COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 02 June 1865 vol 179 cc1188-208

Order for Committee read.

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

MR. DUNLOP

said, he was sorry that the arrangement he formerly suggested had not been acceded to, and that he was obliged to insist on the Motion of which he had given notice, that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. He certainly regretted that a matter involving so much detail, and so little general interest, should be forced on the House at large. It was impossible to get Members to take an interest in the discussion, because the questions that arose were such as could only be well considered in a Select Committee. He would refer to some of the general features of the two Bills for the purpose of showing that the details were not likely to receive that attention in a Committee of the Whole House which the Amendments proposed required. There had been for two centuries and a half a system of registration of land rights in Scotland. There were a number of registers for districts—every Royal burgh had its own register; there was one in nearly every county, although in some cases two might be joined together to form a district; but substantially there was a local register. Unfortunately, however, there had been combined with that what was called a general register. That was kept at Edinburgh, and its original was to relieve the proprietors of baronies, which included lands in several counties, from the necessity of registering the sasines in every county in which there were lands forming part of their baronies. The effect of this was, that the registers not being limited to the great baronies, but being free for parties to register, although holding lands only in one county, lands might either be registered separately in the different counties, or in the general register where they were all mixed in one register, without any arrangement whatever; so that it became a very difficult matter indeed to make the searches which were required. Now, although about the beginning of this century certain abridgments or indices were began, so as to admit of searching the registers more conveniently, yet nobody could be sure whether the lands were registered in the local or general register; and, consequently, it was essential, before a man lent money on the security of land, or sold it, to make a double search in the local and general registers. The great amendment which both the Bills on the paper sought to accomplish is to have only one register. The Lord Advocate proposed to effect that by abolishing all the local registers, giving compensation to the parties interested out of the Consolidated Fund, and taking their offices all into Edinburgh, in order to make what is still to be called the General Register. He proposed that all the work should be done in Edinburgh, and in that way to simplify and reduce the searches from two records to one, and to facilitate the making of abridgments and indices by recording the several deeds in county order, just as it is now done in the local registers. The plan of his (Mr. Dunlop's) Bill was to abolish the General Register, which had been the great obstruction all through, and to keep up the local or county registers, which, as a collateral advantage, would obviate the necessity of compensation to the keepers. Instead of the Registrars, as at present, drawing the whole fees paid for registering the deeds, he proposed that the holders should be put on salaries as the Edinburgh Registrars now were, and in that way the expenses would be diminished, as largely at least as by the plan of the Lord Advocate, so as to admit an equal reduction in the amount of fees by both Bills. These were the main features of the two Bills, and it was necessary the House should understand them, as they formed the ground on which he pressed for the reference of both to a Select Committee. And the first ground he took was that they had not sufficient materials for coming to anything like a satisfactory decision on the various details involved in either Bill. The only information they had was the report of two gentlemen—one an Edinburgh solicitor, and the other a Glasgow solicitor—both able men, no doubt, but they had not reported to the House any of the evidence on which their Report was founded. They have given nothing but their report, and, so far, their opinion; but they had not enabled the House to judge how far that opinion was founded on the facts, and whether the facts really bear it out. He considered it essential that they should enter into some inquiry into circumstances that had not been reported on. These gentlemen were required to report only on the state of the county registers and burgh registers, which last were not dealt with in this Bill; but they were not required or allowed to look into or examine the state of the Edinburgh registers at all—the difficulties which exist there at present to get the work required done, and how it would be possible for them to undertake the additional labour it was proposed to throw upon them. That was a point on which some inquiry must be made. They were called upon to transfer to Edinburgh all the county registers in Scotland from the counties, although not a word was said against the manner in which the duty is now discharged. Two things, therefore, had to be considered—how the work was done in the counties, to which no objection had been taken; and, secondly, how it was likely to be done in Edinburgh. Now, as to this last point, they were utterly in the dark. Then as to the Report of the Commissioners, it had been stated publicly, and not denied, that their investigation into the county registers was of a very summary kind; and this is clearly beyond doubt, that they assigned as the main cause of the abridgments and indices not being in a forward state, the delay of sending up the record volumes from the county. Now, it had been conclusively proved by the Return which had been obtained by his hon. Friend the Member for Ayr district (Mr. Craufurd) that this was utterly incorrect—there was not a single county in which the registers were not transmitted to a much later date than the indices had reached. In Edinburgh the abridgments and indices had been very ill-managed and badly done. The system was begun in 1821, and if they had done nothing more than year by year made an index and abridgment of the current work of the year, there would now have been a complete index for forty years; but instead of that, they began twenty-eight years backwards, and they had never been able to overtake the arrears. The accumulation had been going on year by year, until at last, since 1830, they had been obliged to give up altogether the most valuable of all—the index of places. The index of persons was still six, eight, or even ten years in arrear. That is a specimen of the superior excellence of Edinburgh superintendence, which was one of the great charms held out to induce the House to transfer the local registers from the counties to Edinburgh. It would be a proper subject for inquiry by a Select Committee, whether the means for accomplishing the end of perfect registration were more efficient in the counties or at Edinburgh. There was another matter on which they had no information—the convenience or inconvenience of sending all the writs to Edinburgh, and having them registered there or in the counties. All that was stated on that point was, that in many counties the writs were sent to a large extent by post; but, in the larger proportion, they were delivered personally. They had no evidence as to the bearing on local transactions in the county which the sending of the sasines to Edinburgh would have, and they had no evidence as to the convenience or inconvenience of such an arrangement to the persons borrowing or lending money, and selling or buying land. To one class the convenience of having all writs registered in Edinburgh would, no doubt, be very considerable. That was the class of great proprietors who had their agents in Edinburgh, whose deeds were all prepared in Edinburgh, and were thereafter kept in tin boxes at their agents' chambers. But, after all, this class comprised but a small body of men, and the inconvenience which would arise to the great mass of persons who would be compelled to employ a local and an Edinburgh agent, and who desired to keep their deeds in their own custody, far outweighed the interests of the other. That was a point on which they might have evidence given in a Select Committee. Then, as to the delay or rapidity of recording the writs at Edinburgh, it was shown by a Return that the number of writs in the registry of the Lothians which were unengrossed on the 1st June in each year was from 600 to 700. In several cases the delay in recording a writ had been close upon eighty days. It was necessary to inquire into that subject—to see why so much delay had occurred in Edinburgh; how it would be obviated when the county registers were transferred to Edinburgh; and how far it might be necessary, for any advantage to be gained by going to Edinburgh, to sacrifice the great advantage of local registers. There was another matter on which the Lord Advocate had spoken very confidently—the saving of expense to be effected by means of this Bill. There could be no doubt that a saving of expense was a very desirable thing. But there was no evidence of such a saving of expense under the Bill of the learned Lord as he appears to contemplate, The learned Lord said that the whole expense under this Bill would be £5,000; but, looking to the present expense of the staff, he (Mr. Dunlop) calculated that it would be brought up to at least £9,000 a year. The present staff at Edinburgh was insufficient for its present duties, and it was impossible to imagine that an additional staff would not be required when these additional duties were thrown upon the office. But that, again, was a matter into which a Select Committee might inquire. Then, as to the matter of compensation:—the offices are held for life; the Lord Advocate proposed to compensate the holders out of the Consolidated Fund; whereas by his (Mr. Dunlop's) Bill, these persons would be placed on salaries, and the amount of compensation would be only the difference between the salaries and the excess which the present fees gave them; and that would not be very considerable. So far as the main objects of the Bill were concerned they could be done just as thoroughly and quite as cheaply in the country as in Edinburgh; and he (Mr. Dunlop) thought it would be better done in the country than in Edinburgh. Then there were many minor points, such as the superior local knowledge of the district solicitors over any set of clerks, and all the questions raised by the Amendments, of which notice had been given—Amendments involving the question whether they should have one register by abolishing the local or the general register; whether they should keep up the general and the particular registers of adjudications and inhibitions, or discard them and substitute the register of sasines. These subjects could not be adequately considered in a Committee of the whole House, and could be only adequately considered in a Select Committee, where the same Members were always present. Another question of great importance, raised by one of the Amendments, was the responsibility of the keeper of the general register. At present all the local keepers were responsible for whatever blunders they committed; but his learned Friend had not informed them whether he intended to make the general keeper responsible for the errors committed in recording writs in the General Register at Edinburgh. A similar question arose as to the responsibility of the searchers. Searchers were generally selected by the parties for whom the search was made, and if he made a blunder was answerable for the consequences. The Lord Advocate proposed that there should be official searchers appointed by the Treasury. Were these searchers appointed by the Treasury to be liable, like the professional searchers, for the blundering they commit, or was the Treasury to be liable? Then, again, the question of town registers was a large question, which must be fully discussed. At Glasgow, for instance, there was a register which comprised a large part of the city of Glasgow. Now, part of this scheme was that this register should be transmitted from Glasgow to Edinburgh, and made part of the county register. Now, the evidence was strong against these new county registers, and the Commissioners, having discussed the question whether burghs which had registers should retain them and other large towns, such as Greenock and Leith, which had none, should have registers assigned to them, they came to the conclusion, though with great hesitation, that these burghs should remain as they were, and suggested a mode of search which they called a search-sheet, which should be gradually adopted, and prepare the way for the ultimate transfer of the burgh registers to the General Register House in Edinburgh; and it was only on the ground that the burgh registers were ultimately to be transferred to Edinburgh that the Commissioners reported against establishing distinct registers in the large towns, not being burghs, which at present had none. But the officials had condemned utterly the search-sheet, and his hon. and learned Friend had abandoned that part of the scheme entirely, and had abandoned all idea of sending the burgh registers to Edinburgh. Should not, consequently, these towns have registers given them? Then the burghs and their suburbs were to be in distinct districts—one side I of a street would have one register and the other side another—all on one side could register their deeds and get them back immediately; all on the other would have to send them to Edinburgh. Nothing besides but burgage tenure was to be registered in the burgh registers; but why were the feudal tenures within the burgh to be precluded from being placed on the burgh register? The house property in the suburbs was in reality a burgal property—why should not they he registered in the burgh register? The burghs which petitioned in favour of the Lord Advocate's Bill while they did not care about the county registers being taken to Edinburgh they required that their own suburbs should be added to their own burghs. It was impossible to discuss these and many other questions in an open Committee of the whole House. The Lord Advocate had said that referring the Bill to a Select Committee would be tantamount to throwing it out. But, even if it were so, he (Mr. Dunlop) should say that that would be better than passing it in a way that would create dissatisfaction. Still, this was no fault of his. The Bill was brought in on the 24th February, and he (Mr. Dunlop) then suggested that both Bills should be read a second time and referred to a Select Committee, and if that had been agreed to the Bill might have been carried through the House this Session. The Lord Advocate, however, objected to this course, but allowed the Bill to stand over, no obstruction being offered by him (Mr. Dunlop), but the Bill being allowed to be read a second time without a division, there was a strong feeling in Scotland on the subject, and he was satisfied that, if the matter were referred to a Select Committee, a satisfactory measure might be agreed upon. In conclusion, he begged to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

seconded the Motion.

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,"—(Mr. Dunlop,)—instead thereof.

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

LORD HENRY SCOTT

said, he regretted to find so much difference of opinion amongst the Scotch Members on a subject of such importance; but after the many stages of opposition through which the Bill had gone, it appeared to him that to refer it to a Select Committee, as the hon. and learned Member for Greenock proposed, would be tantamount to defeating the Bill for this Session. That was a result he could not contemplate with satisfaction; and if it was really the opinion of all the Scotch Members that the Bill should fall through altogether this Session, he thought it a pity that result had not been brought about by moving the rejection of the Bill on the second reading. No doubt it was difficult to arrive at any conclusion respecting a Bill of this kind when there had been so little public discussion on it in this House. The discussion which commenced here was adjourned to another room; and probably the opinions expressed there would have produced an effect on the public mind if they had been uttered in this House. The learned Lord Advocate proposed to make the registry general, while the hon. and learned Member for Greenock wishes it to be particular and local. Now, it appears to him (Lord Henry Scott) that if this was to be the issue there could be no groundwork for those measures which had been framed by the Lord Advocates who formerly had a seat in this House, for Mr. John Inglis and Mr. Baillie both brought forward Bills of exactly the same nature as this. It could not be said that this subject was one that had not had the greatest consideration. It had been under consideration for a series of years. Clauses had been inserted in all the Commissions given to the different local registrars, by which they were declared not to be entitled to demand compensation in case local registers should be abolished. It had been the subject of a Royal Commission; and if the Report of two able Commissioners was not enough to give us a groundwork, he did not know that a Select Committee would be able to give them more. It had been said that the Commissioners did not take their evidence in a proper manner; but from a careful perusal of that Report he (Lord Henry Scott) did not agree with that statement. It appeared to have been carefully drawn up, and went into every possible detail that could be brought before a Select Committee. He must say, as regarded the general question, that if it was desirable to have any registration at all, the opinions of all the county meetings in Scotland ought to have some weight in favour of the Lord Advocate's plan. With regard to complaints as to the present arrears on the registers, that might be got rid of by adopting the English system, and abolishing the minute-books. It has also been said that great expenses would be incurred by the Lord Advocate's plan; but when it was remembered that at the present moment the registers paid a surplus of £6,000 a year to the Consolidated Fund, and more than £12,000 to the local registrars, it appeared to him that all the expenses would be met, and that there would be a surplus. He knew also that there were complaints as to the borough registers; but it was not proposed to meddle with them in this Bill, or in the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Greenock. The whole question of borough registers was treated of in the Report, and the Commissioners gave ample reasons for not wishing to interfere with them. The real question before the House was whether they should delay the Bill by referring it to a Select Committee, and thus practically throw it out altogether; but he could not think, after the lengthened investigations of the Commissioners, that a Select Committee would be of any value, or that would, on the whole, be a wise and proper course.

COLONEL SYKES

said, he had presented a petition from Aberdeen against the Lord Advocate's Bill, and he must say he entirely concurred in the prayer of the petition. He held in his hand the last Report of the Committee upon Public Petitions, from which he found that there had been ninety-six petitions in all presented upon this subject; and of these twenty-three were in favour of the Lord Advocate's Bill, seventy against it, and three prayed for alteration in both Bills. Moreover, it must be borne in mind that these petitions were not signed at street corners like many petitions that had recently been presented to the House, but by gentlemen of education and position. Was it then right or reasonable that they should take upon themselves to decide here in this House, with scarcely a quorum present upon these Bills when there was evidently a conflict of opinion out of doors upon the question? He emphatically said it was not; and although it was possible and probable that a reference to a Select Committee might delay or cause the loss of these Bills for the present Session, he also said so much the better; for this advantage would be gained, that they would have the maturely-formed judgment of men upon whom they could rely. The parties who would chiefly benefit by the Lord Advocate's Bill were the Lord Clerk Register by emolument and patronage, the Edinburgh conveyancers, who would practically have a monopoly of the business, and departments of the Register House, whose returns would be increased from fees. Those who would benefit by the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Greenock were the local solicitors, the proprietors of land who would pay reduced fees, the smaller proprietors who would avoid the delay and risk of sending their deeds up to Edinburgh, and have increased facilities for searching; and the country at large would be benefited by the prevention of a great scheme of centralization and patronage. That could not be regarded as a slight advantage, when they remembered that the principle of our representation was hostile to centralization. How could they look for any advantage whatever in a complete transfer of all registration to Edinburgh when they remembered that the three local registers already in the office there were ten years in arrear? What would be the state of that office when nineteen other registers were handed over to it? Surely, under these circumstances, the simple and obvious course was to ascertain the real state of things, and that could be best done by submitting both these Bills to a Select Committee. If they were thereby lost for this Session, the public would be no losers, for a further opportunity would be given to the country at large to consider and to make up its mind upon this important subject. He should certainly support the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Greenock.

MR. FINLAY

said, he spoke without claiming to possess special legal knowledge, but he wished to say a few words as a proprietor—for he took the question to be, in fact, a proprietors' question. It was the interest of the proprietors that had to be guarded, and not the interest of the lawyers. The proprietors complained at present of the great expense of registering deeds. That expense was attributable to two causes—first, the great delays and arrears in writing up the index; and next, the necessity for a double search. They were all agreed upon the desirability of having only one search; and both the Bills before the House profess to have that object in view. But it appeared to him that under the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Greenock, two searches at least would be required—a search into the local registers and search into the Edinburgh register, and, if the property lay in several counties, three or four searches would be required. Even for the counties themselves local registers were inconvenient. He might instance his own county—Argyleshire—where the registers were kept at Inverary, which was less accessible to many parts of the county than Edinburgh. The tendency of all improvement in communication was towards the capital, and therefore the facilities for searching in the capital were always improving. So, as a matter of convenience, Edinburgh was the best place for the registers, especially as all large proprietors have agents in that city, and the interests of the smaller proprietors would be secured by the permanent establishment of the sixty-six burgh registers. As to security, the hon. Member for Greenock said that at present the keepers of the registers were responsible for the results of any negligence. But it must be remembered that these persons were, in general, men of very small means; whereas the responsible officers at Edinburgh would probably be persons of a superior class, from whom it would be practicable to obtain ample and satisfactory security. As to the question of expense the real expense lay in the search not in the register, and as by the Lord Advocate's Bill the search would be simplified the expense must be proportionately lessened. As to the proposition to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, they were all agreed upon the principle, and all that would have to be referred to the Committee would be the details, which could only be understood thoroughly by lawyers; and the question is whether they should be guided by the declared opinions of the first lawyers of Scotland, which is already before us, or send the question to be decided by a Committee which could not consist of persons so well qualified to pronounce upon details of this kind? He did not think that such reference to a Committee would be of any advantage to the public. He hoped the hon. and learned Member for Greenock would not press his Motion.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

said, it would perhaps be in the recollection of the House, that no discussion was taken upon the second reading of this Bill, at the express suggestion of the Lord Advocate. It was against his wish that the Bill passed that important stage sub silentio; and it was clear that the opponents of the Bill are under a disadvantage now from having allowed that course to be taken. The reason suggested for this course was that opportunity should be given for the discussion of the question at a meeting of Scotch Members, when some understanding might be arrived at as to future proceedings. No doubt his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Greenock had reason to expect that some deference would be paid to his views. As there was no record of the proceedings of such gathering as they had in the tea-room, he could give no detailed account of what passed in the little Scotch Parliament on that occasion; but he would simply remind those present that the Lord Advocate, finding that a majority of the Scotch Parliament was not likely to agree with him, closed the discussion by saying that he should persevere with his Bill. So, after they had been induced to consent to the second reading sub silentio, they were told that, in an exhausted House approaching dissolution, the measure would be pushed on by any means whatever. The majority of the representatives from Scotland sat behind the Government; but although that portion of the Empire was less strongly represented on this side, he could not in his experience remember any occasion when they had to complain of a measure being unfairly or unduly pressed by a majority upon a reluctant minority. Our Scotch measures were generally discussed in a spirit of conciliation and fairness, and to no one was that fact more attributable than to his hon. and learned Friend opposite. But the manner in which it was attempted to force on this measure was at variance with the usual practice. Never was there a measure more fitted for consideration by a Select Committee or even a Commission, and never was there a question less fitted for general discussion than that which was now sought to be pressed on in this unusual and unfair manner by means of calling in aid the Government supporters, who, knowing nothing of, and caring nothing for, the subject, were able to overbear the wishes of the majority of the representatives of Scotland. One reason why this Bill was distasteful to me was because it was based upon a centralizing principle. They had already a very centralized Government in Scotland. That kingdom was governed from headquarters by an official who occupied a position perfectly anomalous, whose government would not have been tolerated for a moment had it not been administered uniformly in a judicious and prudent spirit for the benefit of the country. This centralizing principle was being applied step by step to other departments of administration. In former times centralization might have been absolutely necessary, but now it could not be said that where they had had local government for centuries it was necessary all at once to introduce a system of centralization. Only in one department had local management been retained, and that was in the matter of registration of titles to land. Every county and every burgh had its register, and every one who had investigated the subject knew that a more perfect system did not exist in any country. No one denied that there were faults in the existing system—that, for instance, the fees from persons having recourse to the register offices might be advantageously reduced; nor did any one deny that some confusion had arisen from the ancient system of a double register, which was good in its time but had been abused. It could not, however, be denied that the local register was the chief register, and that the general register was essentially the subordinate one. The noble Lord the Member for Selkirkshire (Lord Henry Scott) thought that he had made a great point when he said that the General Register of Edinburgh yielded to the Consolidated Fund a surplus of £6,000 a year, while the local registers were of no value to anybody. But they were of value to those who kept them. The noble Lord was in error in saying that Bills had been introduced by Conservative Lord Advocates, or that measures similar to this had been contemplated by them; because the measure which was thought of but not introduced by the present Lord Justice Clerk, when Lord Advocate, contemplated the provision of registers for the various districts of Scotland. Undoubtedly he contemplated the removal of the local registers but he believed he contemplated their collection into certain districts. As to the weight of authority, I cannot pay to the opinion of the Lord Justice Clerk, and of the Lord Advocate, the deference which I should be disposed to pay to it upon all other questions. The weight of the authority of all the country lawyers is against the change proposed by this Bill. It is true that this was an interested opinion to this extent, that those gentlemen would lose a great deal of business if all these registers were transfered to Edinburgh; because there was no doubt that although the post might to a considerable extent be used for the transmission of deeds to the registry, or the making of inquiries, careful practitioners would never be content without going themselves, or sending their agents to the registry to report the deed, or make the inquiries that might be necessary. It was, therefore, obvious that if this change took place, there would be some transfer of business from the country to the Edinburgh solicitors, and in so far the opinions of the former might be said to be interested. The noble Lord said that the proprietors were not opposed to this Bill; but who was the best judge of the interests of the proprietors, and of how the business in which he was concerned can be best transacted? Was it not the professional man by whom that business had always been managed; and he ventured to think that in this matter the concurrent opinions of the practitioners all over Scotland is deserving of some respect. And if there be an imputation of interested motives on both sides, surely the onus probandi rests upon those who want to take the business away, and not upon those who have it now. This Bill, while it proposed to transfer the conveyancing business of all the county districts of Scotland to Edinburgh, did not propose to treat the burghs in the same way. The reason why the local registers of the burghs are to be left was, they were told that local knowledge was there of so much importance. Why was it important to burghs and places possessing municipal government, and of no importance throughout the counties cither in populous places or in purely rural districts? It was a distinction that would not hold for an instant, to say that certain burghs required a great deal of local knowledge, and that therefore their local registers should be preserved, but that all others were needless and should be swept away. But if centralization be in fact of so much importance as was represented, he should not be wrong in saying that this Bill would fail to effect that object, because there would still remain sixty or sixty-eight burgh registers. If it were necessary to concentrate all the business in Edinburgh, why did not the concurrent testimony, of which they have heard so much, propose to concentrate every one of the registers throughout the country? The reason was the burghs were too strong for the Government. Let them take warning by what was now going on. If concentration in Edinburgh was of such great im- portance, and if the improvement of communications had been so great that it was not necessary to prolong the continuance of these registers in the various localities, why should not concentration be carried a little further—why keep up branch establishments in Edinburgh itself? If concentration was to go on, rely upon it that the establishments which now afford such great public conveniences in Edinburgh will not long be left there. They would soon have their postal arrangements, and all other matters, conducted in London, and Edinburgh would sink into a mere provincial town. There were other things now kept in the counties, not to mention the registers of births, deaths, and marriages, which might be sent to Edinburgh. Why should not all the commissary business, probate, and so on, be done in Edinburgh? There was no end to the concentration that might be carried out. He did not wish to say much upon so delicate a subject; but there is a question of patronage. The Register House in Edinburgh had been used a little as an office of political reward. He did not wish to say anything invidious, but it was impossible to deny that, however excellent and worthy a gentleman might be, if the charge of the Register House was to be made a matter of political reward, and if considerable patronage was to be attached to it, people in the country would look upon such an arrangement with considerable jealousy. The only weak point in the present system brought out by the Report was the confusion which arose between the two registers. The noble Lord (Lord Henry Scott) seems to think that the inconvenience was very formidable for the registers to be in one county and the writs in two counties; but when a proprietor had a large estate which extended into two counties, the inconvenience of registering in these two counties was in reality exceedingly small. But the great argument against the Bill, and one which he thought of more weight than all the rest, was that the evidence showed that the public were satisfied with and use freely the present system. If 15,000 writs are annually registered, and if out of these only 3,000 are registered in Edinburgh, it being equally open to proprietors to register there as in the counties, that was a conclusive proof that the public had decided in favour of local registers as more convenient and best. There was only one point more to which he wished to refer. The hon. Member for Argyleshire said that this was not a matter for a Select Committee; but it was impossible to have a matter of a more abstruse and technical character, and one which in its details was more fit to be considered by a Committee upstairs. The subject had never yet been examined properly—even the Royal Commission had not examined the register, and reported their condition, and it was clear from the animus that pervaded their Report, that if they had discovered anything unfavourable they would have exposed—but there was nothing of the kind in their Report, and therefore it was to be presumed that there was nothing to expose. He submitted that this was not a case for legislation at all—that no case had been made out—and that, at least, there ought to be more inquiry before disturbing the present system—that no public hardship had been proved, or any grievance substantiated; and he trusted the House will not permit this measure to be forced through by the Government, when it was not only not required, but viewed with jealousy and dislike by the people of Scotland.

MR. CRUM-EWING

said, that he had had the honour to present a petition from Aberdeen of exactly a contrary nature from that presented by his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Sykes). He (Mr. Crum-Ewing) supported the Bill because it would get rid, at a marvellously small cost, of a large and expensive staff; secondly, it would be the means of preserving greater uniformity; thirdly, it would give greater facilities for examining the writs by having them all at one place, and at a less trouble and expense than having, as now, to go through the various counties; and, fourthly they would be placed in a fire-proof building, and thus be more secure from accidents. He thought the measure one of great improvement.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

I hoped, after the full discussion that had been had, they should be allowed to go to a division that night. He would only address the House upon the question whether this Bill ought to be referred to a Select Committee. He contended that it was altogether an unsuitable question for such a reference, because it essentially related to the law of Scotland, and did not depend upon evidence to be taken. Under ordinary circumstances, the Members for Scotland would have been inclined to have left it to be decided by those legal authorities best qualified to form an opinion. These authorities were all on one side. There was no difference of opinion amongst the best and first jurists in Scotland that this was a most desirable measure. The Faculty of Advocates were unanimous, as indeed were most of the persons interested in business of this nature. His predecessor in office unquestionably intended to legislate in this sense. All professional and scientific opinion was in favour of the Bill, but there was another interest to be considered—that of the public. He did not want to exaggerate too much the effects of it, but this House ought not to let private interest—the interest of those local practitioners whose business might be affected—to stand in the way of a great general reform. The hon. Member for Argyleshire (Sir James Fergusson) said we had called a meeting of Scotch Members, and were now pressing this Bill against the wish of that meeting; but every one who heard the able speech, on that occasion, by his learned Friend the Solicitor General, must have been convinced of the utility and advantage of the measure. Now, he (the Lord Advocate) had made it his business to ascertain whether the Members for Scotland were in favour of this measure or against it; and when they divided it would be found that, not only on that side of the House, but on the other, they were in favour of it in the proportion of at least two to one, so that it was impossible to say they were pressing this Bill against the sense of the Scotch Members. And although the Bill more immediately affects the counties, the main opposition comes from Members for the burghs. The burgh registers were not touched by this Bill. Take any locality, and it would be found that the advantages would greatly outweigh any injury that may be occasioned. There was evidence enough on that point from men of great ability and position, and a Select Committee was wholly unnecessary except for the purpose of shelving the Bill for this Session, which is the object of its opposers in talking of a Select Committee. Very exaggerated ideas seemed to be entertained as to the transfer of business from the county to Edinburgh. The hon. Member admitted that many gentlemen of large property had agents already at Edinburgh; and agents in many cases must be employed now by others. Suppose a person at Aberdeen had money to lend at Glasgow, he would now, as his first step, send to Edinburgh to search the records, and he would employ an agent. The mortgage deed would be prepared in Glasgow; and then would come the question, where it should be recorded. According to the present system, it would be at Aberdeen; according to the Bill, at Edinburgh. What advantage would it be to the lender to record it at Aberdeen? None whatever. The fears of the hon. Members as to centralization were equally chimerical. The only difference in what he proposed and that which now took place was this:—Now, entries were made in the books at various places, and at the end of the year these hooks were sent to Edinburgh; and he proposed instead that the writing should be done at Edinburgh at once, and thus be of immediate use for reference and getting rid of the double search, which all parties admitted to be bad. The burghs were anxious not to be touched; they were anxious to have a register of their own, and the persons who opposed this measure are the persons who were connected with the burghs. It was alleged that the registration in burghs formed a separate and distinct system, involving no doubt many important interests, and standing upon a wholly separate footing, regulated by different rules, under different superintendence, and to a certain extent dealing with matters of a different nature. The burgh registries were not under the Lord Clerk Register, and never had been; they were not established by the same statute as established the county registries, and they dealt with tenures of a very different description. They might, therefore, very properly be left to district registries. Whether they should be brought to Edinburgh or left in the localities was another matter. These were the views on which he thought that House ought not to accede to the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend to send the Bill to a Select Committee. Into the merits of the Bill introduced by his hon. and learned Friend he now proposed to enter. It would be easy to show that, as under the existing law, so under the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend the expense would be very great. His hon. and learned Friend said that the expenses of deeds might be reduced by the Lord Advocate, but he must be aware that the Court would long ago have been moved in that matter but for the opposition which the proposition received from those who were chiefly concerned. Then, again, his hon. Friend raised some phantom of official patronage, and he intimated that persons would be appointed, not only to the office of Lord Clerk Register, but to other offices, because they might happen to be of the political creed of those who happened to be in power. He (the Lord Advocate) entirely repudiated such an insinuation as that. His hon. Friend says this will increase the patronage of the Crown. Does it not, on the contrary, abolish nineteen most lucrative offices at present in the patronage of the Crown? And what does it substitute? Why, a few clerkships of £300 or £400 a year, which may be in the gift of the Lord Clerk Register and the Treasury. And what did the hon. and learned Member for Greenock propose? Why, not only to keep up the nineteen offices at present existing, involving an expenditure which amounts altogether to a very considerable sum, but to add on to the country registries now existing an establishment which increases those nineteen offices to thirty. There was no ground whatever for delay, and he trusted the House would at once go into Committee.

MR. AYTOUN

said, he had no intention to enter into any discussion of the merits of this question, for in his opinion only a lawyer could properly discuss it; but he desired to make one or two remarks on the doctrine which the learned Lord Advocate had laid down in the speech, because he thought it one of the most extraordinary doctrines which a person in his position could lay down. The learned Lord appealed to the House not to send his Bill before a Select Committee, not on the ground that it was so late in the Session that to do so would have the effect of putting off the Bill altogether, but because he says it was not a question that ought to be investigated by a Select Committee of the House of Commons, but one which ought to be determined by authority. Now he (Mr. Aytoun) was always under the apprehension that the only authority which ought to determine anything in that House was the authority of reason and conviction in the minds of Members, and least of all did he expect to bear "authority" quoted, not by a Whig Minister—for he was afraid that a Whig Minister might rather like the term "authority" than otherwise—but by a Liberal Minister. He would surely have thought that a Liberal Minister would have desired the question to be settled by facts and reason. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that the opposition to the Bill was an opposition which is got up entirely by pressure brought to bear upon Members by political agents. Now, he (Mr. Aytoun) had the honour to represent a district of Scotch burghs which had no interest whatever in the matter, and certainly no pressure had been brought to bear upon him. He believed that it would be quite as much for the benefit of these burghs that the registers should be transferred to Edinburgh as that it should be retained in the county town of Cupar. He was not opposed to the Bill, but he said he was not acquainted with the facts, and therefore he was unable to form a judgment upon them; and on that ground he said that he was justified in asking that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, by means of whose labours he might be made acquainted with those facts of which he was now ignorant. He had no wish whatever that the Bill should be thrown out; and he assured the hon. and learned Gentleman that if he had the honour of a seat in that House in the new Parliament, when the measure was brought forward again, and if the House should determine to go into Committee upon it, he would offer no factious opposition to its passing. He had no personal feeling against the Bill. On the contrary, as far as his information goes, he must say that the knowledge he had obtained was favourable than otherwise to the measure of the hon. and learned Gentleman; but, at the same time, he did think that resolutely to refuse all inquiry had the effect of raising a feeling in the minds of the people of Scotland which it would be most desirable to avoid.

MR. CRAWFORD

said, that the course which had been pursued illustrated the truth of the old adage, "The more haste the less speed." If the learned Lord Advocate had given the Scotch Members the inquiry they demanded, and to which they were entitled, he would probably now have been passing the Bill with certain amendments. At all events, he would have got it through this House far more easily than he was likely to do by withholding it. As to the doctrine of authority—which as a guide to legislation was one of the most astonishing doctrines that could be heard at the present day—who was to decide between the conflicting authorities? The learned Lord Advocate said that this was not a question for us to decide—that, being of a technical legal character, it must be decided by eminent lawyers, and that the highest legal authority was on his side. The effect of that was that this was a matter with which the House of Commons has nothing to do, but must follow the course which the Lord Advocate and his authorities tell it to take; or, in other words, the learned Lord says to us, "Shut your eyes, open your mouths, and see what a Whig Minister will send you." No doubt, the learned Lord and his friends were honestly convinced that the scheme they proposed is the best. The learned Lord himself, his Commissioners, and every one else who had examined the question, admitted that the system of the registration of laud rights in Scotland, viewed as a whole, was the most complete and practically useful system which had yet been devised in any country. They ought, therefore, to be on their guard, not unnecessarily to disturb that which was on the whole working well, nor listen too readily to those who recommended changes, which, although apparently more consonant with theoretical perfection, might he difficult to reconcile with the peculiarities of our existing forms of conveyancing, and with long established professional habits and usages. With respect to the advantages resulting from the saving of expenditure under the Bill, although there was a certain saving of expense, the present expenses might be very properly diminished without altering the present system a tittle. At any rate, comparing the expense of conveyancing in Scotland with the same expense in England, it would be found that in Scotland it was not one-third of what it was in England. He quite admitted that, if no system already existed in Scotland, the one proposed might be a good one. If there were a tabula rasa of the Scotch system, then there could be no objection to the proposition of the Lord Advocate; but he could not see the advantage of changing a system that had been in operation and had worked well for two centuries and a half, unless it clearly be shown that the advantages gained would counterbalance the inconveniences of a change of system.

The hon. and learned Member was proceeding to show that as far as expense was concerned that might be reduced without making the slightest alteration in the present system—when it being Pour of the clock,

Debate adjourned till To-morrow.