COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 10 April 1891)

§ (2.35.) MR. T. M. HEALY (Long-ford, N.)
This appears to be only a temporary provision, and I therefore object to the attempt of the Government to pass it in such haste. The Government were allowed by the courtesy of the House to go into Committee on the Bill last night, and we now find that the result of yielding to the Government upon a supposed non-contentious Bill at a late hour of the night is that measures of an urgent character are postponed in order that precedence may be given to this measure. I think the least we can expect is that the Bill should have been properly drawn, carefully considered, and fully adequate for the purpose, but we find that it is only a temporary measure.

§ (2.36.) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER, Isle of Wight)
Perhaps I may be allowed to explain that the object of the Bill is merely to empower the Government not to fill up an office which it is not necessary to fill up. The late Lord Truro held the sinecure office of Registrar of Land Transfers in Middlesex for many years, and it is this office, which has now come to an end, which the Bill proposes to abolish, thus effecting a considerable economy. But in order to do that it is absolutely necessary that legislation should take place. If the Bill is not passed, persons who have transferred land would lack the protection of registration. The reason why the word " temporary " has been inserted is that in consequence of an Act passed two years ago the whole of the question of land registry is awaiting further legislation. The only object of bringing in this Bill is to protect persons who may^* transfer land and allow the transfers to be registered in the ordinary way. I may 231 add that the Lord Chancellor already possesses the power to make 'a rule, so that it is purely a formal matter.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
Then what excessive mischief could arise to the State if this Bill is not pressed forward? No injury would be done to the State, but people who may have paid their money for land would not have the protection of registration.

§ (2.37.) MR. J. E. ELLIS (Nottingham, Rushcliffe)
I should like to have a little further explanation. In the county in which I live we have a Land Registry, and therefore we are in the habit of paying certain fees when we purchase land, and it is duly transferred. I presume that the landowners of Middlesex are in the same position, and I want to know what the financial effect of this Bill will be. Will the fees in future be paid into the Exchequer?

§ (2.38.) THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON, Leeds, N.)
I made a statement on this subject last night. The position of the matter is this. Under the arrangement which has hitherto existed one half of the surplus fees, after payment of expenses, went to Lord Truro as Registrar. There is under the statute not only a power to appoint a successor to Lord Truro, but also a power to the successor who may be appointed to appoint a deputy. The surplus fees amount to about £9,200 a year, of which £4,600 has gone to the Exchequer, while the other £4,600 went into the pocket of Lord Truro. It is now proposed, as the Attorney General has pointed out, that the work shall be continued to be done by the existing officers, and that the whole of the surplus fees shall go into the Exchequer.

§ MR. J. E. ELLIS
I am much obliged for the explanation, but these figures were not mentioned last night. That is just the kind of way of doing business which leads to difficulty and inconvenience sometimes in regard to the passing of a Bill. It is desirable, I think, when the Government attempt to hurry a Bill through the House after 12 o'clock at night that a full explanation should be given of its provisions.

§ (2.40.) MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)
The explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman may be satisfactory, hut I think it would be more satisfactory if the way in which the money is to be 232 disposed of appeared on the face of the Bill. As far as the Bill is concerned, the fees payable for the registration of land transfer may go anywhere. There is no security under the Bill that they will go to the State. I think there ought to be a special arrangement in the measure itself as to the disposal of the money, and I would, therefore, ask the Government to give some assurance on the matter.

§ (2.41.) MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)
The Attorney General spoke of the urgency of the Bill. May I ask whether there have been any memorials for registration since Lord Truro's death? I gather from the silence of the hon. and learned Gentleman that there have not been. Then how are the gentlemen protected who have been concerned in the transactions to which the Bill relates? He says that unless this Bill is passed immediately the persons interested in these transactions will suffer. I shall be glad if he will explain how the interests of those persons are protected who have presented memorials since the death of Lord Truro?

§ (2.42.) SIR R. WEBSTER
What I said was that the Bill provides for the fulfilment of an extremely important as well as statutory duty. I will not go into the question whether any memorials have been presented within the last few days or not. It is not necessary to insert words in this Bill to safeguard the interests of those who have presented memorials, but the object of the measure is simply and solely to enable Her Majesty not to fill up the appointment rendered vacant by the death of Lord Truro. If an appointment is made, the officer appointed could appoint a deputy and get the fees.

§ (2.43.) MR. SEXTON
The hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered the question at all. What is the objection to stating on the face of the Bill what is to be the use and destination of the money hereafter?

§ SIR R. WEBSTER
Lord Truro received one-half of the surplus fees during his life time, and unless some one is appointed to fill up the vacant office the fees will go into the Treasury. If it is found necessary to insert words in the direction suggested by the hon. Member it could be done in another place.

§ MR. S. T. EVANS (Glamorgan, Mid)
I put a question last night to the Secretary to the Treasury in regard to this Bill, and my recollection is that he only made a general statement to the effect that it would secure economy. It now appears to be a much more important Bill than was imagined. There is nothing on the face of the Bill to show what the powers of the registrar or masters are, and there has been no time to consult the statutes in order to ascertain what those powers are. I wish the Government to let the Committee know distinctly - what economy the proposed change will effect. It appears from the explanation of the Secretary to the Treasury that the sum of £4,600 a year went into the pocket of Lord Truro, but it does not point out whether anything will in future be paid to the officers of the Land Registry in addition to the salaries they now get. Nor are we told what is to become of the vacant office, except parenthetically by the Attorney General, that it will not be filled up, but the fees will go into the Treasury. Anything that is calculated to effect economy will have full support on this side of the House. [" Hear, hear ! " from the Ministerial Benches.] I am glad to hear that cheer, and to find that there is as strong a desire for economy on the other side of the House as upon this. What I wish to know is whether the Land Registry is to benefit from the abolition of the office. It has not had much to do hitherto, and I would ask whether an increased expenditure in connection with the office is contemplated. In that case I think we are entitled to know distinctly what economy the Bill will effect.

(2.45.) MR.'LABOUCHERE (Northampton)
I think I can explain the ground of the last appointment. The appointment was in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, and a son of the Lord Chancellor got it. ["No," from the Treasury Bench.] At any rate the Lord Chancellor had a voice in the matter. There are three fees paid; one for registering the sale of land; another for registering a mortgage, and another for inquiries. All these fees went into the pocket of Lord Truro. What I particularly complain of in the matter is that the inhabitants of Middlesex are to be 234 called upon to pay greater or heavier fees than would meet the cost of the office, the benefit of which is to go to the Treasury. I claim that the fees charged should be so estimated that they would only pay expenses, and seeing how unsatisfactorily the business has been done in the past, I hope a thorough investigation will be made into the office, and that some better arrangement will be made for the future. Complaints have been made for years of the surplus fees which went into Lord Truro's pocket, and now the Government seem to think it right that the Treasury should inherit those fees. Not only are exorbitant fees paid, but when there is a mortgage on the property transferred extra fees have to be paid, and in addition there is an exceedingly bad index kept. So far as the late Lord Truro was concerned the office was an absolute sinecure, the whole of the work being done by subordinates.

§ (2.50.) MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)
I wish to call attention to the fact that no reference is made in the Bill either to the old arrangement or any proposed new arrangement. I claim that a more definite explanation of the arrangement made ought to be given by the Government, and that more time should be allowed to hon. Members to consider the matter. My main objection to the Bill, however, is of a general character. It may be impossible to so amend the Bill as to make the system of registration compulsory throughout the country, but I believe that is the only reasonable course which can be taken. If registration is good for Middlesex, it is equally good for the whole country, and I object to this partial and piecemeal kind of legislation.

§ (2.55.) MR. T. M. HEALY
I must remind the Committee that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast; (Mr. Sexton) has already pointed out that it has not been made clear that the alleged economy to be effected by this Bill will be appropriated in the manner intended. However that may be, I agree with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) in contending that there is no reason why the Imperial Exchequer should make a profit out of a local land registry; but it has not been made clear how the money, or really what amount of money, will go into the Exchequer 235 under the Bill. I believe, However, that the Government would do well to defer the consideration of the measure, which was only circulated yesterday, especially as the persons who have to resort to this office would not be damnified by a short delay. The haste of the Government in the matter and the communications that have been going on between the two front Benches seem to me to be very suspicious. Whenever we see past and present Ministers combining together to get the Speaker out of the Chair, I think we ought to have our suspicions aroused. We all know that hitherto one-half of the fees have been pocketed by a descendant of Lord Truro. Who are the other Registrars? Are they noble Lords also? When we find the Government bringing in a Bill of this kind to the confusion of their supporters, and the First Lord of the Treasury throwing up his hands in despair at any idea of opposition, we ought to insist upon a full and complete explanation. If the Bill is seriously intended, the schedules should be so drawn as to show that the money will go into the Exchequer.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)
Referring to a remark of the hon. Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) about the two Front Benches conferring together, I may say that I remember when I was a young Member of the House, the present Chief Secretary for Ireland giving me a lesson in procedure. The right hon. Gentleman told me that whenever I saw the two Front Benches agreeing, I might come to the conclusion that there was some mischief on foot. But I may remind the hon. Member for North Longford that every question that comes before that House is not a Party question. There are great and important questions of finance and administration altogether outside Party considerations, and I am perfectly sure that both sides recognise the wisdom at times of carrying out important works of public good and public economy by concerted action between the Party Leaders. I may point out that the salary connected with this office being on the Votes, the hon. Member for Northampton will have the opportunity, on the Vote for the Land Registry Office, of raising the whole question of the cost of the office. But this is not the time to raise that ques- 236 tion. In the same way, with regard to the hon. Member for Camborne's (Mr. Conybeare) suggestions as to the compulsory registration of titles, this is not a Registration of Title Bill, but a Registrar's Fees Bill, and the two things are very different, Here is an office which, under existing legislation, has the right to levy certain fees. For a considerable number of years one half of those fees have gone into the public purse, and the other half into the pockets of the private sinecurist. This is a Bill to terminate the private sinecurist, and to provide that the whole of the fees shall in future go into the public purse. It has been asked, Why the hurry in this matter? The hurry is^* £5,000 a year. What would my hon. Friend below the Gangway say if in the present week this sinecure place were filled up, and a vested right created which could not be abolished without large compensation. I ask the House of Commons to rise above all Party feelings in a matter of this sort, for I see great danger of this opportunity of effecting a real saving of £5,000 a year being lost if the House does not proceed rapidly to the passing of the Bill.

§ (3.5.) MR. E. ROBERTSON (Dundee)
By this Bill certain important duties are transferred. May I ask whether the Registrar will derive any additional emoluments under the Bill?

§ MR. JACKSON
I thought I had explained that matter last night. The position is this: There were originally three of these Registers, as they were called, in the Act of Parliament, and after paying the expenses of the office the surplus fees were divided among the three. One of the offices lapsed and the fees were then divided between the remaining two. Another died, and the Lord Chancellor, with whom the appointment rested, appointed the Queen's Remembrancer, on the condition that the fees to which he was nominally entitled were paid into the Exchequer. Another vacancy having arisen it is not proposed to make a fresh appointment, but to pay the whole of the surplus fees into the Exchequer. The question of increasing existing salaries has never been considered. If application were made for another £100 a year in respect of extra duties, I do not want to shut myself out from considering it, but no 237 change in that direction is contemplated, so far as the Bill is concerned; the fees must go into the Exchequer under the new arrangement.

§ (3.10.) MR. SEXTON
After the statement of the right hon. Gentleman I hope the Government will se3 no objection to put an end to all doubt upon the subject by declaring in terms in the Bill that all fees or additional fees received under the powers now given shall be paid into the Exchequer. There may be some arrangement which does not appear in the Bill, and we ask that the intentions of the Government shall be placed beyond all doubt by being embodied in the Act.

§ (3.11.) THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH, Strand, Westminster)
I trust the hon. Member will be satisfied with the assurance that the Bill carries out the intention he desires, but it would be decidedly injurious to the public interest to introduce such a provision in the Bill, because if the arrangements were to become stereotyped, then it might not be possible to attempt any reduction upon the Votes, as has been foreshadowed by the right hon. Member opposite (Mr. H. H. Fowler). The Bill is the bonâ fide outcome of a desire on the part of the Government to effect a great public economy by transferring these fees to the Exchequer. The Government say, upon their responsibility, that the measure accomplishes that purpose fairly and fully, and, having made that statement, I must leave to the House the responsibility of proceeding with the measure or not.

§ MR. CONYBEARE
Will the Government recite in the Bill the arrangement proposed?

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
No, no.

§ MR. CONYBEARE
Then I think we had better report Progress.

§ MR. COBB (Warwick, S.E., Rugby)
Perhaps the Financial Secretary will not mind my asking a bonâ fide question— namely,? whether we may take it as absolutely understood that the rules which the Lord Chancellor has power to make in the first Section of the Bill relate solely to procedure, and will have nothing whatever to do with salaries or fees?

§ MR. JACKSON
Oh, certainly.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
If it was possible for the Lord Chancellor to appoint the Queen's Remembrancer on a former occasion there is nothing in this Bill to prevent anybody else being appointed now.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
The appointment does not rest with the Government or with the Officers of the Government. It rests with a person wholly independent of the Government.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
Who is he?

§ (3.15.) MR. W. H. SMITH
I trust that the House will now allow the Bill to be read the third time.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
Now that we have granted the passing of this Bill I desire to explain the true inwardness of the position of the Government in this matter. Formerly the appointment to this office was vested at one moment in the Lord Chancellor, and in another in the Lord Chief Justice of England. The Lord Chief Justice at the present moment is a Liberal; the Lord Chancellor is a Tory. Had the office remained in the gift of the Lord Chancellor, he would have been allowed to job it away. But, as the office will now be in the gift of Lord Coleridge, a Liberal, and, therefore, one to whom Her Majesty's Government are inimical, this Bill is brought in and extreme pressure put upon the House by the Tory economists to pass it after 12 o'clock at night, all in order to take a piece of patronage out of the hands of Lord Coleridge. And this Bill has today been put in the front of the pièce de résistance of the Government, the Irish Land Bill, so important is it to prevent a Liberal Judge from having a piece of patronage. We all know that jobbery exists in various holes and corners of this Kingdom, but if there is any office that requires remodelling, refreshing, cleansing, and purifying, it is the patronage in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. No hurry is ever shown when an office falls vacant that is in the patronage of 239 the Lord Chancellor. The only desire is to fill it up if it happens to be a sinecure. On the present occasion I have to congratulate Her Majesty's Government on their splendid zeal for economy, because the patronage happens to be in the hands of Lord Chief Justice Coleridge. That is the sole explanation of this Bill. I have tried to get out of the Government what their wonderful afflatus was, but having failed, it only remained for me to bell the cat.

§ (3.18.) MR. W. H. SMITH
I desire to mention, with reference remarks of the hon. and learned Member with regard to the Lord Chancellor, that when the vacancy fell to him to fill up, he appointed the Queen's Remembrancer, on the condition that the fees were paid into the Exchequer.