§
(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £20,077, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum
1759
necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the London Bankruptcy Court as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, he wished to move the reduction of this Vote by £5,000, with a view to calling attention to the very heavy expenses which were incurred in connection with the London Court of Bankruptcy. The Vote now asked for that Court was equal to an average charge of £17 for each case, the cases amounting to 5,293; while in the country, where the cases numbered 8,134, the average cost was only £5 per case. The estimated extra receipts for 1883–4 were £2,500; and he presumed they were the fees that would be received in the London Bankruptcy Court; but there was also a sum of £65,000 which had been received during the year ending September, 1882, by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for stamps on account of the London Bankruptcy Court, and bankruptcy business performed by the Registrars of County Courts. That sum, in fact, came from the County Courts, and not from the London Bankruptcy Court. He should be glad to know whether he was right as to this amount coming in the way he had described, because, looking at the Return which was presented respecting the High Courts of Justice and the Court of Appeal, he could not be satisfied that that was so. Amongst the amounts given in that Return as received from County Court business for stamps was £66,000; but of that sum £65,000 was carried to the credit of bankruptcies generally. In the Return as to the High Courts of Justice, and the Court of Appeal, there was a remarkable item of incidental and travelling expenses, £8,502; but he could not find in the Return any such item for bankruptcy expenses. In the Vote now about to be passed there was an item of £1,200 for travelling expenses; whereas in the Return presented to Parliament there was this item of £8,502 for travelling expenses, and he should like to know to whom that sum was paid? As far as he was aware, they were not paid to County Court Registrars; and if they were paid in London, he should like to know why they did not appear in this Vote? If hon. Members 1760 would look at the Estimate they would easily understand how it was that the London Bankruptcy Court cost so much more than the County Courts. The cause was, the large number of officers—one Senior Registrar, three Registrars, four first class clerks, nine second class clerks, five third class clerks, and so on, making, altogether, 35 clerks. He had very good reason to believe that one Registrar, one Assistant Registrar, and three clerks would be able to do all the work that was performed by this large staff; and, in addition to these charges, there was the Taxing Masters' Department, which cost something like £3,000. Now, in County Courts the Registrar taxed the accounts; there was no special Taxing Master, but each Registrar was the Taxing Master of his own Court. He (Mr. Rylands) could not see why there should be an extra Taxing Master's Establishment in the London Court, when they did not require anything of the kind in County Courts. The Registrars of County Courts performed the duties of Taxing Master with great efficiency. Hon. Gentlemen would also see that there was an Official Assignee's Department, for which the country was required to pay about £4,000 a-year. He would like to know why this Official Assignee's Department was kept up? Then, again, there was a Messengers' Department maintained at a cost of £7,000 a-year, certain first class messengers receiving £200 a-year, and second class messengers £150 a-year. There was also the Department of Controller in Bankruptcy. He had no doubt that hon. Gentlemen had received the Returns in Bankruptcy. If so, they would have observed that only a very moderate amount of ability, and certainly not very much time, would be required to tabulate the Returns which were supplied by the different County Courts and Bankruptcy officers. Yet, under this Vote, the Committee were asked to grant about £6,000 to the Controller's Department. On this point too, he should be glad to receive an explanation. On the face of the Vote, there was a much larger number of officers in London than were required by the necessities of the Court. He held that the whole Establishment was on too high a scale, and he moved to reduce the Vote by the sum of £5,000.
1761 Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £15,077, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the London Bankruptcy Court as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."—(Mr. Rylands.)
§ MR. WAUGHdesired to supplement the observations of his hon. Friend. He should like to hear some explanation of the travelling expenses incurred in transacting the business of the Court. There was another thing which also required explanation. The Lord Chancellor settled the amount for every bankruptcy to be paid throughout the country. The fees were to be paid in stamps, and he found that in 1880 the Registrars of the County Courts received £89,293 5s. 6d., and that only £53,835 was paid back. He would like to know what became of the £35,000? In 1881, £69,987 11s. 9d. was received, and there was paid by the Registrars £42,511 3s. 8d. In 1882, there was received £65,546 12s. 3d., and there was only paid £49,920 0s. 11d. In 1883, there was received £66,006 16s. 6d., and paid £36,000. What could possibly become of the balance between the two sets of sums? He could not understand the matter at all. It seemed as if the Bankruptcy Court of London swallowed up the difference. His hon. Friend had referred to the Official Assignee and Messengers' Departments. He (Mr. Waugh) had understood that those Departments died in 1869, and yet they appeared to have been continued. There was another account in the Estimate which astonished him namely, that relating to a solicitor who was attached to the Court, and who received between £2,000 and £3,000 a-year. What was this solicitor appointed for?
§ MR. COURTNEYwas understood to say that the receipts for the Court of Bankruptcy included the receipts both for the London Court and the County Court. It was not possible to apportion exactly the receipts from stamps. With respect to the comparative cost of the Court of Bankruptcy in London and the County Courts, the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) was aware that County Courts were not simply Bankruptcy Courts, and, therefore, some part of their cost must be set down to busi- 1762 ness other than Bankruptcy business. The London Bankruptcy Court, he had no doubt, cost a considerable sum; but the amount of business transacted was such as to justify the expenditure. The Official Assignee, to whom reference had been made, was a survivor of the old London Court of Bankruptcy, and he did a considerable amount of work in assisting the Registrar of the Court. The hon. Member had called attention to the remuneration of the Controller. The Controller discharged most important functions. There was a great deal of work going through his hands, and, indeed, he was fully employed. As a matter of fact, it was impossible to over-rate the importance of the office of Controller.
§ MR. GREGORYsaid, he thought the Vote for the London Bankruptcy Court was swollen to a great extent by the legacy left to it by the old system of Bankruptcy. The Official Assignee, for instance, was one of those legacies.
§ MR. WAUGHsaid, the same fees were received in the London Bankruptcy Court as in the County Courts. If they took, for instance, the number of bankruptcies in the London Court and in the County Courts, they would soon arrive at an idea of the actual state of affairs. In 1882 there were in the London Bankruptcy Court 1,593 bankruptcies and insolvencies, costing £34,150, or £21 8s. each. The bankruptcies and insolvencies in the country, however, only cost in that year £5 3s. each. In London, in 1883,there were 1,798 cases, costing £34,263, or £19 each; while in the country, in the same year, there were 7,243 cases, costing £36,553, or £5 each. He desired to know why there should be this great difference in the cost of bankruptcies? In 1882 the amount received by the Inland Revenue Department for stamps issued in respect of Bankruptcy business was £66,006, and the amount received from County Courts was £36,533. He was anxious to know what became of the remaining £30,000? He could not help thinking that it was swallowed up by the extravagance of the London Bankruptcy Court.
§ MR. COURTNEYpointed out that the money was actually received by the Inland Revenue Department.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, his hon. Friend (Mr. Waugh) had, no doubt, overlooked the fact that this money did go to the Exchequer. He (Mr. Rylands) wished 1763 to draw a comparison between the expenses of the London Bankruptcy Court and those of the County Courts, and he hoped that, although the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury considered matters satisfactory, there would speedily be some overhauling of this Vote. If the Bankruptcy Bill passed, he presumed there would be some re-arrangements, and that, at all events, they would not continue to vote such a large staff of officers, He thought that by some re-arrangement some of the officers of the London Court could be drafted to places where they would be more usefully and advantageously employed. He was very dissatisfied with the expenditure of the London Bankruptcy Court, and he should be glad if the Treasury could find a method by which it could be reduced.
§ MR. WARTONasked whether any account or estimate had been made, or whether there would be any reduction or any increase of the number of officers connected with the London Bankruptcy Court? His object in asking the question was to ascertain whether it was likely they were creating legacies, in the shape of officers, for the Court of the future.
§ MR. COURTNEYconfessed that he was unable to give any estimate of the post of the new machinery.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ MR. MACFARLANEmoved to report Progress, on the ground that there were many Orders of the Day, and that it would take a considerable time to run through them.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Macfarlane.)
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion, as he only proposed to take three more Votes to-night.
§ MR. MACFARLANEsaid, that if the Votes would not lead to long debate, he should be glad to withdraw his Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
(3.) £394,122, to complete the sum for County Courts.
1764 (4.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,842, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Land Registry.
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he should feel obliged to take a Division on this Vote. This Office was one of the most extraordinary in the country. The Vote to be taken for the year amounted to £5,442. Two or three months ago he put a Question to the Secretary to the Treasury, as to how many applications there had been for registration in that Office during the year 1882, and the answer that was given him was that the number of applications had been 14. During the year 1882, therefore, this Office cost the country, for every case that was registered, the sum of £325. It was simply monstrous that the Government should continue to keep that Office up on its present basis. He did not make the least complaint against the gentlemen employed in that Office. They held sinecures, and could not help themselves. The Office was certainly a sinecure, and long before this the late Government, or the present Government, ought to have taken steps to reduce its cost to the country, either by transferring gentlemen who were now engaged in the Registry to other Offices, or in some other way. His hon. Friend (Mr. Courtney) would, no doubt, say that, in addition to these 14 cases of land registration, there had been some cases with reference to property already on the Register. This really did not affect the Question before the Committee. The Office was substantially kept up for the original cases of registration, of which there were only 14 in the past year. It was hardly credible that the Government should go on, year after year, asking the Committee to vote £5,442 for au Office which was obviously a failure. The Office was intended to carry out the Land Transfer Acts of Lord Westbury and of Lord Cairns; but both those Acts had been complete failures, because they contained no provision whatever for compulsory registration. He hoped hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House would support him in this matter. There was no case more clear than that this Office ought not to be 1765 maintained; and it was with great confidence that hon. Members would do their duty to their constituents in this matter that he moved to reduce the Vote by £2,000.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £842, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Land Registry."— (Mr. Arthur Arnold.)
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, it would be in the recollection of those who had been in the House for some time that this question had constantly been brought under notice. His hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland), as well as he himself, had called particular attention to the Vote; and he thought it would be remembered that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the present Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt), as well as the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers), had said that this Vote could not be defended on any grounds. They looped, however, that some work would come to the Office. It was evident that work had not come to it. Of course, it would be altogether unfair to reduce the salaries of the Office without notice. The men employed would do their work admirably if they had any to do. The Committee, however, in this case, were asked year after year to vote money for an Office which was admitted to be a failure. It appeared to him that Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench had taken no trouble to go into this question, or to endeavour to provide that the officials should have something to do. As a protest against the continuance of this Vote without some work being performed for it, he should Divide with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold). When the Army or the Navy were concerned, it seemed that expenditure was to be remorselessly kept down; but when they came to deal with lawyers, matters were very much altered. Some notice, however, ought to be taken of this waste of money; and he trusted the Committee would receive some satisfactory explanation from the Government.
§ MR. W. FOWLERsaid, he also should vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford as a protest. It would be said that they had not sufficient time to do what was desired. The question was an intricate one, he knew; but he was advocating no new principle, as there had been all sorts of inquiries made with regard to it in recent years, although they seemed to get no further. The money expended on the Office might be just as well thrown into a ditch as laid out as it was now. Besides, the whole system was monstrous; in some cases proprietors being compelled to pay a whole year's rent to obtain a registration — the system was monstrous and ridiculous in the extreme. Registration was so performed that it was of no use whatever. The kind of registration which was wanted was one which would apply to the whole Kingdom, and not this fragmentary system, which was worthless—which was certainly not worth £5,000 or £6,000 a-year. If he did not hear any satisfactory explanation from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, he should be obliged to vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Salford.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was not at all surprised at this Vote being made the subject of comment, and at regret being expressed that such a small return should be received for the money paid for this Office. He felt assured, however, that hon. Gentlemen would wish to do justice to the gentlemen who were in this Office, who had given up good prospects and positions of considerable emolument to enter it. Even though the Government might have been remiss in allowing the present state of things to continue, he did not suppose hon. Members would be prepared to take away from these gentlemen the positions they occupied. There was not so much blame to be attached to the Office as some hon. Members might think. The Office existed, as at present constituted, under the Act of 1875, which was an attempt by Lord Cairns to extend the system of the registration of titles. The expectations formed in 1875 as to the effect the measure would have had not been realized. The Office took upon itself the duties resulting from Lord Westbury's Act of 1862. There had been a registration of 2,500 titles made; and, whatever was 1767 thought of the Office, it was clear that the interests of the owners of these 2,500 properties had to be protected. Parliament had undertaken the protection of the titles of these persons, and could not now very well give up its trust.
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDYou do not require £5,000 a-year to do that.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he did not wish to argue the matter. They might say that there might be fewer officials, and that those who were retained might receive less emolument; but, surely, it would not be just to let the officials suffer because the Act of 1875 had been a failure. If they passed a Vote of Censure on the Government, and by so doing punished these officials, it would be grossly unfair. It was said that the Government had been supine in this matter; but that was not quite correct, for though they had not done anything they had, at any rate, tried to do something. They had brought forward a proposal for joining the duties of the Middlesex Registry with those of the Land Registry. Their efforts, however, had been met with opposition all round.
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDI should think so.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)Why? They must keep the contracts they had made with these clerks. Unless hon. Members said they were to send the clerks adrift, they could not, he thought, take the course they were proposing. What was the objection to the proposal the Government had made? The Land Registry of Middlesex was in a peculiar position, and was doing a great deal of work; and if the Bill the Government brought forward had been passed the expense of this Office complained of would have been largely decreased. Members had said—"We will not allow you to pass the Bill; we will not allow the two Offices to be amalgamated." They saw no chance of passing a Bill of this kind this Session. They had brought one forward in 1881 and 1882, but had failed to receive that encouragement which would have induced them to bring it forward again in 1883. He did not say that, theoretically, this money should be paid for such a small return; but he would ask the Committee to pause before they deprived of their salaries these 1768 clerks, who were in no way responsible for the failure of the Act.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he held in his hand a letter which had been given to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who had left the House; but, owing to the lateness of the hour, he would not trouble the Committee by reading it. He entirely agreed with those who said the Act had been a failure. The fact was one which he deeply regretted. The money expended on the Office was, for all practical purposes, wasted; and he, therefore, trusted that the Government would take the matter in hand, and endeavour, in some way or other, to render the expenditure useful. The question lie wished to raise was as to the position of these gentlemen who were engaged in the Office. The letter he had mentioned was from one of them, and he stated that the place he filled was created by Act of Parliament in 1862, and was in the terms of that Act to be held during good behaviour. The appointment was to be made somewhat after the manner of the appointment of the Judges. The writer of the letter stated that he had accepted office at the instance of the Lord Chancellor, giving up a considerable professional income and a valuable position at the Bar on the faith of an Act of Parliament—he and other gentlemen connected with the Department had accepted their positions on the faith of the Act of Parliament. The question was whether the Office could be modified so as to be a benefit to the country, or whether it should be abolished. If the latter alternative were decided upon, those gentlemen who had given up their professional incomes and prospects on the faith of an Act of Parliament would have to be fairly treated. What he would ask was this—if they refused to pass this Vote, how would the salaries be paid in the future? It would be impossible at this period of the Session for the Government to bring in a Bill to abolish the Office and entitle the officials to pensions.
§ MR. COURTNEYwas understood to say that the position had been accurately described by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross). The gentlemen in question hold offices which only differed from those of the Judges in the manner in which the salaries were voted.
§ MR. GREGORYsaid, he could corroborate what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) as to the high standing of these gentlemen at the Bar, and as to the considerable practices they had given up for the purpose of taking these appointments. Not only the Registrar, but the Deputy Registrar also, had given up considerable emoluments. These officials were most anxious to discharge any functions which might devolve on them; nay, they had themselves promoted measures with the view of increasing the duties of their Office. They felt it irksome and wearisome not to have sufficient duties to keep them employed. There were two ways of dealing with the Office—one, to create functions for it to discharge; and the other, to abolish it and compensate the officials for the loss of their employment and of the opportunities of making way in their Profession when they became connected with the Office. He preferred the first of these alternatives. Certain proposals had been made not long ago which, if they had been adopted, would have had the effect of creating a good deal of work for the Office—namely, in connection with the registration of deeds throughout the country. It was not the fault of the Office that that proposal had not been adopted. The Government had not seen fit to accept the proposal, and the Office was, therefore, without work.
§ MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he could not regard the explanation of the Attorney General as satisfactery, except in one respect—and that he invariably observed in the utterances of the hon. and learned Gentleman and other Law Officers —namely, that they were tender to the last degree in dealing with the vested rights of the Profession of which they were distinguished ornaments. He (Mr. Illingworth) must take exception to what his hon. Friend opposite had said —namely, that if this Office had been in connection with the Army or Navy the view the Attorney General would have taken would have been different. He did not think there was much respect for vested interests where these two Professions were concerned. Nothing had been said as to the case of the two gentlemen at the head of the Office. If they were in the position of receiving large salaries for lucrative professions in 1862, it was fair to assume that they 1770 had now reached mature life, were, indeed, in the evening of life. When they left the Office, he could not suppose for a moment that their places would be filled, seeing that there were no duties connected with the Department. He would go a step further, and suggest that the Chief Registrar should be superannuated, and that the Deputy Registrar should perform the duties of the Office, or, in case they found one of the gentlemen unfit for the Office, that his place should not be filled. They would find, in the ordinary course, that if a vacancy occurred, the Government would at once take steps to fill it. [Mr. DODDS: No, no!] The hon. Member for Stockton had been long enough in the House to know that unless something was said, and a promise, or undertaking, were given by the Government in a case of this kind, every vacancy which occurred would be filled up. He did not wish to cast an imputation on the Secretary to the Treasury; but he could not help thinking that if there had been more zeal shown by the Government there might have been more work found for these highly talented gentlemen in the Registry of Deeds Office. The talents of these gentlemen were surely not confined to the registration of deeds. They were continually finding extraordinary charges in the Estimates for professional work, and he certainly thought it might be very easy to get further services out of these gentlemen not confined to the Office with which they were connected.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, it appeared to be necessary to give the Government time to consider this matter; therefore he would move to report Progress.
[The Motion was not Seconded.]
Question put.
The Committee divided: — Ayes 40; Noes 65: Majority 25. — (Div. List, No. 263.)
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that with regard to the Vote which had just been passed, it had been absolutely impossible to refuse it, as they could not deprive these gentlemen of their salaries.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he desired to press on the Secretary to the 1771 Treasury the necessity of instituting some inquiry next Session, in order to see whether this Office could not be abolished. He would suggest that at the beginning of next Session there should be a Committee of the House appointed to consider the matter.
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDtrusted that that course would not be adopted, otherwise they would have legislation on the subject.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(5.) £18,690, Revising Barristers, England.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.