MIDDLESEX REGISTRY.—RESOLUTION. (Hansard, 18 June 1867)

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, that be wished to call attention to what he conceived to be irregularities in connection with the Middlesex Registry. His object was to put a stop to the levying of illegal fees by sinecure officers, and to prevent any new appointments to such offices being made. Before the Acts of 1838 and 1842, the Superior Courts of Law and Equity were full of sinecure offices, and the preamble to the former Act recited that they ought to be abolished, and establishments of effective officers substituted. The Registrarships of the Middlesex office were among these sinecures, and the Acts empowered the Lord Chancellor and the Chief Judges to appoint, on the death of the Registrars, barristers or attorneys of certain standing to the offices. During the last twenty-three years, accordingly, all the present Registrars were so appointed. But these gentlemen, who were at the present moment receiving £2,400 each, claimed to be equally holders of sinecures, and never discharged any duty except in the absence of the deputy. That was not all. Under the Act of Queen Anne the fees to be paid consisted of 1s. for registering every memorial not exceeding 200 words, and 6d. for every 100 words additional, so that on a memorial of 500 words, the average length of those registered in Middlesex, the fee receivable would be 2s. 6d. Instead of this, the Registrars had been in the habit of receiving 7s. as a minimum fee. Consequently, instead of about £4,000, which the number of memorials registered would entitle them to receive, no less than £12,000 a year was being paid to them, of which only £2,000 went to cover office expenses. They had also neglected to 81 keep the alphabetical index for each parish, required by the Statute; and, instead, what was called a "lexicographical index" had been established, for consulting which a fee of 2s. 6d. was charged on every occasion, but the authority for so doing he could nowhere discover. It was the duty of the Government to inquire into these abuses and to remedy them. Indeed he had the authority of some of the first solicitors in England for saying that the Registry at the present time was utterly valueless for the purpose of its institution; and that property would be quite as valuable in the country if it did not exist. With that object in view he begged to mote the Resolution of which he had given notice.

§ MR. GATHORNE HARDY
said, it formed no part of his duty to defend the institution of those offices which were now attacked. But it was only fair towards the Registrars to say that they did not admit they were receiving illegal fees. From the Returns which have been moved for there could be little doubt that these gentlemen were excessively paid, and none whatever that their offices were practically sinecures. It was a mistake, however, to suppose that they were appointed only three years ago. They had been in office for long periods, under successive Governments, and it would be impossible to deal with their revenues without previous inquiry. One of the Registrars had called upon him to say that they had no objection to inquiry; but that they did very strongly object to allegations that there had been anything illegal in their proceedings. The business of the registry might advantageously be transferred to the new Land Registry Office; but it was impossible any action could be taken this Session in that direction. If the hon. Member for Pontefract would omit that portion of his Motion which tended to prejudge the question, the Government would offer no opposition to the first part, calling for inquiry.

§ SIR ROUNDELL PALMER
said, his hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract had done excellent service to the public 82 in bringing forward this subject, and his statements were entirely borne out by the admission of the Registrars, that the scale of fees had been altered by arrangement some years ago, without any authority for the change. The fees were regulated by the Act of Queen Anne; and in spite of the fact that no authority had been given by any more recent statute, the fees had since been increased. His hon. Friend had been justified in his Motion, but, after the statement which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, he would suggest to his hon. Friend the advisability of withdrawing the latter portion.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he had stated several weeks since that the question was a much larger one than was stated by the hon. Gentleman. It embraced not only the appointments, the receipt of certain fees, and the transacting of the business by deputy, but also the mode of registry adopted, and kindred matters. The power of appointment was vested in the Chief Judges of the Common Law Courts. It would be impossible to introduce a Bill upon the subject during the present Session. The matter required careful attention, and something might, he thought, be done next Session to put the Middlesex Registry upon a proper footing. The only mode of checking the payments now made was by bringing in a Bill. It was, of course, impossible to indict these gentlemen for taking extortionate or illegal fees, and unless such a Bill were brought in it would also be impossible to leave any vacancy which might occur unfilled. Partial legislation was greatly to be deprecated. The evil might, in the meanwhile, be partly obviated, in case a vacancy should occur, by the successor being made to fully understand that his appointment would be subject to any alteration which might be made in the law.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, he thought that in case of any such appointment the person so appointed should distinctly understand that his appointment was subject to any change that Parliament might be pleased to make, otherwise vested interests extremely difficult to deal with might spring up.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, he would withdraw the latter portion of his Motion.