§ (5.) £123, Supplementary Land Registry.
§ *MR. W. L. JACKSONWith the permission of the House, I will explain in a few words that when this Vote was submitted the other night, some objection was taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, in consequence of which it was withdrawn. I am now able to inform the House that the Vote does not involve any increased charge upon the Treasury, and I may say, as the right hon. Gentleman is not in his place, that I have explained the matter to him personally, and I think that if he had been here he would have been able to say that he was satisfied with the explanation. Something was said the other night about the amount of business transacted at the Land Registry. Now, there were 665 settlements registered there last year, and that involved a considerable amount of work; but Bills, which it is intended to lay before Parliament, will, if they become law, necessitate a considerable addition to the office. The fees have increased, and I am able to inform the Committee that, although the figures given are based on an estimate, they have been tested and fortified by actual experience. In the year 1888–9 the cost of the office was £2,796 and the receipts and fees amounted to £820, so that the net cost was £1,976. For the coming year we estimate that the cost of the office will be £3,400, and the estimated receipts £2,947, leaving a net cost of £453. But then, from that we ought to deduct £180, the salary of the clerk who has been transferred from the Supreme Court to the Land Registry, and that reduces the net cost to £273. I think it will be admitted I have carried out my promise, that there shall be no additional charge put on the Exchequer in connection with the transfer of a clerk. His place has, I believe, been abolished, and the figures I have given can be relied upon. I trust, therefore, that the Committee will be good enough to pass this Vote.
§ MR. MOLLOY (King's Co., Birr)It was stated last year that the staff of 233 this office was excessive, and that there was not sufficient work to employ the clerks half their time. How is it, then, that the staff has been increased?
§ *MR. JACKSONThere has been no increase. There have been two deaths during the interval; one clerk who died received £400, and the other, who retired and died a week after, received £300.
§ MR. MOLLOYAt any rate, it was pointed out last year that there was scarcely any work for the staff of this office to do, and the excuse that the hon. Gentleman gave for keeping the office going was that further legislation was intended, which would involve the transfer of additional work; but, in my experience, that excuse has been held out for the last three years, and I must say that when the question comes up on the Estimates, we shall go into it thoroughly, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be prepared with some better and more valid excuse than the flimsy one he has given this evening.
§ "Vote agreed to.