SECOND READING. (NO. 11.) (Hansard, 23 February 1875)

§ LORD SELBORNE

said, that in some important respects this Bill differed from that of last year. The Bill which he had the honour of introducing in 1878 was greatly improved in the last Session, partly by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, but principally by the revision of Vice Chancellor Hall. The present Bill had also, he cheerfully acknowledged, undergone, in some respects, further improvement—more, however, in matters of form than of substance. But, having said this, he must accompany it with some material qualifications. He was not going into details now, which were more fit to be considered in Committee; it occurred to him, however, that the Bill in some respects left things obscure which were clear in the former measure. It did not, he thought with sufficient clearness, define the nature of the legal title which he presumed it was the intention to give to every registered owner as against all subsequent unregistered titles. The former Bill was better expressed in this respect, which said that all unregistered interests should be deemed equitable and not legal interests, the legal estate, with a power of sale, being in all cases in the registered owner. These, though important, were questions of expression, which, if at present defective, could easily be, and would, no doubt, be set right. But on two other points his noble and learned Friend had intentionally made changes, in the wisdom of which he could not agree. In the former Bill there was a provision which said that after a certain period upon all transactions 745 of sale involving the fee simple of land, registration should be compulsory. His noble and learned Friend, for reasons which he had stated to the House, had thought it right to omit altogether that compulsory clause. And further, in the 21st clause of the Bill his noble and learned Friend had introduced a provision which would enable the proprietor at any time after registration to withdraw the title from the registry and to put the land back under the old system. These changes were entirely opposed to the whole policy of the measure, and gravely compromised its promise of large and general utility. After fully considering these changes and the reasons which his noble and learned Friend had given for them, he must say that he regarded them with the greatest apprehension and the greatest disappointment. There was an essential difference between a measure which merely added one more to the methods of conveyancing of which men now had the choice, and one which made registration compulsory and irrevocable. The two systems were wide as the poles asunder. That which made registration compulsory and irrevocable was the proper instrument and machinery for introducing a general reconstruction and reform, gradual and progressive, into the whole system of land titles and land transfers. He ventured to say it could not be done without. Until you arrived at the point of compulsion, and at the same time made registration irrevocable, you would not Jay anything like a sure and substantial foundation for the abolition of the embarrassing and obstructive system of deduction of title and conveyancing. Another incidental advantage of an effective and general, over an ineffective and partial, change, was this—that it would enable us to get rid of some of those delusions and misconceptions as to what was called "the land question"—the present condition of landed property, and its relations to other property—delusions and misconceptions which grew out of the present difficulty of dealing with property in land. He admitted the system to which he referred could be introduced only gradually and progressively. But if you required registration upon every sale of land in fee simple after two or three years, you would get a new start from that time forward; in the case of that 746 property you would get rid of conveyancing altogether in all future transfers, and in the course of 30 or 40 years the title would be clear. That system would be attended with yearly increasing advantages, and after the lapse of one generation would completely substitute a simple and sound system for one which on all hands was admitted to be complex, unsatisfactory, and productive of public inconvenience. His noble and learned Friend had alleged three reasons for making the change which he had introduced—first, that the proposal as to compulsion was not in itself universally applicable, being limited to cases of sale; secondly, that it would be scarcely possible to apply it to very small transactions; and lastly, that it would render necessary the appointment of district Registrars throughout the country, and that there would be great difficulty in procuring the necessary funds for the support of so expensive and large a scale of establishments. Well, he had considered all these points, and the result of his consideration was, that he believed they were only some of those "lions" which always got into the path when we wanted to disturb an existing system, and that we had only to face them boldly and they would disappear. As to the objection that the proposal would leave untouched a great part of the land of the Kingdom, he did not think it very forcible. If you touched all the land that was put up for sale, you would deal with a great portion of the land of the Kingdom, and with all that part which, in the natural course of things, became marketable, and for the purposes of the commerce in land required to be dealt with. And then, with regard to those small transactions which his noble and learned Friend had rightly described as being effected without an expensive deduction of title, did not they occur in Middlesex and Yorkshire, as well as in Birmingham? The existing registers of deeds in those counties were compulsory, and were much more burdensome than the registry under this Bill need be; yet they did not prevent these small transactions. What reason was there to suppose that there would be any serious addition to the cost of conveyance in connection with small transactions? There would be general rules prescribed for the process of registration, and the proceeding would be so 747 simple that he could not conceive it would involve more than a trifling fee, less than the expense of even the shortest deed. Another objection of his noble and learned Friend had reference to the difficulty of establishing a sufficient number of registries. It would be necessary, no doubt, to have in London a highly qualified body of Examiners, and it might be desirable that some of them should go at times into the country; but their services would not be needed in the case of the small local transactions to which he was now referring. He could not help thinking the difficulty was imaginary, for there were at present local registries of various kinds throughout the country which might be utilized for the purpose now under consideration. In dealing only with the registration of possessory titles and of subsequent transfers, the rules prescribed would be so simple that, for his part, he could see no reason why the existing County Court and Admiralty Registrars, and the district Registrars of the Probate Court, should not be entrusted with the duty. Whether the transactions were numerous or not, the Registrars would probably be found ready to undertake the work for the sake of the fees. There were, indeed, in every important country town, experienced and respectable solicitors who would do it for the sake merely of the position and credit it would bring them, and who were perfectly competent to the task. He thought, therefore, that local registers could, and might, be established, at no real cost to the public; and it would be well for the public to try the experiment, even at some little cost. His noble and learned Friend had said that if the system was found to be good, it would be voluntarily adopted, and might reasonably be expected to become general. But this was hardly the right way to attempt a large and important reform of a vicious system. Sometimes it was said that from unworthy and mercenary motives the members of the legal profession who were now engaged in conveyancing were opposed to reforms of this description. No doubt, in every profession there were some men whose motives were less worthy than those of the greater number of its members; but, looking upon the profession of the law as a whole, he thought it a highly honourable one, and that its members were ac- 748 tuated by as worthy motives as those of any other profession in the Kingdom. Yet one must take account of the disinclination to change, and the vis inertiœ which always stood in the way, when a radical alteration was proposed in a system to which people had become accustomed, and in which they had acquired skill and experience. He had spoken of the "lions" which were in the path, when they sought to make registration compulsory; but it was certain that if they left the new system to make way for itself, there would be an abundance of "lions in the path," and hedges of thorns springing up in all directions, which would, if not entirely frustrate, at all events, greatly diminish the good which might be achieved. These were reasons why he thought his noble and learned Friend would do well to reconsider those points in his Bill, for unless some alteration were made in the direction he had pointed out, the value of the measure would be materially impaired in the eyes of the public. It was not his present intention to move Amendments in opposition to the proposals of his noble and learned Friend, but he had thought it right to make these remarks, both to explain his reasons for having originally advocated compulsion, and because he had a deep sense of the importance of the subject.