LEAVE. FIRST READING. (Hansard, 1 March 1865)

§ MR. DUNLOP
, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to improve the system of registration of writs relative to land in Scotland, and to amend the law relating to inhibitions and adjudications, said, the Bill related to the same subject as one which had already been brought in by the hon. and learned Lord Advocate, and he therefore felt bound to give some explanation of the reasons which had induced him to propose his own measure. There had long been in Scotland registers of writs relating to landed estates. Those registers were of two kinds—one, what are called "particular registers" for counties, accessible to all at some central place in the county, or group of counties united, and a "general register" kept in Edinburgh, in which those who had lands in more than one county might register them together. In the course of time it had become the custom to register lands lying within one county only either in the particular counties in which they lie, or in the general register at Edinburgh, in the option of the party. The consequence was, that, if a man wished to obtain information in reference to a landed estate, he had now to search two registers—the general register in Edinburgh and the particular register in the county. The object of the Bill of the learned Lord Advocate, as well as his own, was to do away with one of these registers, and in future to make only one registry competent. The two Bills correspond, except in one respect. The mode in which the Lord Advocate proposed to effect the object was by abolishing all the particular registries, and requiring all writs relative to land to be brought up to one general registry in the Register House in Edinburgh. He proposed to bring the whole registers of all deeds throughout Scotland to Edinburgh, and to have them given in and recorded there. Now, his (Mr. Dunlop's) plan was to abolish the central registry and keep up the particular registries. He thought there ought to be in each particular locality the register of each particular district, although afterwards 952 the record books might be sent up to Edinburgh and kept there. There had never been, so far as he understood, any objection raised to the manner in which the deeds were recorded in the local register, or any complaints made of the writs being incorrectly registered in particular localities. The reason for wishing to bring them all to Edinburgh and to abolish the local registries seemed to him to be mainly a sort of theoretical idea of centralizing the whole matter in Edinburgh. Now, he had no feeling whatever against Edinburgh—he had resided and practised there many years—but his opinion was that it was best to keep up the particular registers of the several counties. The great object in view was to secure the convenience of those who are called upon to register writs in connection with landed property, and he could not see how that convenience was to be secured if the Bill of the Lord Advocate was adopted. There was also a further point. The particular registries were situated in various counties, and the salaries and fees now received by the officers attached to these amount to £9,600 per annum. If those registries were abolished, in addition to the cost of establishing a new central office in Edinburgh, it would be necessary to make compensation to those whose future services will be dispensed with; whereas by maintaining the present local registries, no compensation would be required. He understood that the Lord Advocate would not oppose the introduction of this Bill, and he would put it down for a second reading for the same day as that on which the Bill of his learned Friend will come before the House. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to improve the system of Registration of Writs relative to Land in Scotland, and to amend the Law relating to inhibitions and adjudications.

§ MR. BUCHANAN
seconded the Motion.

THE LORD ADVOCATE
said, he not only did not object to the introduction of his hon. Friend's Bill, but he rejoiced at it, and should be glad of any aid and assistance he could afford in accomplishing the object both had in view. The introduction of these Bills was in itself an admission that there was a grievance to be remedied, and the question was reduced to this— 953 what was the best remedy? It appeared to him that his own Bill offered the best, for it went beyond the Bill of his hon. Friend. No doubt there was some' hardship in abolishing ancient local offices to which the local practitioners conceived themselves entitled. But the question was not a matter in regard to the profession in the provinces or in Edinburgh. It was one that related to the landed interest, and to those who had an interest in land—the owners of land, and those who buy and sell land and lend money upon it. The question was whether they were to be taxed in order to keep up these provincial offices, or whether the House should adopt the proposition he made, that the fees for the general expenses of the transfer of land should be reduced? Now, what was the state of the matter? These particular registers were not kept in each county, but in twenty districts, some of them extending over one county, and there was also in Edinburgh a general register. These registers were both established by an Act of Parliament passed more than 200 years ago, in 1617. Somewhere about the beginning of this century, it was found that these local registers were in great confusion, and arrangements were made by which they were transmitted to Edinburgh, not at particular intervals, but the keepers of the local registers having only one book, transmitted it when filled to the general registry. When land was transferred, and the search for encumbrances was made, it was now necessary to search in Edinburgh both the general and the particular registry, because the district register being transmitted to Edinburgh it remained at the General Register House, and must be searched there. In addition to that it was necessary to search the current volume of the particular register in the district in which the property was situated. And there were at least two other registers in the Register House that must also be searched. The inconvenience and expense of all this was manifest; and what his Bill proposed was this—that the county registers shall be entirely abolished in each district; that a register in Edinburgh shall be kept as a county register, and all writs be registered there. In that manner they would save the expense to the holders of land and dealers in land of keeping up these twenty establishments, and reduce them to one. What was of still greater importance, and what his learned Friend's proposal did not touch at all, we should enable the persons employed to make the 954 indices and abstracts of these registers, which alone were to be searched to keep their work up. At this moment they were five years behind, and even more than that in some cases. If his Bill be adopted, the registers in future would be made up in Edinburgh alone, and it would be possible to keep them up day by day; and thus there would be a great saving of expense in the matter of search. The hon. Gentleman said that the public had shown that they prefer the particular to the general registers by registering their deeds in the particular and not in the general register; but he ought also to have informed the House that the public had also indicated that it was utterly indifferent to them, whether they transmitted their writs by post, or delivered them personally, for there was a return appended to the Report of the Commissioners employed to investigate the subject, by which it appeared that a much larger proportion of writs—in one district four-fifths—were sent by post. Now it was quite as easy to send the writs to be recorded in Edinburgh by post, as it was to send them to be recorded in Glasgow, Aberdeen, or Forfar by post. And what were the advantages of adopting the system of a general register? In the first place, instead of keeping up twenty local registers there would be only one register; and that way then would be the benefit, not of centralization, but of having all the registers more efficiently kept under one superintendence and management by a uniform system carried out by a body of clerks skilled in the work. Centralization has nothing whatever to do with the matter, but the simple question was how to keep our registers in an efficient condition. Was it not better to do that, and to place the whole of them under one management, than to have the work spread over twenty different districts, where neither superintendence, uniformity, or skill could be of the slightest avail? No doubt there were a certain number of persons connected with the local registers who had a material interest in retaining them. In Glasgow the fees received amount to about £5,000 a year, in Aberdeen to £1,200, and in Forfar to upwards of £1,000; while in other parts the amount of the fees was also very considerable. Now in regard to the matter of compensation, it could be shown that the Register House was not only a self-supporting institution, but that there was a large balance of fees received, amounting, I believe, to between £7,000 and £8,000 a year. He thought it very hard that the 955 landed interest should be taxed to the extent of a surplus of £7,000 or £8,000 a year, in order that that sum should be paid over to the Exchequer. What he desired to do, but what we should never be able to do if his hon. Friend's suggestion was adopted—was, in the first place, to make the system of registration such that you would be able by turning to the indices of the general register to make searches with the greatest possible facility; and secondly, to reduce the expense, already very heavy, upon the transfer of land. It was in order to take a step in that direction that he had been induced to propose his measure; but it was absolutely essential as the first step that we should bring these registers to one focus. That was the first thing to be accomplished, and it was perfectly certain that registration by post was quite as secure and convenient as by personal attention and attendance at the office. If that were so, no interests would be involved in this question, except that of the keepers of the local registers. Of course it would be the duty of the House to consider the position in which they would be placed; and, if considered reasonable, to grant compensation.

§ MR. DUNLOP
, in reply, said, that his hon. and learned Friend had stated that the grand object of his Bill was to facilitate the search of the registers, and that it was incompatible with registration in the country that the books could be searched with that rapidity and care which was desirable. Now, it was true that hitherto the books had not come up rapidly, and that there had been great delay and inconvenience. But why was it that these books have not come up? It was because the Register House in Edinburgh had sent out large oblong forms, all of a size, to small as well as to large districts, and they had not been sent up to Edinburgh until they were entirely filled. The result of that has been that several of the registers have got behind; but the remedy for that is what I propose to do in this Bill—namely, to require the registrars to send them up every six months.