HC Deb 11 May 1886 vol 305 cc808-28

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. BOYD-KINNEAR (Fife, E.)

I beg to move the second reading of this Bill. I venture to think that, at all events, the object of this Bill is one which will commend itself to Gentlemen on both sides of the House, for I think there is nothing which we are more generally agreed upon, and there is nothing more desired in the way of land reform in the country, than that it should be possible to transfer land from hand to hand in a more simple, easy, and inexpensive way than it is possible to adopt at present. The matter is one that strongly affects wealthy persons, and that affects still more strongly poor persons sons and is one that lies at the root of all reform which it is hoped to effect in regard to the land of this country. But while that is the main and large object I have in view, the approach I venture to make to it on this occasion, by the measure I now ask the House to read a second time, is of a very humble and limited character. The Bill I have brought in applies only to Scotland, and it would be impossible to extend it to England under present conditions, because England does not possess the machinery and arrangements which exist in Scotland, and which make it possible to proceed in Scotland on the lines which the Bill suggests. In Scotland, as in England, there have been for a good many years past a great many changes tending towards the simplification of conveyancing. These have been chiefly in the direction of lopping off unnecessary and tortuous stages of the process of the transfer of land, and partly, to a great extent, in lopping off superfluous phrases in the deeds by which that transfer is effected. There have been Acts passed for shortening the language used, and though these Acts in Scotland have been of a voluntary character, yet they have been accepted in Scotland by the Profession, and acted upon almost, I might say, universally, on their being first brought forward. But whilst we have done a great deal in this direction, there is still considerable difficulty and considerable complexity in the process of the transfer of land, and that arises chiefly from the fact of the language in which the description of the land is couched—the language which is in England called the "parcels," or the statement of the exact part and portion of the land that is the subject of transfer. Now, in Scotland the description is, perhaps, carried back to a degree which exceeds anything existing in England. It is quite common in the conveyances of Scotland to find that you draw back the description of the land to some events that took place 500 years ago. If I were to read to the House some of these descriptions it would weary hon. Members. I will not trouble them; but I merely mention the fact—thoroughly well known to Scotsmen—for the information of English Members. There are many conveyances which carry back the description to the survey and assessment and revaluation which was made in the Reign of Alexander II.—before the days of Bruce and Wallace; and if we wish to come down later than that we add to the description of the pieces of land the conditions under which they were held at the time the last transfer took place. If it has not happened that they have been transferred—which is common enough—for 50 or 100 years back, then we are told in these conveyances that the lands are such as were possessed by an individual whose name is now entirely forgotten, and are bounded on the north by the lands of another individual, who is also equally forgotten, and similarly on the south, east, and west. Therefore, when you come to deal with the sale of such lands you are obliged to throw aside as utterly useless all those legal descriptions of the land which you find in the title deeds. To find what is actually transferred you are obliged to come to the land itself and inquire what is the property which the person who is going to sell is in possession of. You have to get someone to show you the limits of the land—to show you what it is the owner is in possession of, by himself or his tenant and what is the subject to which this elaborate and ancient language of title deeds applies. I admit, of course, that in some perfectly modern conveyances in regard to land in towns, or in the immediate neighbourhood of towns, which is very valuable, you find the subject described otherwise—by so many feet stretching along such a street at right angles with such another street, and so on. These are the most accurate and clear descriptions of modern times; but they are not the kind of description which is given to the bulk of the land in the country which passes by conveyance. In dealing with property under such titles as these it is absolutely necessary to employ lawyers, for none but lawyers can trace out these ancient title deeds; and they have to employ other persons to identify the lands and see whether they correspond with the language of the ancient form of the title deeds. This is the cause of much expense and complexity; and the probability is that, when the transfer is completed, no none but a lawyer is able to comprehend it. I venture to think that instead of endeavouring to apply these ancient descriptions to the present state of the land, we should try and identify estates by their present actual state; and that we are able to do in Scotland in a way that is not possible in England. The Motion which has been discussed to-night on the subject of the valuation of real property points to the adoption of machinery for England which we have in Scotland. We have in Scotland a County Valuation; and in the Valuation Book we have a description not only of every separate estate, but of every separate possession. There is a separate entry for every property held by every different occupier. There is more than that in Scotland. Local taxation there was originally levied on the owners alone, and not on the occupiers at all; and, though it has been partially extended to occupiers, still the owner is the person chiefly responsible. The person most fully burdened is the person it is most important to find out and state accurately. Well, for this reason it is the case that the owner is entered in the first column of the Valuation Roll of Scotland, which, for the information of English Members, I will translate into "Rate Book;" the second column gives the name of the tenant; the third the occupier, who may be under the tenant; and the fourth the annual value, to be fixed by an officer appointed by the county who is generally Surveyor of Taxes also. Thus we have on the Register, in every county and in every burgh in Scotland, a statement of the actual state of ownership and of possession of every inch of land. I propose to take that Register as the basis of land ownership, and to provide that it shall be in the power of every person who desires to sell and every person who desires to buy a property so entered to effect their purpose by simply substituting the name of the purchaser for the name of the seller in the Book, so that the name of the purchaser being so substituted for the name of the seller will give him the same legal rights as the seller possessed. I venture to say that nothing can be more simple, comprehensive, or complete. By the means I propose you will have whatever property belonged to the seller transferred just as it is, complete, with all its rights and appurtenances, to the purchaser. I do not profess to do more. I do not profess to meet the desire which some sellers have of laying down conditions, reserving certain rights for their benefit; but in the great majority of cases in which it is desired to transfer the whole right of a subject from one possessor to another possessor, the system I have drawn up in this Bill is capable of taking effect completely. There are precautions to be taken. In order that there may be no fear whatsoever that there will be any flaw or error in the transaction as to the persons who are parties to the sale, I propose to take two precautions. In the first place, the seller will make an application for a form. The assessor will transmit it in a registered letter addressed to the person who is registered as the possessor; therefore, it will only reach the hand of the true owner. The true owner when he receives that form will fill it up, sign it, and send it back to the assessor to be entered in the Transfer Book, which the assessor is to keep. But I provide in the Bill that the conveyance in this way shall convey only the right of the person who signs the transfer; and, consequently, if by any chance a person signs the transfer who is not the true owner, it will carry nothing away from him. It will be merely a piece of waste paper, and will not affect the rights of the true owner, so long as it is not signed by him. That places no difficulty in the way of a bonâ fide transaction, because the purchaser will only purchase from the person he knows to be the true owner. He will receive the rights of the true owner which will be sufficient for him. This system will absolutely prevent the true owner from suffering from any perjury or duplicity whatsoever. In Scotland, we have another admirable institution that does not generally exist in England, and that is a Register of Deeds which has been in full operation for 300 years. Now, that Register of Deeds has an advantage which is not enjoyed under the local Registries in England. It has the advantage that, according to the law of Scotland, the Register is accessible to the public; it is notice to all the world, and no deed can take effect until it is registered. In order to secure to this new method of conveyance all the advantages which belong to this form of Register, I propose that the assessor—the public officer to whom the transfer has been sent—shall, after entering the transfer on his own local Valuation Book, transmit it to the Sasine Office in Edinburgh, where it will be registered, and this will have all the effects of infetment on a disposition. The Keeper of the Register of Sasines in Edinburgh, on receiving the transfer, will deal with it exactly as he does with conveyances sent at present, entering it in the proper Register, under the head of the property to which it refers, and under the name of the owner who appears in the index. Everything will be done with these new conveyances which is done with the old ones. In this simpler method we obtain all the securities and advantages of the existing system, with this great advantage added—that it can be carried into effect by common, plain, persons who understand each other, without the necessity of lawyers at all. It would be possible, under this Bill, for two ordinary persons to effect a transfer without other assistance than that of their own plain common sense. We know what is the experience of the Registers at present. We know what sums are necessary to enable the Government to maintain these Registers; and so far as the State charges are concerned, the payment for a transfer will not be greater than it is at present. There is a profit out of the Register of Sasines in Edinburgh, and I propose in Committee on the Bill to move certain words which will fix the cost of transfer at rates which will be sufficient to pay the whole expense, and which will not be more than the sum for which we can transfer stocks, or shares, or ships—namely, about 2s. 6d. per cent. There are some details in the process I propose which I fully admit will be proper subjects for consideration in Committee, if the Bill should be permitted to reach the Committee stage. There is the question as to the method of transferring portions of property. I have sketched out a method of doing that. It is suggested that it is not complete; but I would point out that it admits of amendment. I will not, at this stage, refer to the manner in which the difficulty may be overcome; but will merely remind hon. Gentlemen that the difficulty applies to only a small part of the measure, and is one which may easily be removed by a slight adjustment of the language used in the drafting. I will not detain the House longer by entering upon a full explanation of the details of the Bill. I frankly admit that the principle is new as applied to land; but it will apply to land those principles with which we are so familiar as applied to property in stocks and shares and to property in ships. Speaking as a lawyer, I do not see that there is any real difficulty in applying these same principles to land. The difficulty has always been said to lie in the fact that whereas stocks and shares are of a somewhat specific character, or are, at all events, capable of being exactly defined, land is more difficult to define. But I venture to say that, in this Bill, by using the Registers that are existing, I have provided a means of making the definition as clear and specific in the one case as the other. The result of the Bill will simply be that in the cases to which it will apply—for I have not said it will be applicable in all cases—it will open to purchasers an easy and inexpensive method of obtaining a transfer. If they are not satisfied with the method, they can resort to the old one. It is optional, and not compulsory; but I am sure that, in spite of its optional character, if it passes there are a large number of persons who will avail themselves of it. I beg to move the second reading of the Bill.

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

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.) (Clackmannan,

I am sure that all of us will heartily sympathize with the hon. and learned Gentleman in the object he has in view in introducing his measure. He has rightly said that the titles to land in Scotland have been greatly simplified in recent years, and I sincerely hope and firmly believe that that process of simplification is not at an end. While it is true that a great deal has been done, still the landlords and tenants in Scotland are satisfied that many improvements tending to simplify titles to land may be effected. But I am afraid that anyone who is familar with Scottish titles to land, and the practice of dealing with Scottish land by way of sale and incumbrance or otherwise, must feel that this Bill does not afford a practical or feasible method of accomplishing the object its authors have in view. I think the first essential object of every system of land transfer must be reasonable certainty and security of title. You must know what the subject you are dealing with is, and you must see on what footing the title stands. The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right in saying that for that purpose we have in Scotland, besides the system of conveyancing or transfer, that of registration, not the same as that in England, but which, having many common features, has one thing which does not exist in England which we regard as of great value. We have in Scotland a system of registration by which after the conveyance has been made it is put on record. This record is a public record or register which is accessable to everyone, whether it be an intending purchaser or a lender, or a person having any other interest in the land, and thus you have an element of certainty in the title. But what is the proposal of this Bill? It is to substitute for a conveyance containing a description of the subject—not an unnecessarily long description, but just enough to identify the subject—one which need not contain any such description at all, and might not be an identification. We have, both by statute and custom, enormously curtailed our description; and I venture to say that the descriptions that are in Scotch conveyances are no longer than is necessary to identify the subject; at any rate, if they are not it is bad conveyancing, and it needs no Act of Parliament to rectify the evil. The object of the description can only be to make it clear what the subject is. But what is the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend? He proposes that the conveyance should not contain any description at all; he proposes to use what is called a Register, but which I, with great respect, say is not a Register at all. He proposes the Valuation Roll for the purpose of identifying the subject. I do not intend to go into a wrangle on the snbject of Scotch conveyancing; but I should like the House to know exactly what that means. This Valuation Roll is the Roll on which all the local rates are charged, and the entries vary from year to year, the object of the Roll being to bring out a money sum so that the person who has to collect the rates will know what sum to charge the ratepayer. But these varying entries do not discriminate between different subjects, and the record is not a permanent one, but is made up every year. What my hon. and learned Friend proposes to do is to say—"I will not give you a description which will enable you to identify the subject, but a Roll giving the names of the proprietor, occupier, and subject, which is prepared to bring out the value of the subject for the purpose of laying on the rate." If you desire to get at the identification of the subject you will require to go behind the Valuation Roll to the Register and examine the man's title; so that the Bill, so far from being a simplification of transfer, would be the reverse. It would drive you back to the description on the Register, which it would be a very easy thing to go to now, when the Bill is new; but I do not know what would happen if this system of conveyancing went on for 10, 20, or 30 years, and you ceased to have any description at all. But my hon. and learned Friend proposes to have recourse to the real Register after all. He proposes, in the first place, to have this Register, which is not a Register at all, but a Rate Book, and then to put the entry in the Rate Book on to the true Register. I have explained what the object of the true Register is. It is to enable everyone to see how the true title stands, and what the subject is. What will be the value of the Rate Book after the transfer to the Register? The value of the Rate Book would be totally inappropriate to that Register. Not only would this be a bad system of getting the description into the conveyance, but it would destroy the utility of the Register we have already. There are many other objections to be taken to the Bill as it stands, and I should have to apologize for wearying the House if I went into them. I do not see how it could be possible that there could be, not only security, but intelligibility, in any title framed on this system—at all events, for any length of time. I quite understand this—that if we were dealing with a new country like Australia, or portions of the United States of America, where you have the land drawn out in numbered lots, you could find all you wanted by consulting an authoritative Government map, and would be able to dispense with descriptions of the subject; but in an old settled country, where land has become of great value, especially near towns, where descriptions run into yards, feet, and inches, until it is of great monetary importance to know exactly what the subject is—such a description will not do. Now, even if these objections were not valid—and they seem to me to be unanswerable to anyone who knows anything about Scotch titles—I would point out that if the provisions of the Bill are valid in regard to properties transferred as they stand and without sub-division, what is to be the case when you propose to sub-divide properties? It is all very well if you can find out what the subject is; but my hon. and learned Friend, no doubt, felt that the system would not do in its original form, except in conveying something which had already got a definite "local habitation and a name," so to speak. He felt there would be some difficulty in dealing with the case of selling off pieces of an estate. What is his proposal in Clause 8? It is that the proprietor or his agent shall meet the assessor on the ground to fill up the transfer with such description of the parts of the subjects to be transferred as he shall deem sufficient for identification, and so on. It is assumed that when a person wishes to sell or convey a part of the subject he can still do without a professional description, and that conveyancing will disappear—that you are to do without the professional gentleman in the person of the lawyer, just as some people would do without the services of the doctor or the clergyman—perhaps not the clergyman. No doubt, this would be a very desirable thing if it could be done; but the proprietor is to call in the assessor—a gentleman whose business is not to frame descriptions of the subject, but to put a value on it for purposes of rating. It would seem as though the adjustment, being effected by a public officer, were taking place in the public interest. But who is he to adjust the matter with? He cannot adjust it with himself, and he has no antagonist or opponent to deal with. Apparently this is to be the invocation of a public officer to adjust with a man himself the description of his own property. What would be the validity of that against a neighbour or anybody else? If a man is only acting with himself, let him make the adjustment himself—he does not want the assistance of the assessor or anybody else, and the adjustment could not be more invalid. I would point out that the assessor is not an official chosen or appropriate for such a purpose as this. He is chosen because he is a man who knows the letting value of land; and he goes about with a book filling up the Roll, upon which the rates are levied, and discharging a function altogether inappropriate to the character of the work which would have to be done under this Bill. I leave it to the House, and to anyone who knows anything about this subject and can appreciate the importance of a title, whether it is possible that the method proposed could have any practical value or useful purpose. The hon. and learned Gentleman says the measure would not render his system of conveyancing universal or compulsory, and that the old system would be retained; but that would only lead to additional confusion, the proper course for amendment of the Law of Conveyancing to take being in the direction of simplifying descriptions of the subject, and bringing about brevity in the language used. I venture to think that whilst my hon. and learned Friend deserves the thanks of the House for some of the suggestions he has made, which may lead to something, the Bill, as it stands, would not be available or practicable as a Conveyancing Bill at all. I do not see how it could be made useful in Committee—if I did I should have the greatest possible pleasure in assenting to the second reading. I do not see how, in any form or shape, the objections I have pointed out could be met; therefore, I put it to my hon. and learned Friend whether he thinks it necessary to press a Bill which is open to such very grave objections?

MR. GREGORY (Sussex, East Grinstead)

Some years ago I sat on a Select Committee which took a great deal of evidence on the subject of conveyancing in Scotland. I remember the experience we gained on that Committee excited such considerable admiration on the part of some of us for the system which prevailed in Scotland, that we were anxious to see it carried into effect in England. When we had to consider a Bill for the improvement of the Registry in Yorkshire, we incorporated into it, so far as we could, the Scotch system, in the hope that it would be introduced generally throughout England. I do not think you can have anything very much better than the Scotch system of conveyancing; and I do not think any hon. Member from Scotland does well when he introduces a measure to interfere with a system which has worked so well, and which is so well adapted to the country. The Bill is against the operation of the existing system, because it introduces a new element into the registration. It would make the Rate Book govern the Register, instead of the Register govern the Bate Book. Anybody on the Rate Book would have the right to make a conveyance under the Bill and transmit it to the Registrar. But what evidence of title does the Rate Book contain? It is merely for the purpose of the assessment of the property, and does not profess to be in any way a register of title. Again, all that a person could convey would be such an interest as he happened to have in the property, and a purchaser might find that this was merely a tenancy for life, or that it was subject to charges and in-cumbrances of all kinds—in fact, that he got little or nothing for his money. I must say it goes to my heart to have to oppose a Bill which its framers believe will have the effect of dispensing with the services of us—the lawyers, for such measures always bring us new clients. The best customers we have are those who make their own wills; their relatives come to us afterwards. So would it be with those who do their own conveyancing; they or their descendants would come to us to put right their work, and we should have all the benefit of the consequent litigation, instead of the small profit on the original transfer.

MR. WILL&c.) (Montrose,

I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate that the thanks of the House are due to the hon. and learned Member who has moved the second reading of the Bill; and I hope that good results will attend his efforts, and that the attention of the Lord Advocate will be directed to this very pressing matter. There is less excuse for delay in amending the law in Scotland than in England, for the very simple reason that in Scotland there already exists, in perfect working order, all the machinery that is necessary for the purpose of recording, registering, and preserving title to property. The Lord Advocates of Scotland, whether belonging to one Party or the other, have not neglected the subject of the simplification of title. I know the efforts of 1868, and how, by the Act of that year, no less than 11 Acts of Parliament were either totally repealed or repealed in part, and that titles were very much simplified. I also know how in that year another Act of Parliament was passed, collecting, so to speak, the Registers into one, doing away with the County Registers, making one Central Register. But this only shows how much easier it is for Scotland to deal with this question of titles. The main defect pointed out in the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman is that it does not provide for a description of the property, which is, after all, the difficulty in the matter, because there is no difficulty whatever in transferring property as easily as a share in a ship, or a table, or anything else, if the particular property can be described. It seems to me the hon. and learned Member's proposal could be simplified in this way. It is true that the assessor does not have in his Valuation Roll or Rate Book the boundaries of the property and the names of the persons who occupy the contiguous property; but he is generally a gentleman accustomed to the making of plans, and if the transfers were accompanied by plans, that would be an improvement which might very well be adopted, as it has been with advantage in other countries. Whatever may be the result of this Bill, I trust that the matter, having been brought forward, will lead to further consideration; and that ultimately a Bill will be introduced dealing with the further simplification of titles in Scotland.

MR. KIMBER (Wandsworth)

It is not necessary to trouble the House with many observations after what has fallen from the Lord Advocate; but as the Motion that the Bill be read a second time this day six months stands in my name, I beg to offer some observations upon what has passed, particularly as to what has fallen from the last speaker, as to the Rate Book official making plans. The official referred to may not be a person accustomed to the making of plans. He may never have seen one in his life; he may know nothing about the ownership of property or about the disposition of it, and yet he may have imposed upon him, in addition to the simple duty he already performs of preparing the Valuation Roll for the purpose of levying a rate, the duty of ascertaining the ownership, the exact boundary, the rights and incidents of all the property of all the owners, or reputed owners, or persons who assert themselves to be owners, and desire to be put upon the Valuation Roll, in the district. That would be a task so prodigious as to utterly prevent the performance of his ordinary duties. I never heard of a Rate Book being accompanied by plans either in this or any other country, and I have travelled in a great many. I should have come across them if they had existed. But what is the object of this Bill? The scope of the measure—if I understand it aright—is this. The hon. and learned Gentleman who brings it in finds existing in Scotland what is considered a perfect system of registration of conveyances—for the information of lay persons I will use the word "transfers." Transfers from A to B, and from B to C, and from C to D, are entered as they occur in this Register. I could conceive, if the proposition were that a simple entry on this Register should in future be substituted for a deed of conveyance, and simply refer to the deed of conveyance that last occurred on the Register, and the purchaser wishes to have a much more simple conveyance than he would get if he went to his lawyer to have a formal deed of conveyance prepared—I can conceive that it would be much more simple for him to apply the machinery of this Bill to this Register, so that the Registrar of Deeds could have before him Mr. Q and Mr. R, the former to say—"I wish to transfer the particular property described in the last conveyance on the Register to me to Mr. R." It would be a simple process before the Registrar for Q to have an entry in the Register made so as to convey to R all that had been conveyed to him by P. But what does the hon. and learned Gentleman do? He makes the Rate Book the basis of the transaction—a book prepared for another purpose by an accountant. The assessor will have an entry in his Rate Book, "John Smith"—or, as we are speaking of Scotland, I will say "Donald Cameron"—as the reputed owner in possession, without any description of the property transferred beyond its name, say, "Whiteacre." The acreage of the land is perhaps stated, but not its boundaries—only the annual value, which is required for the purpose of rating the reputed owner—it may possibly be only the owner for life, and very often is only the owner for life—and upon that evidence a document is to be prepared transferring "Whiteacre" from "Donald Cameron." That document has to go to be recorded by the Registrar of Deeds, who is not concerned to see whether "Donald Cameron" was the last man on his Register or not in respect of "Whiteacre," or whether "Whiteacre" is the property comprised by the description in the last registered title document or not, so that the purchaser starts a new title on the Register. The question would arise in the mind of any subsequent purchaser whether "Whiteacre" was really the property that "Cameron" possessed, and he would have to go through the long process which he would have done if the old system had been adopted. He would have the additional difficulty put on him that if many years had elapsed the purchaser and his advisers would have to examine the land, and likely enough take oral testimony as to whether in 1886 the property to be purchased was the property which passed by the last registered deed to "Cameron." That is not all. My experience is this—that not one transaction in real property in 100 is simply between A and B, or B and C, and of such a simple description as to be conveyed in a stereotyped form. In testimony of that I may point to several Acts that have been passed from time to time in both countries for the simplification of conveyance. Why have they not been availed of by the public? It may be answered—"Because the interest of the Legal Profession is against them." But I deny that. The reason is, they do not adapt themselves to more than one case in 100, and because there are modifications in the covenants—provisions containing reservations, and so on—all of which have to be provided for by special definitions. As the Lord Advocate pointed out, this is not a Bill which can be made into a good working Bill in Committee; otherwise I have so much sympathy with the object of the hon. and learned Member, which is to bring about a simplification of transfer, as would induce me to say that I would vote for the second reading. But there are two clauses in the Bill not only mutually destructive to themselves, but, dynamite-like, they explode the whole Bill. The person who buys from "Donald Cameron" will only acquire from him such rights as he had; but there may have been none. The hon. and learned Gentleman says in Clause 11— But such transfer shall only convey such right as may legally pass under the testamentary disposition on which it is founded. What is he obliged to do to make a basis of future title? Why, in the very next clause he would enact— A transfer duly made and recorded in the Register of Sasines under this Act shall be deemed to form a title on which the positive prescription may run to the same effect as if such transfer had been a charter followed by sasine. That is to say, it is called a transfer, though he has said it shall only convey such right as may legally pass under the testamentary disposition on which it is founded, which may be no right at all; and yet when it is put on record on the Register of Deeds it shall constitute a title, and shall be as good as if such transfer had been a charter followed by sasine. These two things are utterly inconsistent. For these reasons I object to the Bill.

MR. MASON (Lanark, Mid)

I rise to support the second reading of the Bill, my name being on the back of it. It contains a simple remedy for the present inconveniences of registration. Perhaps it is too simple for many of those who have spoken since I entered the House. There can be no question that the proposals which are made in the Bill will reduce the fees of a considerable number of those who have spoken against the measure, and I suppose that goes a long way towards the objections that have been raised. The simplicity of the Bill is too apparent for many who are interested in drawing out for us long lawyers' deeds for the possession of property, which, in my travels over the world, I have found quite unnecessary elsewhere. It seems to me that the idea which this Bill embodies is to give a good title, or, at all events, to give the same title to the new proprietor—to the gentleman who buys the property—as that possessed by his predecessor; or, in other words, that the party willing to buy enters into the possession of the former proprietor, or, as we should say in Scotland, simply goes into his shoes. If the purchaser chooses to take that responsibility, whatever are the encumbrances on the property or the defects of its title, that is a matter for him entirely. If he holds the property by having bought it and paid for it, surely he is to be at liberty to enter into possession; and if exchange can be accomplished on much more economical terms than we are accustomed to, I think that would be to the advantage of the general community, and the main body of those who are engaged in buying and selling heritable property. That is the main feature of the Bill. We wish to make heritable property as easily transferable as other property, and we see no reason why its conveyance should be so hedged by lawyers' phrases and words which seem unnecessary, and which we are willing to dispense with. The fees payable in Scotland are not less than ½ per cent on all the property exchanged. There will be a considerable saving by the introduction of this plan to the community at large. I believe that the Representatives of the Legal Profession are unnecessarily alarmed, because the probability is that 10 or 20 times the amount of property will change hands which does now, and that it will be done more simply and cheaply than it is at present. People now are terrified at the long processes they have to go through to get property transferred; therefore I think that the Lord Advocate has acted unwisely with regard to the position he has taken up in regard to this Bill. I do not think that any of the objections which have been urged against the measure can be justified; and I think I am fortified in the position I assume when it is considered that the Convention of Royal and Parliamentary Burghs have sent a Petition to Parliament in favour of the Bill, a fact which should go a long way towards calming the fears of the English Members. I am quite sure, having regard to the common sense of the people of Scotland, that the provisions of the Bill now before the House will very shortly become the law of the land. I trust, while we do not go in for Home Rule, that we shall by-and-bye come to consider why we may not have a little more of Home Rule than we now possess; that we shall be guided by common sense in our affairs, and not entirely by those who are supposed to be the guides of public opinion. I have visited our Colonies, and found that a much cheaper and better system of the transfer of property in land existed there, and I see no reason why we should not take a lesson from them and adapt ourselves to the growing wisdom of the age. For these reasons, I hope that the House will assent to the Motion for the second reading of the Bill. There are, no doubt, differences of opinion in connection with some parts of the question; but the sponsors for the Bill are perfectly willing to consider them in Committee, and there, I hope, the Lord Advocate, with all his legal knowledge, will give us his assistance in perfecting the Bill.

MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD (Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities)

Sir, the hon. and learned Member who moved the second reading of this Bill has made the usual stereotyped attack against the bona fides of lawyers. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman uses the expressions I refer to in a Pickwickian sense; but it seems to me that he forgets that if there is any part of the Legal Profession which has no anxiety to make transfers of property indisputable, it is that represented by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. With regard to the Colonial system alluded to by the hon. Member who has just spoken, I can conceive that there might have been much more ground for what the hon. Member said if he had supplied us with a Bill shadowing out what is done under the Colonial system and the way in which they prove their titles there. There are many Members who may not be so intimate with the system; and I say that if it be so sufficient, so good, and so admirably suited to this country, where properties are divided into small and curious proportions and shapes—if it be so applicable to the condition of things here—it is a great pity that it is not embodied in this Bill. The hon. Member said that, in his opinion, the Government should assent to the principle of the Bill and allow the matter to be threshed out in Committee; but the fact is, there is nothing in the Bill which admits of being threshed out in Committee. It is a proposal for using a book, which in Scotland is useful for one purpose only, for a purpose for which, in its inception and in the mode of its employment, makes it absolutely unsuitable. I am convinced that the great mass of Scotchmen will not readily assent to the proposition that they are safe in taking a title of land which consists simply of an entry on the Valuation Poll, and that the description of the property in the Valuation Poll is sufficient. As evidence of the unsuitability any entry in the Valuation Roll is for the purpose of giving any person a title to land by a mere reference to it, we have only to look to the use to which Valuation Polls may be put in our Courts of Law. The object of the Valuation Poll is to fix the value of property, and to enter some person from whom to get payment of the rates; but so clear is it that the Roll is only for fixing value and nothing else, that it is no evidence of proprietorship in a Court of Law; and yet you are now proposing that the Valuation Roll shall be sufficient evidence to satisfy a person in taking over property. Our Registration Acts for the purpose of Parliamentary franchise make use of the Valuation Roll; but so clear was it to the Legislature when these Acts were passed that it would be futile to use it as evidence of ownership of the subject, that in the Registration Acts for the purpose of the franchise it is expressly declared that the Valuation Roll shall be evidence of value and of nothing else—that is to say, that when the question is whether A B shall be placed on the Register, the fact that the property is of a certain value shall be proved by the Poll; but that whether A B is owner or occupier of the subject cannot be decided by the Valuation Roll. In other words, while the value of the subject is taken from the Roll, evidence to prove ownership has to be taken from other sources. Evidence has been given in many cases proving that the proprietor entered in the Valuation Poll was not the true proprietor at all, which shows that for the purpose intended by the Bill—namely, the transfer of land—the Valuation Poll is absolutely useless. From what I have shown, I think it must be plain to the House that it would be absurd to base a system of title of land on such a document as the Valuation Roll of a county, or to suppose that it would, in the hands of any surveyor or assessor, make up a title satisfactory to the parties concerned. I am of opinion that the transfer of land should be simplified only in the sense in which it can be of real value to the people—namely, by insuring that there shall be no difficulty or dispute about title after the transfer has taken place. But for that purpose the Bill would not be of the slightest use, inasmuch as it will only provide work for lawyers. I think, therefore, that the course taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate with regard to the Bill is essentially the right one for the House to follow.

MR. D. CRAWFORD (Lanark, N.E.)

Sir, I think it would be a great pity if any disposition were shown in this House to throw cold water, so to speak, upon any proposal which had for its object the simplification of the transfer of land. I venture to think, however, so far as relates to the present discussion, that that is by no means the case. As the Lord Advocate has pointed out, the simplification of deeds has already been largely carried out, and where the transfer of land is not now less costly I think that the cause must be one of two things. In the first place, the transfer may not be a simple transfer of the subject from the vendor to the purchaser; it may be, and very often is, complicated by conditions of various kinds, modifying the rights of the persons having interest in the property, or creating new rights and interests. That is a serious and a natural source of expense. But the plan which the hon. and learned Member for Fife (Mr. Boyd-Kinnear) has proposed to the House does not apply to that class at all; it is only applicable and can only be applied, as he has explained, to simple transfers. The other cause of expense is where the investigation of title is long and complicated. In the case of simple transfer our present form of conveyancing gives a complete remedy—that is to say, a reference to the last description of the subject on the Register. But, instead of that, the hon. and learned Member proposes that, instead of reference to deeds already on the Register, a method which supplies a complete and satisfactory description of the subject, he makes reference to the Valuation Roll, which, as it has been pointed out, affords no means of identification whatever. The entry in the Rate Book is a statement of value only; it is not a statement of ownership; and if you want to ascertain who are the owners, of property you must go behind the Valuation Roll—that is to say, to the deeds. The argument which I submit to the House is that a much better means is already provided by the law than the hon. and learned Member offers—namely, recourse to the last description of the subject on the Register; and, as I have pointed out, conveyance of that kind is no more costly than the means which he proposes. If a purchaser desires to be his own lawyer, it is as easy for him to avail himself of the simple form provided for him by the present Statutes as it would be under this Bill. I venture to think that this is a proposal which will not commend itself to the House, and I consider that the grounds of objection to the Motion before the House stated by the Lord Advocate are entirely conclusive.

Question put, and negatived.