Committee would have to he repeated. That was the reason why, at that period of the Session, the reference of a Bill to a Committee was reckoned fatal to its progress. He hoped, therefore, that they would con- sent to proceed with it, as they had formerly done with the Divorce Court and Bankruptcy Bills, in Committee of the Whole House. By doing so he believed they would avail themselves of the most promising opportunity which had yet presented itself for asserting a great principle, and for putting in operation a machinery which, even if it should be found at first in any respects defective, would accomplish that first step which was of so much value, and might be amended afterwards. He was surprised at the very feeble arguments with which the hon. and learned Member for Belfast supported his proposal. In Committee he had no doubt that all those giants which had been depicted as blocking up their path would be found to vanish. He reserved his observations on the clauses which the hon. and learned Member had criticised till they went into Committee. When they came to the provisions in the Bill which corresponded with those in Lord Cranworth's measure, he would ask for their postponement; so that if the House chose to adopt the proposal of the noble Lord, it could be substituted for the postponed clauses.

MR. HADFIELD

thought the evils arising from delay were of less importance than those which might result from passing a defective measure, and as he was convinced that a Bill of this character could not be properly or satisfactorily considered in Committee of the Whole House, he should vote for the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 180; Noes 124: Majority 56.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

House in Committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 (By whom application for Registration to be made).

SIR HUGH CAIRNS

said, the clause was the most complete subversion of British law that had ever been attempted. Hitherto it had been considered that possession was primâ facie evidence of title; but hereafter it would be open to any person who had never been in possession for an hour, or who had not succeeded in an action at law against the previous possessor, to register an indefeasible title. In the Bill which he introduced in 1859 this possibility was carefully guarded against.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, the clause in the Bill of 1859 was substantially the same as that contained in the present Bill. There was not, in the definition of the persons who might apply, a word about "possession." The subsequent clauses provided such safeguards that it was quite impossible that an indefeasible title could he obtained by surprise.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS

said, it was evident that the right hon. Gentleman had not read the former Bill, which expressly provided that the court should not take any proceedings until it was proved to their satisfaction, by inquiries on the spot or other sufficient evidence, that the applicant or his predecessor were in possession of the receipts or profits of the land for a period of not less than five years previous to the date of the application. But under the terms of the present clause the court had no discretion, but would be obliged to register the title when applied to.

MR. MALINS

thought the objection was untenable. It was impossible that the conveyancing counsel of the Court of Chancery could overlook the question who was in the possession of land. The first inquiry to be made of a person desiring to register would be—are you in possession? or to whom are the rents paid?

SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID

also protested against its being supposed that a court of equity would declare a title to be marketable, without taking into consideration who was in possession of the land.

MR. SCULLY

said, that notices would have to be served on all the owners of adjacent properties before an indefeasible title could be obtained.

SIR FITZROY KELLY

said, he did not rise for the purpose of enforcing the objection of his hon. and learned Friend, though he did not think it had been satisfactorily answered. He wished to offer an objection to the sixth head or provision of the clause, by which no vendor could register a further title than that which he had bought, without the consent of the vendor. A purchaser might have bought under conditions of sale which precluded him from making inquiries into title before a certain date. Yet a purchaser might wish to register an indefeasible title, and have the benefit of the measure like every one else. This he would not be enabled to do without the consent of the vendor.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

explained that the condition referred to by his hon. and learned Friend applied only to the period between the contract and the conveyance.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 (Examination of Title with Guarantee).

MR. ROLT

said, that this clause introduced a subject of great magnitude. It introduced a scheme by which titles might be declared indefeasible. This had nothing to do with the question of registering titles. Titles might be registered whether they were defeasible or indefeasible. This was a wholly distinct and equally experimental plan. The experiment had been tried in Ireland, and from a Return made to the House it appeared that from the year 1858 down to 1862 the number of applications for declarations of indefeasible title were something under twenty. For this experiment it was now proposed to establish a new tribunal, consisting of a registrar and three assistant registrars, an examiner of titles, and an efficient staff of clerks. But should not an experiment such as this be tried with as little expense as possible? Was it desirable to establish a new tribunal? Might not the experiment be well tried by giving jurisdiction in the matter to the Court of Chancery? And if a new jurisdiction was to be created for the purpose, was it wise to intrust the duties to a tribunal in any respect inferior to the ordinary judicial tribunals of the country. By this Bill, the registrar sitting in chambers with his assistants, might declare a title indefeasible. Even in an open court, where the matter was watched with all attention, there would be great danger of errors creeping in—how much more would this be the case where there was anything like a secret investigation? He was strongly of opinion that this duty of declaring titles indefeasible should be referred to an existing tribunal; and if this should not be assented to, that a new court of the ordinary judicial character, and holding its sittings in public in the usual manner, would be preferable to the scheme proposed by this Bill.

SIR FITZROY KELLY

moved, that the clause be postponed, in order that his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General might maturely consider the constitution of the proposed new tribunal, and whether the work might not he better performed by the existing Court of Chancery, or by a Commission. The clause enacted that titles should be examined by a "Registrar and Examiners of Title, as hereinafter mentioned." Surely, before passing this clause the nature of the tribunal to be established under the Bill ought to be determined. Some might agree with his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rolt), while others might think with his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Hugh Cairns) that it would be better to establish a new Court in the nature of a court of justice. If the Committee committed themselves to this clause, they would be precluded from considering one of the most important questions in the Bill. A subsequent clause enacted that a registrar, and not more than three assistant registrars, should be appointed to carry the Bill into effect, and that there should also he examiners of title, the number of which was unlimited and unspecified, hut they were to be fixed by the Lord Chancellor with the consent of the Lords of the Treasury. The registrar was to have a salary of £2,500 a year, but the assistant registrars and examiners of title were to have such salaries as the Lord Chancellor, with the consent of the Lords of the Treasury, shall determine. He objected to giving the Lord Chancellor the power of appointing an indefinite number of officers at indefinite salaries—to be voted by Parliament—as he pleased. Another objection to the clause was that the titles were to be examined "in such manner as general orders shall direct." The Committee ought to have a satisfactory explanation as to the mode in which these powers were to be exercised, and ought not to consent that a matter so important should be left to the general orders of the Lord Chancellor.

MR. ROLT

said, that by the next clause a discretion was given to the registrar; but it was a discretion whether he should or should not do his own work, or send it to the Court of Chancery, whenever any question of doubt or difficulty arose. Of course, the natural bias of every judge under such circumstances was to remit a cause to another tribunal. The Bill, in fact, appointed a registrar to do the work of the Bill, but gave him an option not to do it.

MR. MALINS

said, it appeared to him that the House in affirming the principle of the Bill, had affirmed the principle that there must be a distinct tribunal for declaring indefeasability of title. It was impossible that the Courts of Chancery could undertake the duty of inquiring into titles —they were already fully occupied. His notion was, that there should be a distinct tribunal for performing these duties, with an appeal to the Court of Chancery.

MR. SCULLY

said, that the twenty declarations of title of unencumbered estates in Ireland were not to he taken as a measure of the value of the Court established there, or as an indication of the extent of the work likely to arise under this Bill. The fact was, that in addition to those twenty declarations of title of estates not encumbered, there had been 300 more, through the instrumentality of sales in the Encumbered Estates Court. He was possessor of an unencumbered estate; and if he wanted a declaration of title, his cheapest mode of going to work would he by encumbering the property and then proceeding to sale in the Landed Estates Court. Passing this Bill would be attended with this benefit—that if the machinery should be found unwieldy, it would give rise to a good Act next Session. The question of Land Tribunal was discussed before the Royal Commissioners, who reported against it; but he was in favour of the tribunal, and gave his reasons, which were published in the Appendix, for differing in judgment with his brother Commissioners.

MR. COLLIER

thought that the objections to the clause were inconsistent with each other. On the one hand, it was said, that inasmuch as the question to be raised under the Bill would not be of great importance, it would not be necessary to have a new tribunal at all; and, on the other, it was contended that the questions would be not only of great importance but of great number, and that therefore a superior Judge should be appointed. It appeared to him that there was a middle course, and that the Bill had pointed it out. For that reason he supported the proposition to appoint an inferior Judge, to be called a Chief Registrar, who would no doubt be competent to dispose of all the business to be created by the Bill.

MR. WALPOLE

was also of opinion that the Government had taken the right course in commencing the working of the Bill in the manner proposed. When the Encumbered Estates Court was established, an immense number of encumbrances on land had to be got rid of, and the rights of numerous parties had to be taken care of. The working of this Bill would be much more simple, and the duties could, he believed, be effectually discharged by the tribunal contemplated by the Bill, In complicated cases the advantages of a superior court could be obtained, by the power vested in the registrar of referring such cases to the Court of Chancery.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, he found in the Bill, which had on its back the name of the hon. and learned Member for Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly), in a former Session, a provision equally indeterminate with regard to the amount of the establishment to be created as the provision in the present Bill, to which the hon. and learned Member had objected. That Bill provided for a registrar's office, with officials whose salaries amounted to £8,800 a year, besides the power of appointing clerks, servants, and messengers at the discretion of the Treasury. These provisions were very much the same as those of the hon. and learned Gentleman's own Bill, and, in fact, every Bill for the same object must contain very much the same provisions. As to the expenses of the Court, it was thought that as the business increased the fees would defray the expenses. As to the appointment of assistant registrars and other officers, the approbation of the Treasury was required as a check that no more officers should be appointed than were really necessary. With regard to the other objections which had been urged, he was of opinion, that if Parliament thought that the passing of the measure would be advantageous to the country, it must place confidence in those to whom the administration of justice was confided, and believed that they would be anxious to obtain the most efficient persons for the discharge of the duties under the Bill. No doubt, the same class of persons with those who now advised upon titles under the direction of the Court of Chancery would be selected; and they would do the same thing as at present, but with a more direct and clear responsibility. He was surprised to hear it said that these matters should he done in open court, and he put it to the Committee whether it would be expedient to expose a man's title to examination in open court before it was declared to be good. The real truth was that the Bill established a Court of Registration, which would be exactly similar to the Landed Estates Court, though it bore a name less imposing, and would therefore probably work with less expense to the public. The decisions of the registrar would be subject to an appeal to the Court of Chancery, and, if difficult questions arose, there surely could be no objection to have them referred to the Court. With respect to the general orders, exactly the same thing was done in the Landed Estates Court in Ireland. He could not consent to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member to postpone the clause.

SIR FITZROY KELLY

said, he still adhered to his opinion as to the expediency of postponing the decision of the Committee on the clause.

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH

could not help doubting the expediency of investing a registrar with judicial powers, and it seemed to him that they ought not, without further consideration, to pass the clause.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said it appeared to him that to give an inferior functionary such important powers was a very dangerous innovation. No record would be kept of the proceedings of such a tribunal, but that difficulty would be obviated by the formation of a court.

MR. HADFIELD

said, that the working of the Bill would be attended with this serious consequence, that as the proceedings would take place with closed doors, the rights of absent parties might be prejudicially affected; and even if the owner of property adjoining that the subject of proceedings in the proposed court had notice of the application for a certificate of good title, he would be at the expense and trouble of attending to protect his interests.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the clause be postponed."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 21; Noes 63: Majority 42.

SIR FITZROY KELLY

said, he did not wish to give the Committee unnecessary trouble, but, in order to put on record his opinion as to the inability of the registrar satisfactorily to discharge the duties imposed upon him by the Bill, he moved the omission of the words "Registrar and Examiners of Title," and that the word "Court" be inserted in lieu thereof. He should not, however, divide the Committee.

MR. SCULLY

said, he should be glad to divide with the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 (Judge of Court of Chancery to make Declaration of Validity of Title in certain cases).

SIR FITZROY KELLY

rose to move that all those words of the clause which related to "contingencies which had not happened," "uncertainties which could not be ascertained," and "outstanding legal estates which could not be got in," should be omitted. As far as the clause provided that where a title had been investigated, and the person applying had succeeded in establishing a perfect title to the fee simple of any given property, he should have the property registered, and receive a certificate of registration which should constitute an indefeasible or Parliamentary title to the purchaser, he entirely agreed to it. But he was strongly opposed to the registration of anything except a perfect saleable title to the fee simple, and he maintained that all charges, encumbrances, contingent remainders, or other interests which derogated from the complete fee simple, should be dealt with by means of caveats. If this Bill provided for a system not merely of registration of titles, but of all instruments affecting them, it would become a mere registration of assurances. The registrar in every case where there were limitations which might or might not take effect, would have to determine speculatively every possible question that could arise before he could properly register a title. If the Bill were confined to the registration of indefeasible titles, it would prove most beneficial to the community; but if it were extended to contingencies, its chief provisions would become perfectly impracticable and useless. With the view of restricting the operation of the Bill, he moved the omission of the words after "marketable" in line 23, down to "in" in line 25.

MR. WALPOLE

suggested an Amendment in an earlier part of the clause. He proposed to substitute "reference" for "investigation."

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, his hon. and learned Friend (Sir F. Kelly) had entered into a discussion which might legitimately be raised on the 14th clause, but which had no bearing on the clause now under consideration. The present clause simply proposed, that if it appeared that a title was good and marketable, save in respect of some contingency which had not happened, it should be lawful for the Judge to make a declaration of the validity of the title, with such particular exception or qualification. Every Bill which had been introduced had embraced that principle, including the measure of the hon. and learned Member for Belfast, which provided that the court in making a declaration might annex conditions and reserve the rights of any person or class of persons. With the permission of the Committee, he would reserve his reply to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member till they came to the 14th clause, which involved the principle of placing the true title upon the registry, and not an imaginary one.

SIR FITZROY KELLY

asked what was the use of registering a title subject to certain contingencies which had not happened, and for which, when they did happen, no provision was made in the Bill.

MR. ROLT

was puzzled by many of the expressions used in the clause. What was meant, for example, by "uncertainties which cannot be ascertained"?

MR. AYRTON

said, the object of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Suffolk was to make this Bill the same as that which he had himself introduced. The hon. and learned Gentleman's Bill was no doubt fortified by the Report of the Royal Commission, but it had been condemned as impracticable by all the learned conveyancers of Lincoln's Inn. The object of the present Bill was totally different from that of the hon. and learned Gentleman's magnificent but impracticable scheme. The peculiar merit of this more modest but practicable measure was, that it would enable the owner of an estate to obtain from the court a declaration of all the rights and interests existing in that estate at the moment of his application. The Bill would get rid of an enormous pile of deeds relating to that estate, because the declaration of title would make them unnecessary. He approved of the Bill, and thought the speech of the hon. and learned Solicitor General on the second reading proved that the scheme recommended by the Royal Commission could never be carried into effect.

MR. BUTT

said, the question seemed to be whether this Bill should be confined to titles which were complete, or whether it should be made also to apply to those titles in which there was some outstanding interest. Unless it was extended to both, he contended it would be useless.

MR. SCULLY

suggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn, inasmuch as the omission of the words was of no consequence whatever. Whether the words were left in or struck out, he would be satisfied.

MR. MURRAY

remarked, that in referring to the description of title, the words used were "good and marketable," but afterwards there was a provision in reference to the declaration to be made as to the validity of the title. Thinking they should adhere to the same words, he would propose to strike out the word "good," and insert the word "valid."

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, there was really no tenable distinction between "valid marketable title" and "good and marketable title."

MR. SELWYN

, notwithstanding what they had heard from the right hon. Gentleman as to the insignificance of verbal criticism, was disposed to believe that inconvenience would result from the vagueness of the language employed in this clause. "Uncertainty which cannot be ascertained" was not legal language at all; and in the explanation of the clause which had been given, two matters which ought to be kept distinct were jumbled up together—namely, matters of conveyance and matters of title.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 (Particulars to be furnished to Registrar).

MR. WALPOLE

said, that although it had been ascertained by the previous clauses that the title was good and marketable, it was required by this clause that something further should be done— namely, that the applicant should furnish information to the registrar as to three points—first, a description of the lands; secondly, of all the persons entitled to the lands, and of the estates, powers, and interests that exist or may arise; and, thirdly, a statement of the charges and incumbrances affecting the land. Were they prepared to say that, to obtain this registration of title, they would give an indefeasible title not merely to the land, but to the boundaries of the property? Were they in giving this indefeasible title to clog the register with that which hitherto was entirely condemned—namely, a collection of those assurances or, what was even more difficult, a synopsis of each assurance? The consequence would be that every adjoining occupier would be compelled to dispute questions of boundary which they were going to preclude him from disputing hereafter. However amicably neighbours might be living together, and however difficult it might be to ascertain the boundaries precisely, they would force the neighbours of every person who sought to register his land under this Bill to raise questions which they were now willing to leave dormant; for the asserting of the boundary of almost every estate would give rise to such questions. Therefore he objected to the first part of the clause; and as to the second part, he asked, who they were going to trust to make the statement referred to? Were the registrar and his clerks to do it? If so, there would be no synopsis at all. Every man would require that his assurance should be copied in full—so that they would have all the evils that would arise from a registration of assurances. It seemed to him that these two points were fatal to the object aimed at—namely, a registration of titles. What he sought by a registration of titles was, that just in the same way as a man could have a title to railway shares, or stock in the funds, or shares in a ship, so he might have a title to land; and this could be done only by leaving trusts out of the register, taking care that the title to the land should be clear and indefeasible on the register. As to charges and incumbrances, no title could be ascertained by the registrar unless he ascertained everything which affected it. If he were right in his views, then there was no necessity for the clause, and he therefore moved its omission.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, that this objection went to the principle of the Bill, which was to ascertain and record the truth about the whole title and every part of it. He could not help thinking that his right hon. and learned Friend was echoing the bugbear about the registry of assurances. He believed that the provision which his right hon. and learned Friend objected to would be of great benefit. In regard to the objection as to boundaries, he must remind him that the provision that the boundaries should be set out on maps, and that the attention of the owners of contiguous estates should be called to these maps, was the same as was enforced without difficulty and without giving rise to litigation in the Encumbered and Landed Estates Courts. He could not admit that the owner of every estate was doubtful about his boundaries, or that the clause would create litigation. If uncertainty existed, it was desirable it should be cleared up. He could not but think that his right hon. and learned Friend had greatly overrated the magnitude of the difficulty and uncertainty in question.

SIR FITZROY KELLY

said, that the clause was an extraordinary one. It began by assuming that the title was good and marketable. But how could an estate appear to be marketable until the registrar knew what the estate was, and had gained the information which was to be afterwards supplied? The registrar, he it observed, was to determine on the legal effect of the instruments submitted to him, and was to put upon the registry of land not copies of the instruments but their legal effect. Let the Committee consider what might he the application of this Bill in such a case as that of the Bridgewater Peerage. Under the limitations of a settlement the question arose whether Lord Alford took an estate in fee simple, and whether a clause in the deed devolving the property upon another branch of the family, in case j any future tenant in tail failed within a certain time to become Duke or Marquess of Bridgewater, was operative. From the Court of Chancery, the question came before the House of Lords, and certain questions were submitted by their Lordships to the common law judges: the judges differed among themselves in the proportion of nine to two; and when their answers were submitted to the Law Lords, including four ex-Chancellors and the then Lord Chancellor, those learned men, with one exception, overruled the opinion of the majority of the Judges. Yet, under this Bill, a registrar with a salary of £2,500 a year, might say that the question was not arguable, might refuse to remit to the Court of Chancery, and might pronounce a final and conclusive decision. The consequence of passing the Bill would be that in every case—not only in those cases in which questions arose which must sooner or later be determined, but in every case where there might be numerous questions of a complicated character, arising out of a series of deeds and settlements, which might never require decision, because the contingencies upon which they rested might never happen, the registrar would be compelled to take notice of them, and to pronounce a speculative decision. The Bill, instead of preventing, would increase litigation. The legal effect of all deeds, with every possible contingency they might provide for, would be put upon the registry, and although re- strictions were placed upon the access of the general public to the register, its contents could not be kept a profound secret. The obvious consequence would be that persons with supposed rights would he encouraged to institute suits and to plunge the owner of the estate into costly litigation. He disagreed with the whole system of registers, and with the raising of questions of title not existing at the moment when the registration took place. It would be infinitely better to leave such questions undetermined, and to protect the rights of claimants by a simple power to lodge caveats, he regretted that the discussion had been almost exclusively confined to legal Members, and he hoped that landed proprietors would themselves consider the effect of the clause before assenting to a plan which must multiply the evils of the present system to an indefinite extent.

MR. AYRTON

said, he was glad that at last they had the distinct issue raised whether they would adopt the scheme of this Bill or the plan of the Commissioners represented by the hon. and learned Gentleman—the scheme of a registration of the fee simple or the registration of all the interests. In his opinion the great advantage of the Bill and of the clause before the Committee was that every right and every interest being put upon the record, litigation upon questions of difficulty would be avoided, he hoped, therefore, that the Committee would pass the clause.

MR. SELWYN

said, he did not think that the objections urged by his right hon. Colleague (Mr. Walpole) had been answered. The difficulties and dangers of the person seeking to register his title were, that there should be an accurate description of everything, including every hereditament corporeal and incorporeal put upon the register. If that were not done —and it was a thing almost impossible to do—the owner might at some future time have his rights called in question, on the ground that certain rights were not to be found upon the record. In fact, the clause would have the effect of plunging into doubt persons who sought to register their land, and would oblige them to be in a constant state of preparation to resist aggression. The Corporation of London had an officer whose duty it was to see that no Bill was carried through Parliament, and no attempt made which would in any way interfere with their rights. That officer was called the City Remembrancer. But if this clause passed, every landed proprie- tor must have a remembrancer of his own to take care that his property was not invaded. The persons most interested in the Bill were the lawyers, for he had never seen a Bill better calculated to promote their advantage. But it was strange that landed proprietors, whose interests were so deeply involved, took so little part in the discussion. With respect to persons whose property was in the neighbourhood of a person who wished to register his land, they would be placed in a position of great risk. For those reasons he should cordially support the Motion for the omission of the clause.

MR. SCULLY

said, though the Commissioners had thought it better to confine the registry to fee simple, it might be extended; tenants for life should be allowed to put their estate on the register.

MR. NEWDEGATE

observed, that in Scotland there was a register of titles, and he was acquainted with an estate in reference to which an error of a few words made the tenant for life tenant in fee, and gave him the power of disposing of the whole property. The plan now proposed was, not that the deeds should be copied, but that an abstract should be made of them, and that the title should be according to that abstract; and therefore they were not to register existing titles, but to create new titles; and the only security that there would be was the discretion and ability of the person who made the abstract, and upon this very important rights would depend.

LORD LOVAINE

said, he possessed property in a county where there was a great deal of waste land, and he wished to know whether, in the event of neighbouring landowners applying under this Act, he would be obliged to defend his rights or supposed rights?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, any landowner applying under this Act must give a description of the lands he claimed; and if they abutted upon property owned by the noble Lord, notice must be given to him and his tenants, and they would have the opportunity of tending before the registrar.

MR. MONTAGUE SMITH

thought the clauses would be found inadequate for the protection of adjoining landowners, and some additional protection should be given them. In all questions as to boundaries a map should accompany the description; and some provision should be made for referring such questions, in- volving the course of rivers, fences, and walls, for trial. He should be glad to see these clauses omitted from the Bill altogether; hut if they were retained, adequate protection should be given to the adjoining owners.

MR. COLLIER

acquiesced in the view that the registrar would be found insufficient to settle important questions of boundary, which were constantly being mooted on circuit.

MR. WHALLEY

contended that no powers were given to the registrar under this Act which were not already given under the Inclosure Acts.

LORD LOVAINE

said, that the Inclo-sure Commissioners only acted where there was no dispute as to boundaries.

MR. HENLEY

thought the provisions of the Bill deficient with respect to the safeguards by which titles were to be settled. This point had been urged by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), and had not been answered.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, it was a mistake to suppose that the clause provided for the final settlement of the title. It merely applied to the result of the preliminary investigation which was to take place before any notices were issued, or any persons were brought in by advertisement to defend their interests. Ample notice was provided for by subsequent clauses,

MR. HENLEY

said, it was true that those clauses gave ample notice to the persons included in the description of those who were, or might be, entitled to the land; but the question was whether this description, as provided in the section now being discussed, would be accurately settled, he wanted to know how it was proposed to secure that this abstract should contain the names of all parties interested. If any person interested were kept out of the abstract, there was at present no security that he would receive any notice whatever. The hon. and learned Gentleman had now, for the first time, talked about this as a preliminary investigation. Was there, then, to be another one?

SIR HUGH CAIRNS

concurred in the observations of his right hon. Friend, and wished to know, supposing that the registrar made a mistake, and did not insert the names of all persons interested, or supposing that some of the persons interested were unborn or out of the coun- try, where the provision was that protected the rights of those parties? He thought it impossible that the scheme embodied in the Bill could ever work.

SIR JOHN HANMER

observed, with respect to manors, that it would he unjust that the owner of the minerals underneath the surface should be bound by any proceeding which the lord of the manor, who was only the owner of the surface, might take. He hoped some words would be introduced providing expressly, and not merely by implication, for this case.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, that when the Committee came to the clauses relating to the record of title, it would be fit to consider whether any more express provision should be made for a case of that kind. The present clause had reference to one of the formal steps in the process of registration. In the first instance the investigation of title would be exactly such as took place in the Court of Chancery when a title was investigated as between the parties before the Court. The next thing was to reduce into form the results of the investigation, and those results would be placed on the register, unless persons, after notice, came forward and made valid objections. With respect to the objection that persons having possible or contingent interests might be injured without notice, that was a danger that was inseparable from any scheme of indefeasible title; but experience in Ireland and of conveyance in England proved that there was practically no danger of any such result occurring. The principle of the clause was the same as that embodied in the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Hugh Cairns), and no greater securities could be adopted against what was only a possible danger.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS

said, he was entirely at issue with the Solicitor General on this point. The propositions of this Bill were quite new, because it put the interests of unborn generations out of view altogether.

MR. COLLIER

reminded the Committee that besides notices to the persons whose interests were disclosed, notice was also to be given by advertisement, and to the occupiers of adjoining lands, and to the owners of such adjoining lands.

MR. WHALLEY

said, that the objections of the hon. and learned Member for Belfast, if they applied at all, applied to the 4th clause, and not to the one under consideration.

MR. BARROW

observed, that in mineral districts it frequently happened that the land was held by one person, while there was a reservation of the minerals to mother. Under this clause there was no security that the person apparently having the fee might not dispose of both land and minerals without notice to the person really entitled to the latter. He thought some special protection should be provided for these cases.

MR. SCULLY

said, the production of the deeds to the registrar would give the required protection. He hoped the clause would be allowed to stand, as being a good compromise between opposing principles.

Question put, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 140; Noes 89: Majority 51.

Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 9.

Clause 10 (Identity of Lands to be established).

MR. MONTAGUE SMITH

moved an Amendment in the clause with a view of requiring an accurate description of the property to be embodied in the notice.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

acceded to the Amendment, and suggested the further addition of words requiring a map or plan of the property in question to be deposited.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11 was also agreed to.

Clause 12 (Contents of Notice).

MR. WALPOLE

suggested that this clause should be omitted. To require that every adjoining proprietor should have notice when any land was to be registered would give rise to much litigation and expense. He would also omit the second part of Clause 14.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, the object of the clause was to secure that notice should be given to all parties entitled to receive it. He believed that object was effected by the clause as it stood; hut by an alteration of a subsequent clause he would take care to leave the question of boundary open where it was in dispute.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13 was also agreed to.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again on Thursday.