COMMITTEE. [Progress 28th June.] (Hansard, 7 August 1875)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that when the Bill was last in Committee his Amendment was under consideration. He had proposed an Amendment in page 14, line 6, after the word "registrar," to insert the words— Regard being had to the rights of the several persons interested in such laud, and in particular to the selection of such person as may for the time being appear to the registrar to be entitled according to law to be so appointed. Progress was then reported. He had since given the subject his most careful attention, and he still thought his Amendment was the best that could be adopted, and that it would be better to leave the Registrar to select the proper person to be registered than to lay down any definite rule which should be applicable to all cases.

§ MR. JACKSON
regretted that the hon. and learned Gentleman intended to insist on his Amendment. He believed 706 it would, to some extent, defeat the object of the Bill, which was to provide a cheap transfer for small properties. Under this clause any small property would instantly, on the death of its owner, become the subject of judicial investigation, and the dread of that expense would, in practice, keep such properties off the register.

§ MR. JACKSON
moved the omission of the clause, on the ground that it would interfere with one of the fundamental objects of the Bill. The clause provided that, subject to any registered estates, charges, or rights, the deposit of the land certificate, in the case of freehold land, and of the office copy of the registered lease in the case of leasehold land, should, for the purpose of creating a lien on the land to which such certificate or lease related, be deemed equivalent to a deposit of the title deeds of the land. One of the objects of the Bill was to prevent the increase of encumbrances, and this clause was inconsistent with that object. There had been a large number of cases in which priority of encumbrances formed the subject of trial, and the question was one which gave rise to a great amount of litigation.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he could not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that difficulty and confusion would arise from the clause, nor could he admit that it was inconsistent with the rest of the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman had given such a general support to the Bill that he was sorry to have to stand by the clause in opposition to the view entertained by him. It would give an additional facility in many cases to the raising of money for temporary purposes, and he was unable to see any objection to it.

§ MR. ALFRED MARTEN
hoped that his hon. and learned Friend would not 'press his proposal to a division, having regard to the fact that the Court of Chancery had held that, notwithstanding an Act of Parliament, a deposit of deeds was sufficient to give priority of claim to land.

§ MR. ALFRED MARTEN
moved, as an Amendment, in page 31, line 15, after "standing," insert "the registrar shall hold his office during good behaviour." He argued that as some of the duties of the registrar would be of a judicial character, he ought to hold his office on the same terms as the Judges, and not as an ordinary civil servant.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he could not accept the Amendment, which would be contrary to the general scope and purport of the Act, the intention of which was to place the registrar in the same position as Parliamentary counsel. Secretaries to the Treasury, and other officers of the kind, who no doubt, in form, held office at pleasure, but practically during good behaviour.

§ MR. ALFRED MARTEN
moved, after Clause 59, to insert the following Clause:— (Power to remove land from register.) Every registered proprietor of freehold or leasehold land may, in the proscribed manner, remove such land or any part thereof from the register. The removal shall be completed by the registrar entering on the register a minute thereof. All estates, charges, rights, interests, equities, and powers, subsisting in, on, or over any land 708 at the time of its removal from the register shall continue to subsist in, on, or over the same notwithstanding such removal; but such land, estates, charges, rights, interests, equities, and powers shall, from and after such removal, be held, enjoyed, exercised, transferred, transmitted, dealt with, and disposed of in the same manner and with the same incidents and effect in all respects as other unregistered land and similar estates, charges, rights, interests, equities, and powers in, on, or over such land. All the provisions in this Act contained as to notices, cautions, inhibitions, or other restrictions upon or against any transfer of or other dealing with registered land shall, so far as the same are applicable, extend to any removal of land from the register; and no removal of any land from the register shall take place without the previous consent, to be testified in the proscribed manner, of every person entitled to any registered charge thereon. The power of removal would encourage registration, which was voluntary. With this power, a landowner could safely register, knowing that he could secure the advantage if registration worked well, and improved the marketable value of registered land, and that he could, by the exercise of the power, at any time obviate a contrary result. Without the power, many would not try the experiment. Conveyancing Counsel and Solicitors would in many cases decline to advise their clients to adopt a registration, which was to be final in its character, and the benefits of which remained to be ascertained by experience. The clause had been, he said, approved by the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory).

§ MR. JACKSON
expressed an opinion that without a provision of the kind the Act would be a dead letter. The Act was entirely experimental, and prudent solicitors would not put their clients' property in a position from which, if the Act did not work well, it could not be withdrawn.

MR. STAVELEY HILL
could not conceive anything more calculated to create confusion.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he must remind hon. Members that the House of Lords, after full consideration, had come to the conclusion that it was not desirable to give the power. No sufficient reason had been adduced in support of the clause.