MOTION FOR LEAVE. (Hansard, 3 December 1884)

§ THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN),
in moving 569 for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the forty-third section of "The Yorkshire Registries Act, 1884," explained that the Act was intended to provide that all deeds executed in Yorkshire before the 1st of January, 1885—the day of the commencement of the Act—might be registered under the new Registry, as under the old law; but, unfortunately, either by a slip of the printer or of the draftsman, in one single place in the Act out of some 30 or 40 pages, the words "Before the passing of this Act" were inserted instead of the words "Before the commencement of this Act." The Act was passed on the 7th of August last; and the result of this mistake was that any deed executed between the 7th of August last and the 1st of January next, but which had not been registered before the 1st of January next, could not be registered at all. The error occurred in the 43rd section; but even in the marginal note, and in every other part of the Act, the intention of the framers was correctly stated. His object, therefore, was simply to effect a clerical alteration, and he was anxious that the present Bill should become law this year, so as to avoid the inconvenience which would be caused if deeds executed before the 1st of January next could not be registered.

§ COLONEL GERARD SMITH
said, there were several Amendments required in the Act to which he trusted the right hon. and learned Gentleman would give attention with the view of embodying them in the present Bill. A deputation of Yorkshire bankers was that very day waiting upon the Lord Chancellor to draw his attention to very strange anomalies in the Act which affected Yorkshire bankers very seriously. At a later stage he would undertake to bring these points to the notice of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

§ THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)
said, that the Bill now introduced dealt with a purely clerical error; but the matters referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman were matters of principle, and could not possibly be dealt with in so a short time. This Bill ought to be in operation before January next.

§ THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)
said, he hoped the House would, considering that it was important that the Bill should be passed as soon as possible, allow the measure to be read a second, time.

§ THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)
appealed to the House to pass the Bill through its remaining stages.

§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTON
said, he had no objection to offer to the Bill itself; but it seemed to him that the House was establishing a very dangerous precedent. Unless it was important that the Bill should pass he did not see why the usual course should not be followed.

§ THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)
assured the noble Lord that the Bill was one of serious importance. He wished to pass it through that House as soon as possible, in order that it might go up to the House of Lords at once, so that the Royal Assent might be given before Parliament adjourned.

§ MR. WARTON
said, he had often protested against the rapid way in which Bills were forced through the House; but, under the peculiar circumstances of this case, he did not see any objection to the course proposed, provided the House had the ruling of Mr. Speaker that it was in the power of any Member to stop the different stages of a Bill from being taken in this way.

§ MR. SPEAKER
What is required is the general assent of the House; but where a personal injury would be inflicted, as I understand would be the case if this Bill is not passed, the House has generally taken a lenient view and allowed one or more stages to be taken. It does not require the unanimous assent of the House.

§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTON
said, his protest was only raised because what was being done might become a precedent; but placing confidence in the watchfulness of the Speaker, and having regard to the circumstances that had 571 been described, lie begged to withdraw that protest.

§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD
said, when this Bill was brought before the House he was not enamoured of it, nor of any Bill for the registration of deeds; but, under the circumstances, as the Bill did pass last year, and as the present proposal was simply intended to correct an error which it was necessary to correct in order to prevent injury to individuals, he regarded the case as one of an exceptional character, and would not oppose the proposal of the Judge Advocate General.