Lords Sitting of 20 April 1893

DAY INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 41.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  *LORD BALFOUR: My Lords, the Bill to which I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading is a very simple one, and one to which I do not think there can possibly be any objection. It will, if passed, make the law in regard to Industrial Schools in Scot-land have, for all practical purposes, the same effect as is the case with the English law at the present time. The Governing Act for both countries was passed in 1866; but the Act, as far as it relates to England, was amended in 1876 by an Act amending the Education Act, passed at the instance of Lord Harrowby, then Vice President of the Council. The effect of this Bill is to give the Secretary of State for the Home Department power to certify institutions as Day Industrial Schools in the same way that he now certifies those institutions as Industrial Schools; and it also gives the Secretary of State for the Home Department the power to make regulations governing the internal administration of those institutions. Institutions on exactly the same lines as those it is proposed to establish under this Bill in other parts of Scotland are at present in operation in the City of Glasgow, under a special Act which refers to Glasgow alone, passed some years ago, and known as the Juvenile Delinquency Act; and I can assure your Lordships that it has worked very satisfactorily, and that the institutions established under it have done a great deal of good. This Bill has passed through the other House of Parliament, and during its passage through that other House it has been amended in a way which, I believe, brings it into conformity with the views entertained at the Home Office on the subject. There are one or two minor matters which I
  730
  shall have to bring before your Lordships at a subsequent stage, and into which I will not go now, in respect of which this Hill requires further amendment. There is, however, one matter of sufficient importance to require notice at the present time. In the 5th sub-section of the 3rd clause of the Bill, at the end, there are six or seven lines which bring the Parochial Board as well as the School Board into the administration of the Act, though only to a very small extent; in fact, to this extent—that if a child is sent to an Industrial School under the Order of the Court, and the parent is unable to pay the contribution which the Court thinks he should pay according to his circumstances, the School Board is to enforce the order, and the parent, if unable from poverty to pay the sum required, may apply to the Parochial Board for payment of that sum. It has been thought by some unnecessary to bring in a second body, the Parochial Board as well as the School Board, for such a small purpose. I was not at first inclined to accede to that view. I thought that when you begin to feed children it is trenching dangerously on the province of the Poor Law, and that it would be bettor that the Parochial Board should judge of the capability and fitness of the parents to pay. But I am aware that when a provision was inserted in the Act of 1872, which referred certain matters to Parochial Boards, a good deal of friction arose between the two Boards, sometimes even amounting to the scandal of litigation—two Boards representing the same body of ratepayers. It seems to me that, is a danger which great care should be taken to avoid; but I felt so strongly that it was unwise to trench on the province of the Parochial Board without good reason, that I thought it-right to consult the Home Office and the present Lord Advocate on the matter, and also the Board of Supervision, and I believe the unanimous desire of those three authorities is that those words in Sub-section 5 of Clause 3 should be dropped when the Bill comes before your Lordships in the Committee stage. If your Lordships will be good enough to pass the Second Reading now I will make an Amendment in the Committee stage to delete those words from the Bill. I bog to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Half our.)
  *LORD NORTONwished very much that the Bill might lie extended to England. He did not see any reason why legislation of this sort should he confined to Scotland. Another similar measure—the Reformatory Schools (Scotland) Bill—had passed through the other House, and would soon be introduced before their Lordships; and he had placed a Notice on the Paper to ask the Government whether they were intending to deal with this subject of Reformatory and Industrial Schools for England this Session? They had had Bills for consolidating the many Acts on the subject before both Houses of Parliament for three years, and he could see no excuse except the pressure of measures which blocked all others why those Bills, three times introduced, and to which there was hardly any opposition, should be delayed for another year. On many points a clearing of the law would be of great importance. It would afford an enormous saving to the Treasury, and it would prevent great abuses. Lord Balfour had discussed the advisability of mixing up the Parochial Boards with these Industrial Schools. The Scotch people had had the wisdom to transfer the charge of their Pauper Schools and the Industrial Schools to the Treasury. Both Industrial and Reformatory Schools very much required a revision of the law, both for the protection of the taxpaying public and for the moral incidents of the schools themselves, improvements which were necessary equally for England and Scot-land. He would be glad to know whether the Government had any intention to deal with the whole subject for England as well as for Scotland by the Bills which had been pending for the last three years?
  LORD VERNONsaid, in answer to Lord Norton, that this was not a Government measure; and if that noble Lord wished to bring in a similar measure for England, no doubt the Government would be equally glad to accept it as they had accepted the Bill before the House. He was instructed by the Government to say that though they were quite willing to accept this Bill they would have certain Amendments to propose when it
  732
  came before the House in Committee of the same character as those in the Reformatory Schools (Scotland) Bill, in reference to the necessity of having two bailies instead of one for the purpose of sending a boy to a Reformatory School. There was nothing else in the Bill which the Government objected to, and when it was brought forward in Committee he hoped the House would accept the Amendments.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

POLICE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 27.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1 agreed to, with verbal Amendments.
  Clause 2.
  Verbal Amendments.
  LORD VERNONmoved to insert after the clause the following:—
  (1.) "Where a pension is in pursuance of tie Police Act, 1890, granted to a constable on the scale applicable to partial disability for earning a livelihood, the police authority may, within three years from the grant of the pension, if satisfied by the evidence of some legally qualified medical practitioner or practitioners selected by the police authority that the disability attributable to the injury received in the execution of duty has become total, increase the pension to the amount allowed by the provisions of the scale applicable to total disability."
  He said this clause would correct an omission in the Police Act, 1890. By that Act officers injured when on duty were pensioned on a higher scale when totally than when only partially disabled. By Sections 5 and 6 if an officer was totally disabled the pension on the higher scale was granted only temporarily, and might be reduced if he recovered sufficiently to be able to partially earn his living, but no provision made where a partial injury resulted in total disability. That omission required to be remedied, and circumstances had in fact occurred which rendered the Amendment desirable.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD VERNONsaid the next Amendment proposed was that—
  "This section shall apply in the case of all pensions granted since the commencement of the Police Act, 1890. The provisions of Subsection 2 of Section 13 of the Police Act, 1890, shall apply to any constable in receipt of a pension who is appointed to any office remunerated out of any parochial, district, or other rate."
  The constable was not, while filling that office, to receive more than the amount which, together with the remuneration from that office, would be equal to one-and-a-half times the remuneration of the office in relation to which his pension was accorded. The next was as to the powers of investment of pension funds, and it was really the only crucial point in the Bill—
  "A police authority, in addition to the powers of investment conferred by Section 18 of the Police Act, 1890, may invest the capital of the pension fund in debentures or mortgages issued or made by a Comity Council in pursuance of the powers conferred by Section 69. Subsection S, of the Local Government Act, 1838."
  The police funds were authorised by the Act of 1890 to be invested in County Council stock, but not in debentures or mortgages issued by County Councils. The Government had a vested interest in the pension funds of the police, and it was to their interest to see that those funds were securely invested. They had thought it advisable to bring in this Amendment, the accounts being subject to audit by the district auditors of the Local Government Board. In the case of boroughs the security offered was not the same as in the case of County Council debentures or mortgages, for they were already overburdened with debt, and their accounts were not subject to the same independent audit as the county accounts. That was the pith of the whole thing. There was no security in the case of boroughs that the sinking fund for repayment of the loans would he maintained. Cases had actually occurred before the Police Act of 1890 where money lent to Town Councils had been spent by them without any provision for repayment. Their Lordships would agree that it, was most essential care should be taken that- the funds which were the capital of such a body of men as the police should be invested in securities not likely in any way to fluctuate or decrease. Then the next clause cor-
  734
  rected a mistake in the Act of 1890. It was that—
  "In Schedule L (11) (c) of the Police Act, 1890. for the words ('where a constable has, in the course of the three years next before the date of his death or retirement, been in more than one rank') shall be substituted the words (' where a constable at the date of his retirement or death holds a rank to which he has been promoted with the three years previous')."
  It was intended that when an officer had been promoted within three years of retirement his pension should be calculated on an average of the last three years' pay of his service. Sections 1, 2, and 3 were so worded as to include the case of an officer who had been degraded. A case had recently occurred of an officer degraded from the rank of superintendent to that of constable, and he had claimed and obtained his pension on his superintendent's salary. The Metropolitan Police Commissioners supported this view of the matter, and their Lordships would agree that there was no intention that a man degraded for bad conduct should be at once able to resign on his superintendent's pay. He hoped their Lordships would agree to these Amendments.
  Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4.
  Verbal Amendments.
  Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee, and to be printed as amended. (No. 65.)

PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 25.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  THE EARL OF WEMYSShoped their Lordships would, before the Bill loft their House, clearly understand its effect. Under the original Act it rested with the ratepayers to decide whether they would or would not have public libraries. The Bill took that power away from them, and transferred the power of decision to the Urban Authorities. That was a great change in the law, and though he did not oppose the Bill going into Committee he wished their Lordships to see clearly its bearing.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, I should like to state with regard to this Bill that it was brought before the House of Commons, and was there fully considered, and passed with absolute unanimity on both sides of the House. Its simple object is to follow the Museums and Gymnasiums Bill, and also the Act of 1890. At present a very cumbrous process has to be gone through—namely, sending out voting papers to the ratepayers to get their assent, and the object of this Bill is to leave it in the hands of the representatives of the ratepayers themselves without going through that cumbrous process. That is the sole object of the Bill, and, as everyone on both sides of the House of Commons assented to it, I hope your Lordships will assent to it also.
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid, he had an Amendment which he would move, either then or in Standing Committee, whichever the noble Viscount pleased. It was simply to supply a defect in the principal Act, which, curiously enough, while it gave rural and urban districts power to combine, did not give the same power to two urban districts. That, had led to considerable practical inconvenience, and he might mention the case of two urban districts in Cheshire which desired to combine, but could not do so.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: I should be glad if the noble Lord would postpone his Amendment until Standing Committee, so that we may have an opportunity of considering what the Amendment is which he proposes to introduce.
  Bill reported, without Amendment.

LAND TRANSFER HILL.—(No. 30.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My Lords, this is not an ambitious measure. Indeed, it is said of it that it attempts too little; but I think I shall be able to show presently that it is likely to accomplish more, and will pass into law more than those who raise that objection, I think probably. I believe I shall be able to show that it is a step in the right direction, and one which will aid and not impede any further steps which it may be thought necessary to take. I do not propose to
  736
  argue the question of the amendment of the law relating to the transfer of land. It has been argued over and over again in this House. I believe, speaking generally, there is a common agreement that some amendment of the present system of land transfer, some law which is likely to bring about a better system than we have at present, is to be desired. We should all be agreed, I imagine, that what is to be sought for is that the transfer of land should be cheap, simple, and speedy, and that it should offer adequate security. I shall not need to detain your Lordships at any great length in explanation of this measure, because it is one which is already familiar to you. It is, in fact, a part of the Bill which was introduced by the late Government, as amended by the Select Committee to which that Bill was referred; and it would be convenient that I should state at once the difference, as regards the leading provision, between that Bill and the present one. That Bill proposed to render the registration of land compulsory after an Order in Council had been passed bringing it into operation in particular districts. It proposed to extend that compulsion not only to land disposed of by way of sale after the passing of the Act and the coming into operation of the Order, but also to render compulsory in the district to which the Order related the registration of all land which descended upon death. Great objection was taken, especially to the latter provision to which I have alluded. It was said that many owners would never require or desire to sell their land, and that it was hard to compel, merely because there was a devolution by means of death, the registration of land which might never go into the market or need to be transferred. I am not, myself, prepared to admit the validity of that argument; but I am not going to discuss that question at the pre-sent time, because it appears to me expedient to introduce to your Lordships a measure which would be likely to excite little or no hostility; and I admit that to render compulsory the registration of land merely because it devolves in case of death does stand on a different footing to rendering compulsory the registration of land when there is an actual operation of transfer by reason of a sale. Therefore, my Lords, there is this very great difference between that Bill and the present—I

  737
  mean in the direction of narrowing its operation: and I propose by this Bill only to extend the compulsion to cases of actual sale, and, having paid careful attention to the discussions which took place on the former Bill, I do not think there is any real opposition to that part of the proposal. That is the leading provision of the Bill. I will say a word or two about the others by-and-bye, but that substantially is the proposal which is made. Now it is sometimes asked, Why introduce compulsion at all in relation to this matter; why not leave the owner of land to register or not as he pleases? In answer to that I would, say in the first place, that I cannot assent to the proposition that this is a matter which merely affects the owners of land. It is a matter of public interest and concern that your system of land transfer should as far as possible have those merits to which I have called attention, because I think we are all agreed that it is desirable there should be no sort of obstacle to the ready transfer of land: that as far as possible it should he made as readily transferable as other subjects of property; and that it is to the public interest that any impediment which may be standing in the way of such transfer should be removed. I do not suppose there will be two opinions hero upon that proposition. But whether the matter is regarded as affecting the public or as affecting the landowner himself, I think I shall show that the extent to which compulsion is proposed by this Bill will tend to the introduction of a better system of land transfer without imposing any hardship whatsoever on any landowner. I ought to state that the only title which the owner is compelled to register is a possessory title. Of course, there are many who would desire to see that compulsion for an absolute title in every case. That I quite admit in the present state of the law and present difficulties with regard to title would inflict considerable hardship, and I do not think the subject has become ripe for treatment of that description without restrictions to which I do not think Parliament would at present consent. The advantage of the Bill is that it inaugurates a better system, and one which will be of advantage to all owners of land in the future. Your Lordships are aware that at the present time, on each fresh sale of land,
  738
  there has to be some investigation of title, and that, inasmuch as if no agreement is come to the purchaser can require a good title to be proved for 60 years back, the practice has always been to stipulate in the contract of sale that the purchaser shall only require proof of title to a limited extent. The purchase being made subject to that provision, that is all the title that need be shown, and, of course, it has to be carefully considered what title the vendor will be in a position absolutely to make out. When that has been determined, that condition is introduced; but, of course, each fresh sale is a fresh transaction. A sale and conveyance merely passes the estate by deed to the purchaser; and if he sells again—though, of course, I do not mean to say that all that has been done in the course of the former sale has been thrown away—the same operation precisely has to be repeated. But when once laud is upon the register, even though all that is on the register is a possessory title, from that date the register will be all that need be inquired into for the future in order to see what transactions have taken place in relation to the land, Although I have not introduced in the present Bill the provisions inserted by my noble and learned Predecessor with the view of turning a possessory title into an absolute title by proceedings at a subsequent time, there can be no doubt that if land has been but a very limited number of years upon the register, it would be possible without any very lengthy inquiry, and without injustice, to turn the possessory title into an absolute title. That I have left to be dealt with by a subsequent measure. All I propose to do at present is to render compulsory hereafter the registration of transfers of land, and to make the register from that date the only document which will have to be looked at for the security of any person who is desirous of becoming the owner of land by transfer from another. Now, my Lords, objection has been raised to this measure, no doubt, by those of whom I desire to speak with the utmost respect—I mean solicitors, and especially by the Law Societies, and I should be quite disposed to listen to all representations they might make to me. They have addressed me with the view of my postponing the Second Reading of this Bill; but I received their communica-

  739
  tion so late that it would have been impossible for me, after the Bill has been for so long on the Orders of the House, to do so without the certainty of putting many of your Lordships who desired to be present to inconvenience. Therefore, I have been unable to comply with their request. They have communicated to me their leading objections, and I shall deal with them, I hope, fully. Your Lordships may have seen a very severe attack which has proceeded from the Incorporated Law Society upon what is termed officialism—the tendency of Parliament to take out of the hands of professional men work which has hitherto been done by them, and which the public desire should be done by them, and to transfer it to the hands of officials. With a good deal that is said in reference to officialism and its dangers I find myself in sympathy. I think it is in principle objectionable, and not a little dangerous, to agglomerate a great amount of work which can well be performed by professional people and others outside Public Departments within those Public Departments. But that argument is not applicable to this measure. The argument is put in these terms: that it is not expedient or in accordance with the feeling of the public that work which is performed satisfactorily by private individuals should be compulsorily handed over to an official Department. But this is not a case in which work which has been done by solicitors is to be handed to a Public Department. This is the inauguration of a system of public registration of land which it is impossible for solicitors, be they ever so willing and competent, to inaugurate and carry out for themselves. It is because it is thought to be in the public interest to have a simpler method of land transfer than at present that this measure is proposed, and certainly no part of this measure suggests the taking from solicitors work which they do at the present time. Then it is said: Why render this registration compulsory, when the public, by not having voluntarily registered during the years the Act of 1875 has been in operation, has shown that they do not desire this system of land registration, and it is said that, therefore, you would be forcing upon them something against their will. Why
  740
  is it that there has been so little registration? How many of the owners of land have considered the provisions of the Act of 1875, and have in cases of sale applied themselves to the question whether it would be desirable or not to register? I apprehend very few indeed, and what they did was to follow the practice which has prevailed. When one finds that, rightly or wrongly, solicitors do not take a favourable view of a system of laud registration, they are not very likely to voluntarily call the attention of their clients to the possibility of registry; and, indeed, they might consider that it was no part of their business, when they were told to complete a conveyance, to enter with their clients upon the question whether it was expedient to register the hind. The truth is that the matter is naturally left entirely to the solicitor to be dealt with, and this has been exactly my own experience in connection with the purchase of a small piece of land a few months ago. I certainly have no hostility to registration; on the contrary, I approve of it, but I handed the whole matter over to my solicitor without thinking of laud registration, or registration of the possessory title. At the same time, I should have been glad had a compulsory system of registration existed, so that in the natural course that land would have been brought upon the Register, and I shall now certainly put it there. When it is said that the facts with regard to registration show the public hostility to the scheme, one would have expected that if these objections existed, experience would have rather increased than diminished the hostility; but during the last four years more land has been put upon the register than in the previous 13 years after the passing of the Act, and therefore, so far from the public objecting to it, it is growing in public favour. In the first 13 years there were 136 registrations, in the last four years there have been 154, while the value of the land registered was £1,229,000 in the first 13 years and £1,441,000 in the last four years. It is, therefore, clear that in recent years registration has been growing in popular favour. The justification for a compulsory provision of this sort is that it will not be compelling people who are unwilling to do it, but simply compelling that which, if their attention had

  741
  been called to it, they would desire should be brought about. Hardly any objection is raised on the score of the expense of this first registration, and the expense is so trifling that it cannot be said to be any hardship that the registration of laud transfers should be compulsory. In the case of small purchases, there is no reason why the purchaser should not have the benefit of a registered title without the transaction costing him 1d. more than if he took the conveyance in the former fashion without that advantage. Therefore, I maintain that the purchasers of small pieces of laud would gain something without burden to themselves. The evidence of those connected with Building Societies, who know what is the present state of things with regard to the conveyance of these small pieces of land, is of very great importance as bearing upon the question, because those persons would be likely to know whether the burden imposed by compulsory registration would be regarded as popular or unpopular; and at the last Election those interested in Building Societies were urged to make it a test question to candidates as to whether they would vote for the compulsory registration of land. When you find that is the case it seems rather absurd to suppose that there can be so strong a feeling against compulsion as is suggested. There can be no doubt that honestly and fairly conducted Building Societies—I regret that some Societies bearing that name have gone entirely outside the functions of Building Societies—have done real public; good in causing a greater distribution of land, and in increasing the number of holders of land. I remember some years ago when a gentleman who advocated somewhat advanced views as regards private property in land was in this country he went down to the North of England to lecture, but confessed that he made no impression upon the working people whom he addressed, as so many of them owned their own houses and the idea of making such property public was very distasteful to them. I think when we find Building Societies calling for legislation of this kind under the impression that it will improve their operations, that is a matter which is worthy of your Lordships' consideration. Then an objection is raised with regard to the possible publicity of the registration. Apprehensions are ex-
  742
  pressed lost the transactions should become public by means of registration, and it is suggested that the Lord Chancellor of the day might throw the whole Register open by a Rule made under the Act. Now, I really think the fears entertained in that respect are very chimerical, and I think that in this House, where the interest of landed proprietors cannot be said to be unrepresented, the Lord Chancellor of the day would very soon hear of it if he were to do so. There is nothing in that apprehension at all. But it will interest your Lordships if I tell you that, although a system of land transfer has been for a long time prevalent in Austria, it was only in comparatively recent years that it was extended to Hungary. The Minister of Justice told me in Vienna, when I was there some time ago, that there was great opposition among the Hungarian landed proprietors to the introduction of the system on the ground that they feared their affairs might become known; but that they were so impressed with its advantages when it came into work that their feelings with regard to it entirely changed, for they found it so much easier than before to obtain loans from their bankers when all that had to be done was to make an inquiry at the Registry. The increased facility to them of obtaining advances for even temporary purposes had really converted them all to an approval of the scheme. Besides the objections to which I have called your Lordships' attention, it is said that a registered proprietor would not be able as easily to raise a temporary loan from his banker as at present, when he may do it by a deposit of his deeds with a memorandum, and that after this the process would be more cumbrous and troublesome. I think that cannot be so. The only question really is whether the fee which would be required by the Registry in such a case would be more or not than it now costs to make an equitable transfer. That is entirely a question of the rate at which the fee should be fixed; and if it does not cost more than it does now, the whole objection falls to the ground. The only other objection, I think, is that it is said, when transfers of land are dealt with in a public office in this way, it is likely that they will not be so speedily carried out as at present. I admit, if that can be established as the necessary result

  743
  of such a scheme, the objection will have weight; but I am unable to see why it should be so. This Bill does not propose to at once render the system of land registration compulsory throughout the whole country. No doubt great delay would arise if you were to attempt so great a change as that; but it only proposes to bring the Act into operation by degrees in particular districts, and I am sure that when the Bill passes into law those connected with its administration will do wisely—and they will have every motive so to act—to proceed tentatively, and not to begin with an area so extensive as to be likely to jeopardise the success of the scheme. My Lords, I think I have now dealt with the main objections raised to the scheme by those who are opposed to it. The clauses to which I have called your Lordships' attention contain the substantial and important provisions of the Bill. The only other matters of which it will probably be necessary to call your attention—I do not think it desirable to go into details at the moment—are those relating to the devolution of land in case of death. Under the Bill of the former Government your Lordships will remember that not only was it provided that the land should devolve upon the personal representative in case of death, but the law of inheritance was altered. So that it was not merely a matter of machinery, but it was coupled with that substantial change that the old law of inheritance ceased to be. Under this Bill the change is merely one of machinery in the devolution of estates upon what is called a real representative for the sole purpose which, it seems to me, is essential to any scheme of land registration. But that will not in the slightest degree alter the beneficial interest—the interest which will pass to the beneficial owner or devisee—and it is expressly provided that this measure shall not make any difference as regards Probate or Succession Duty. It is said that it will assist the Government in rendering land liable to probate if it thinks fit to impose such a scheme. I confess I cannot see any substance in such an objection as that. Such a tax could only be imposed by a Bill passed into law for that purpose; and if a proposal of that kind were made, what difficulty would there be in providing any machinery that might be
  744
  necessary for the purpose of carrying it out? How it can be supposed that the presence of a few lines in this Act of Parliament would make it more easy or less easy for any Government to carry out such a scheme I fail to see. I do not often make promises, but I think I can promise your Lordships that the imposition of such an increased tax upon the devolution of landed property will not be hastened a single day by the acceptance of this Bill, and that the giving effect to such a proposal will not be delayed a single day by its rejection. I really think, therefore, that this objection is one of those which are taken for the purpose of creating alarm by those who disagree with the changes suggested. My Lords, the Bill will have to be considered in Committee, and all I ask you to do to-night is to give your assent to the SECOND READING. I believe that although this, as I have said, is not an ambitious measure, and will not produce at first any very large effect, yet it will tend to inaugurate changes which will be beneficial at large, and that the land which will come upon the Register will, before many years have elapsed, be dealt with with a facility and simplicity with which it is impossible to deal with land at present.
  *THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, there was hardly any question which affected the landed interest more than that of registration of transfers of land. He believed it to be more important than all the Allotment and Small Holding Acts which their Lordships or the other House could pass, admitting that it was important that the largest possible number of persons should have some landed interest in this country. He was firmly convinced that the main obstruction to the distribution of land was due to the legal difficulties with which its transfer was beset. He, like others of their Lordships, no doubt had often been desirous of parting with small bits of land—perhaps an acre, or two or three acres—but had been deterred from doing so by the legal expenses in which he would be involved, because in every single case of course, whether large or small, he would be obliged equally to incur the expense of proving a long title. The object of this Bill—and he wished that it went further—was to render by degrees unnecessary the cost of the constant repeti-

  745
  tion of proof of title. It was only natural that objections to such a proposal should come from solicitors. Human nature was human nature, and if this land registration was worth anything at all the advantage of it was to simplify and cheapen the transfer of land. Was it not perfectly clear that it was not to the interest of solicitors and of the Incorporated Law Society that they should support such a measure, and that they should render this registration as little general and as little popular as possible? It was all very well to talk of independence, but they knew that almost all their estates were tied up by every sort of legal device with which it was impossible for them to deal without legal advice; and he was bound to say it seemed to be too often the case that solicitors were inclined to tie up estates in knots, which may, and probably will, afterwards have to be untied. So that their discouragement to the registration of land transfers was one of the obstructions which must be recognised in accounting for the fact that registration had not so far been more popular. In a case of his own, without any legal advice, he had himself registered an estate worth £45,000 at a cost of £51 10s. in a couple of months, and had obtained an indefeasible title to it upon a small piece of paper. Subsequently, he had sold an acre and a-half of the land for £250, and the transference of title had only cost the purchaser £1 15s. He admitted that the title was not a difficult one, and that other cases might be more difficult, but that was not an argument against the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I ask whether the transactions to which the noble Earl refers were in fee-simple or in trust?
  *THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, they were in foe-simple, and quite admitted that in cases of trust the matter would be much more difficult and would be impossible to be carried through without the best legal advice. But that was not an argument against the Bill, especially as the Bill only dealt with the possessory title; though after that had once been obtained all subsequent complications were done away with, and an absolute title would grow up after the lapse of a very few years. He made these remarks in the interest of those who owned and cultivated land, and of the country at large,
  746
  because it was of the utmost importance that the transfer and conveyance of land should be rendered more simple and cheap than at present. The noble and learned Lord had certainly not gone further in the present Bill than the circumstances of the case allowed him; and he hoped this was merely the beginning of a complete alteration in the conveyance of land.
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNEhad been for many years a strong advocate for a measure in this direction, and had never seen any reason to change his mind on the subject. In his opinion, some form of general registration was necessary, and there could be no doubt that, without compulsion in some shape or other, no system for that purpose, such as was aimed at by this Bill for the public benefit, would ever be carried out. So long as the compulsion was not carried out to its full extent, and the Bill was only partially operative in different parts of the country, two systems would be going on together, and the difficulties attaching to registration in competition with the other system would not be got rid of. Without denying that, for financial and other reasons it might be necessary to give the Bill a gradual operation, he could not help thinking that its success must mainly depend upon making that gradual progress as rapid as possible. With regard to the rest of the Bill, he was not at all convinced that it. was necessary for the purposes of a measure of this kind to make real estate devolve upon executors for the purpose of transmission. In the measure introduced by the late Government, as it left the Standing Committee, the clauses which had that operation were, no doubt, safeguarded in a manner which would practically go far to relieve executors from the difficulties and responsibilities which such a change in the law would bring about: and those safeguards wore repeated in the present Bill. If he rightly read the present Bill the devolution of real estate upon executors was proposed independently of registration. If no clauses were introduced safeguarding that operation people would not easily accept the office of executors in the future, having the responsibilities attaching to large real estate cast upon them without any substantial means of properly fulfilling the duties involved.

  747
  In his opinion it was unwise that real estates should for any considerable length of time be in the hands of persons who could not perform the duties of such property—duties that occurred from day to clay—and he thought executors should not, for any practical purpose, be placed under those responsibilities. He feared there might be cases, when estates were heavily embarrassed, or when the beneficial ownership was matter of dispute, which the safeguards to which he had referred would he inadequate to reach. He hoped that part of the Bill would be very carefully considered in Committee. If executors were to be burdened in those cases with the responsibilities without having the means of performing the duties of property very serious evil would be produced, and he had never been convinced that there was any practical necessity for it.
  *LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, it was obvious this Bill, the object of which had been so clearly explained by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, was a measure of great importance; but it was equally plain that when it came to be considered at another stage many of the clauses would be carefully discussed and examined. It had been desired for a very long time that a cheap, expeditious, and simple system of land transfer should be established. He was rather afraid it might be supposed, from the short and pointed remarks of the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, that this Bill would introduce a kind of legal millennium. The noble Earl might possibly have given ground for exaggerated hopes in that direction. The dread of the family solicitor might be carried too far, and it would he found necessary, even if the Bill became law, on many occasions still to have recourse to legal advice. No doubt the Bill was founded upon, and to a large extent corresponded with, the measure proposed by Lord Halsbury; but some care and trouble would still be necessary in carrying out the operations which it proposed. He inferred from the remarks of the noble and learned Lord that he was willing time should be given to enable Amendments to be placed upon the Notice Paper for consideration by those who took an interest in the subject.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had been asked by the Incorporated
  748
  Law Society to receive a deputation on the subject, and he certainly desired to be duly informed of their views, and to obtain every possible assistance from them before proceeding with the next stage of the Bill. With regard to the point raised by the noble and learned Lord the Earl of Selborne), he was aware that there was a difference of opinion between them as to whether devolution to what had been called a real representative was necessary to a system of registration. Conveyancers thought it necessary, and he himself was of opinion that it would be difficult to carry out the scheme without it. Many eminent conveyancers had advocated, quite apart from the subject of land transfer, the advantages of having real representatives; but he quite agreed with the noble Lord that there should be safeguards for the executor or administrator in regard to getting rid of any burden or liability in respect of laud. The clause as it stood was the result of the deliberations of the Select Committee upon the subject, and had been put in its present form with the assistance of his noble and learned Friend; but it might, perhaps, be strengthened, and he would be happy to accept any suggestions in that direction.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ARMY ANNUAL BILL.—(No. 55.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord SANDHURST), in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, said, their Lordships were aware that the Army Act had taken the place of the old Mutiny Act. In former days the Mutiny Act used to be passed section by section; now the Army Act, which had replaced it, was passed annually by means of a short Bill with such Amendments as might be deemed expedient. This year there were some Amendments proposed, principally of a trifling nature, and scarcely more than verbal alterations; but two of them were of a more important character. For some years it had been thought that certain alterations in the Army Act were necessary. That opinion

  749
  was entertained not only by the civilian and legal advisers of the Secretary of State, but also by distinguished officers who were responsible to him for the discipline of the Army. Seeing that that was the general opinion, the Secretary of State ordered the assembly of a. small Committee to lay proposals before him, and he (Lord Sandhurst) had the honour to preside over its deliberations. Two of the members were the Adjutant General (Sir R. Buller), and the Deputy Judge Advocate General (Mr. O'Dowd), and he might say that the conclusions presented by the Committee were arrived at unanimously. In the first three sections of the Bill there were no alterations. No. 1 contained the short title, and Nos. 2 and 3 were merely continuation clauses. Section 4 provided for an amendment of Section 24 of the Act, and it was in the nature of an extended explanation of a term. Section 24 of the Act imposed a punishment on a soldier making away with or losing by neglect his clothing, equipments, arms, &c.; but it did not include all articles issued for the personal use of the soldier, such, for instance, as blankets. As the proposed Amendment ran, it was intended that the word "equipment" should include all articles issued to the care of the soldier for his personal use for military purposes. It was true that under Section 40 a charge could be framed in the cases contemplated, No. 40 being a sort of "omnibus" section, known among soldiers as the "devil's clause." There was, however, a great disinclination to use that clause for this purpose, and therefore the Amendment was proposed. The next Amendment was in Section 25 of the Act. The present reading, it was thought, was not very clear; according to the present wording, it was held to be necessary in the ease of fraudulent intent to prove that the intent was to defraud some individual, and as it turned out that it was the Government which really was the object of the fraud the charge would not stand. The Amendment proposed that it would be enough to show that there was fraudulent intent, and that it was immaterial whether such fraud were against the Government or against an individual. The next Amendment was in Section 32 of the Army Act. In Section 32 it was proposed to add the words "discharged for misconduct." At present a man
  750
  who had been discharged with ignominy, as incorrigible and worthless, or on conviction for felony, and who re-enlisted, concealing such discharge, was punishable under the section; but if discharged for misconduct he could not be tried under the section, but a charge had to be framed of making a false answer on attestation, which was cumbrous and inconvenient. The Amendment was proposed for convenience sake. It had been observed that the change might give opportunity for heavier punishment in such cases; but he could assure the House that it would not. So far the alterations bad not been very serious, but he now came to a change of rather more importance. As Section 46 of the Army Act stood at present, the commanding officer had power to inflict imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven days, except in the case of absence without leave, when 21 days was the limit, regard being had by the commanding officer, if be inflicted a punishment of more than seven days' cells, to the number of days during which the man had been absent. In the Rill it was proposed that 21 days should be the maximum term in all cases. That was the proposal in the Bill, but, as the Secretary of State announced in the House of Commons, steps had been taken before the SECOND READING to secure that 14 days should, for the present, be the maximum punishment that could be indicted by a, commanding officer. Before his commanding officer a soldier might claim to have the evidence taken on oath. It was considered that by this alteration the regimental court martial would almost entirely fall into desuetude. It was to the interest of the soldier that he should be dealt with by his commanding officer instead of being arraigned before a Court. By this Amendment the War Office were proposing to carry out a recommendation of a Royal Commission on Courts Martial, &c., which sat in 1869, and of which Colonel Wilson Patten was Chairman. That Commission reported in favour of increasing the powers of the commanding officer, and thereby reducing the number of courts martial, as the frequency of courts martial tended to deprive them of the proper weight which should attach to them. Then, in regard to Article 48, there was another change of some importance. Section 48 of the

  751
  present Act provided that the minimum number of officers serving on a district court martial in the United Kingdom, India, Malta, or Gibraltar, should be five; elsewhere, three. It was now proposed to reduce the minimum to three everywhere, and it should be observed that it was only the minimum which was to be reduced. By this arrangement much inconvenience in certain places would be obviated, and it was anticipated that justice would be better carried out. Such a court would consist of one field officer, one captain, and, at any rate, not more than one subaltern, so that it would be a court having certainly a sufficiency of experience. In all serious cases the number of the court would be five, and for these cases the General Officer commanding the district or station would provide. There was but one other Amendment to which he need draw attention. Section 9 of the Bill proposed to abolish summary courts martial and to enable field general courts martial to exercise their powers. At present these two tribunals were just alike in this—that they could not be resorted to except where an ordinary court martial could not be assembled, and thus each of them constituted a method of promptly punishing offences under circumstances of special necessity. They resembled each other in their powers and procedure, but the field court martial could be convened only for offences committed across the sea and against the property and person of an inhabitant of the country, whilst, the summary court martial dealt with offences on active service generally. It was proposed to abolish the summary court martial by the repeal of the 55th section of the Act, and its powers and procedure were incorporated under Section 49, authorising and regulating field courts-martial. In that respect there would not be any change in the law, and the law, in effect, remained the same. These were the principal changes in the Army Act which the Secretary of State recommended to Parliament. It could not be said they were against the interest of the soldier, and, whilst they might tend to the reduction of punishment, it was confidently anticipated by those best qualified to judge that they could not tend to relax discipline, and would in no way impair military justice.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Sandhurst.)
  *THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, my noble Friend has made a very clear statement with regard to this Bill. There is no doubt that in the system which now prevails of supplementing from separate Acts every year the existing Army Bill some prejudice to the law is created because the references to subsequent Acts become very numerous. It is necessary to refer to them in order to ascertain what is the real meaning of the Army Bill; and it would be very convenient, when definite conclusions have been arrived at on these matters, to have the Army Bill consolidated and made into one measure, so that soldiers and others may know the Code under which they are living. But that point does not now arise. The only point I wish to call your Lordships' attention is with regard to the power granted to the commanding officer to extend the seven days' punishment to 21 days Tinder the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman who fills the Office of Secretary of State for War undertook, as I understand, that 14 should be the extreme limit to which General Officers should go under an Order from him to be issued during the current year. That seems to be an unsatisfactory state of things, because you pass a Bill with a new limit of 21 days, and at once dispense with it by an Order from the Secretary of State. That seems a very unsatisfactory way of proceeding; but as I am unwilling to delay a Bill which is always dealt with regardless of Party considerations of any kind, I should offer every facility to my noble Friend, after putting into the Act an Amendment of "fourteen" for "twenty-one," by the suspension of Standing Orders to carry the Bill to a conclusion to-morrow.
  LORD CHELMSFORD LORD CHELMSFORD, considering the matter from a practical point of view, approved the Amendments of the Army Act proposed in the Bill. He was of opinion that an enlargement of commanding officers' power of punishment would have advantageous results for the soldier, for if there was such an enlargement many a man would be saved from the. stigma of trial by court martial, and of having his name entered on the defaulters' sheet. It was not too much

  753
  to give commanding officers power of imprisonment for 21 days. Having himself commanded a regiment, and knowing how this would be likely to affect the men, he did not like the Army Annual Bill to pass its Second Reading without that statement being made.
  LORD SANDHURST, on behalf of the Secretary for War, quite agreed with the noble Earl opposite that the Amendment limiting the power of imprisonment to 14 days should if, possible, be printed in the Bill. If time permitted steps would be taken to meet the views of the noble Earl. He should move the suspension of the Standing Orders when next the Bill came before their Lordships, in order that all the remaining stages might be disposed of without delay.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, as regards mere method of procedure I see that the Bill did pass through the House of Commons in rather an abnormal manner. Though it would be improper for me to express an opinion upon or to contest the propriety of anything that takes place in that House, I would point out that the practically immediate acceptance which it is the custom of your Lordships to give to certain classes of Bills which come up from the House of Commons is conditional on the amount of consideration which they have received in that House.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow; and Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered, in order to its being dispensed with.

  POST OFFICE (ACQUISITION OF SITES) BILL.—(No. 36.)
  Reported with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
  OYSTER AND MUSSEL FISHERY PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to confirm an Order made by the Secretary for Scotland under the Sea Fisheries Act, 1868, relating to a several oyster and mussel fishery at Loch Craran, Argyllshire—Was presented by the Lord Playfair; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners. (No. 63.)
  RIVERS POLLUTION PREVENTION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to explain the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876—Was presented by the Lord Monkswell; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 64.)

  CHOLERA HOSPITALS (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 40.)
  House in Committee (according to Order: Bills reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.