HC Deb 19 May 1884 vol 288 cc787-92

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. COURTNEY

said, that, in moving the second reading of the Bill, he hoped it would not be necessary to trouble the House with any lengthy explanation. The Bill did not enter into any controversial matter; it simply took the Middlesex Registry of Deeds as it was, and proposed to initiate some reform of the machinery by enabling the present Registrar to retire from his position, and by placing the Registry under the control of the Treasury and of Her Majesty's Government. The Middlesex Registry levied fees very much at its own pleasure; but, by this Bill, the fees paid in future would be regulated.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Courtney.)

MR. WARTON

said, he did not desire to trouble the House with any opinion of his respecting the Bill; for aught he knew the Bill might be a very good one. The point, however, to which he wished to draw attention was that, earlier in the evening, the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) was informed that the Bill would not be taken to-night. On that ground, he (Mr. Warton) begged to move that the debate be now adjourned.

MR. MOLLOY

seconded the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."— (Mr. Warton.)

MR ARTHUR ARNOLD

asked his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Trea- sury (Mr. Courtney) to adduce one single good reason why the House should pass this Bill. He (Mr. Arthur Arnold) had not heard one such reason as yet; and he should vote for the Motion for Adjournment, because he did not see any advantage in proceeding with the Bill. The Bill proposed that in future Her Majesty's Government should become responsible for the Middlesex Registry; it was, therefore, of much importance, and should not be passed without deliberation.

MR. HORACE DAVEY

hoped the Motion for Adjournment would not be pressed. The Bill was a good one in the sense that it would produce economy, and would give the Land Registry some thing to do. Probably the Bill did not go so far as some of them would wish. At the present time there were, he believed, two Bills relating to the York shire Registry before a Select Committee; and, in his opinion, the law with regard to the Middlesex Registry ought to be assimilated to that of the Yorkshire Registry. He ventured to submit—

MR. SPEAKER

I would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that he must confine his remarks to the Motion, for Adjournment which has been moved.

MR. HORACE DAVEY

said, he was just coming to that point, because he was going to suggest to the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) that the Bill should be read a second time this evening, but that the Committee stage should be delayed until they had received the Report of the Select Committee on the Yorkshire Registry. He made this suggestion in the hope that the law of the Middlesex Registry might be assimilated to the law of the Yorkshire Registry.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, a Question was asked by the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) in regard to the Bill, and he (Sir Henry James) stated, in reply, that it was a Treasury Bill, but he understood it would not be taken at an unreasonable hour. The second reading was moved at 20 minutes to 1, and, therefore, he hoped it would not be considered that any pledge had been broken. There was no desire to press on unduly the Committee stage, so that he hoped the House would allow the second reading to be taken to-night.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 14; Noes 107: Majority 93.—(Div. List, No. 95.)

Original Question again proposed.

MR. MOLLOY

said, that before the Bill was read a second time he desired—

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is not in Order in speaking.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he was very glad indeed to take up the part which his hon. Friend (Mr. Molloy) was unable to perform. At this hour (12.55), it was monstrous and absurd for the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) to endeavour to press upon the House an important Bill like the present. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), therefore, felt himself called upon to move the adjournment of the House.

MR. KENNY

seconded the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— (Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)

MR. MOLLOY

said, he was not aware that he was precluded from making any remarks upon the general object of the Bill by having seconded the Motion for the adjournment of the debate. One of the principal reasons why he now supported the Motion for Adjournment was that his hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) obtained a distinct promise this evening that the Bill was not to be brought on to-night. His hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), who had given considerable attention to the matter, and who was prepared to offer some valuable observations upon the subject, loft the House in the belief that the Bill was not to be brought on. The hon. Member for Queen's County represented a large number of the Legal Profession who were interested in the Bill, and therefore it was exceedingly unfair that, after such a promise was made him, although now explained away by the Attorney General, the Secretary to the Treasury should endeavour to force the measure through the House. Another reason why the adjournment ought to be agreed to was that in moving the second reading the hon. Gentleman offered no adequate explanation of the provisions of the Bill. As a matter of fact, the Bill was purely a Pensions Bill. Not one single Member had the faintest idea what this Bill was which the Secretary to the Treasury asked the House now to read a second time. He had no desire to obstruct the Bill unnecessarily; but there were matters involved which required attention, and, under the circumstances, he felt bound to support the Motion.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he had heard what the Attorney General had said as to the Bill being brought on to-night, and he entirely agreed with what his hon. and learned Friend had said. The hon. Member afterwards asked the President of the Board of Trade, and then wrote to the Solicitor General.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would consent to the adjournment; but that, if he could not do that, the Motion for Adjournment would not be pressed. He would, however, appeal to the Attorney General to assent to the Motion, for it was of the greatest importance to note that by accepting the principle of the Bill they would be accepting for the first time the proposition that there should be a Government Department for the Registry of Deeds. There was no such Department in existence at the present moment, and he hoped the adjournment would be agreed to.

Question put.

The House divided: —Ayes 21; Noes 90: Majority 69.—(Div. List, No. 96.)

Original Question again proposed.

THE ATTOENEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he hoped the House would now allow the Bill to be read a second time. He should exceedingly regret there being any misunderstanding on the part of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor); but, if that was so, he would undertake that the Bill should not be further proceeded with except at a favourable time.

MR. HEALY

said, he was extremely surprised at this proposal, for at Question time the Attorney General stated distinctly that he would not bring the Bill on to-night.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he must contradict that emphatically, for all he had said was that it would not be taken at an unusual hour.

MR. HEALY

said, he was in the House at Question time. His hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County asked the hon. and learned Gentleman whether it was his intention to take the Bill to-night, and the hon. and learned Gentlemen said it was not. Then he turned to the hon. Member for Flintshire (Lord Richard Grosvenor), and, after a conversation with the noble Lord, he corrected himself and said it would not be taken at an unusual hour. What was an unusual hour? Was a quarter past 1 an unusual hour? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that the Government would go on with the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill; but now it seemed that there had been another re-arrangement. If one portion of the Government Business was subject to revision, why should not another? If the Government did not intend to go on with that Bill, why should they go on with this Bill? On Friday night, how were Irish Members treated? The Government, having the Revision of Juries (Dublin) Bill down, got the Speaker out of the Chair, and the moment they had done so the Chief Secretary said no further progress would be made, because certain Irish Members were absent; and the Bill was postponed. What sanctity attached to the hon. and gallant Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman) that he should be entitled to that consideration, while the hon. Member for Queen's County, who certainly knew a great deal more than the hon. and gallant Member, and who attended more to his Parliamentary duties, was snubbed by the Government? If a contrast was made between the treatment of one Irish Member by the Government, because he happened to be a Home Ruler, and their treatment of another, because he was a Tory, the contrast would not be flattering as to the intentions and bona fides of the Government. He should persevere in opposition to this proposal, and the Government would find that this system of taking advantage of hon. Members' absence would not assist them in the passing of Bills.

MR. SEXTON

said, his impression was that this Bill would not be taken tonight, after the answer given to his hon. Friend, and the interesting statement of the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had not removed that impression, for, if that proved anything, it proved that after hearing the pledge that had been given, he found it so ambiguous—as other pledges were—that he was unsettled about the matter, and applied to one Member of the Government by word of mouth, and to another by letter, to ascertain what was intended. From the statement of the right hon. Baronet he concluded that his hon. Friend, who was one of the very few Members who had any knowledge of this subject, would not have left the House if he had thought it likely that the Bill would be brought on. The statement of the Attorney General would not satisfy the House; but the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) had given a decisive reason for not proceeding with the Bill now. He had shown that its object was to confine to a Department of the State the function of the Registry of Deeds. He believed it was an unquestionable fact that never until now in the Parliamentary history of England had an attempt been made to do this. Considering all the circumstances of the case—the promise, as he took it, given at a quarter-past 4, what had happened this evening, the novel character of the Bill, the late hour, and the unsatisfactory character of the whole matter—he felt called upon and entitled to follow his hon. Friend, and oppose the Bill being taken to-night.

Original Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 86; Noes 17: Majority 69.—(Div. List, No. 97.)

Bill committed for Monday, 9th June.