ofthe Whole House. Looking at the period of the Session, it would perhaps be impossible to get Members upon a Select Committee who could devote their attention to the subject at this time; but he thought that even at the expense of postponing any legislation for another year, it would be desirable to refer the subject to a Select Committee. However, he repeated that he had no intention of opposing the Bill if the House should think fit to pass it at once. the Bill proposed in 1859 by his hon. and they would be just as great after the Bill learned Friend the Member for Belfast. had passed as before. He did not think Society was divided into two classes- the Bill was worthy of any support; but those who had good titles, and those who if his hon. and learned Friend (the Solicihad not. Any man with a good title would tor General), to whose opinion in the matscarcely incur the trouble and expense ter he would defer as readily as to that of of submitting it to a registrar, with the any man, had really satisfied himself that chance of having a slur cast upon it in the Bill would be a practical working meathe course of the investigation. Any one, sure, he would rather see the expense which on the other hand, conscious of not having the measure would occasion incurred than a good title, would hardly submit his deeds that the experiment should not be tried; to inspection. Under a voluntary system, and when its failure was demonstrated, it therefore, what titles remained to be re- would be withdrawn. He would go further, gistered? The Bill was based upon a and say that there was even some hope theory which, he believed, could not be that the Bill might be the beginning of carried into practical effect, and he doubt- something which might result in a better ed whether it was worth while to incur the measure. Still he agreed with the hon. expense necessarily involved in so unpro- and learned Member for Belfast, that mising an experiment. There were, un- the subject was not one that could be doubtedly, evils connected with the trans- satisfactorily dealt with, by a Committee fer of land which ought to be remedied, but those evils could not be satisfactorily dealt with otherwise than by a general measure embracing all the land of the country. It was true that in some of the colonies a simple system was in force; but it must be remembered that the colonies began with new titles, while the land in this country was complicated with many and various charges and trusts. At the same time, although he could not think that this Bill would meet the difficulties which did exist, if the majority of the House should think it was worth while to make the experiment, he should offer no opposition. He could not see how, under this Bill, the particular parcels of land that were dealt with could be identified; and unless registration were compulsory, the system could not work. Land could not be dealt with in the same way as stock or shares, so long as there was equitable as well as legal ownership. The elements of real and personal property were essentially different; and in his opinion the alienation of land must always remain in England a matter of difficulty, unless the circumstances of the country greatly altered. There was a great disposition, especially in the higher branches of the profession, to simplify the law; and to a great extent the transfer of the land had been simplified. Evils attending the transfer of land no doubt existed; but they had in fact been greatly exaggerated. He (Mr. Malins) did not believe in the representations which were made about the repeated investigations of title. Such as the evils were, however, he should be glad to see them remedied; but he believed THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, that the views of his hon. and learned Friend who had just sat down were, to say the least, rather singular. At the same time, there was no Member of the House whose opinion was better entitled to attention than that of his hon. and learned Friend on such a subject. He (the Attorney General) congratulated himself that in differing from his hon. and learned Friend he was in agreement with preceding speakers. Little or no reference had been made, before the last speech, to the evils which it was proposed by the Bill to remedy. His hon. and learned Friend had spoken lightly of those evils; but in that view the community at large did not agree. Although the details of the measure necessarily involved a considerable degree of technicality, the people of this country, likely to be affected by it as owners or lessees of land, had long been of opinion that the expense, the delay, the uncertainty attending the dealings with land, amounted to a great practical evil, which required removal. Then, was the plan propounded likely to effect a remedy for the evil, either complete, or as nearly complete cism, and it was only fair that its advantages should be properly made known. All who had spoken on the subject, with the exception of the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins), agreed that it was desirable to have a Parliamentary or an assured title, which should be unimpeachable from a certain day. The cardi as the nature of things permitted? He did not say that the measure was perfect, but he believed it was as well devised as persons of competent skill and judgment had been able to frame it under the circumstances. The hon. and learned Member for Wallingford, differing from the hon. Members who had preceded him, had expressed an opinion adverse to any mea-nal difference between this Bill, and that of sure of the kind which was optional and his hon. and learned Friend the Member not compulsory. Not denying the ex- for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns) in 1859, was, istence of these evils, he thought, that that the former proposed that the register not being made compulsory, the measure should show the true title, while the latwould be little resorted to, and that the ter only provided for the registration of a expense of the machinery which it would mere formal and dry title. At the same set in motion would be thrown away. If time, exception was taken to the measure, that should prove to be the case, why, no that it would be a registration of assurvery great amount of expense would be ances, and that that would not be submitcast upon the country, because the staff, ted to by the landowners of England. But to commence with, would be neither nu- many of them had already submitted to merous nor costly. If his view should it, the Bill having originated in the other turn out to be correct, and the measure House of Parliament, and having been should not prove acceptable to landowners, considered and approved, not only by the and the officers should be unemployed, Law Lords, but by other Peers, who, from people would soon say, "The scheme has their wealth and position, were eminently failed, and the sooner we put an end to entitled to speak for the landed interest. the expense the better." One branch Objection was also made to that portion of the hon. and learned Member's pro- of the Bill which required that all instruphecy was fatal to the other. He thought ments executed at the time of register the court would not be used, and he should be produced, and copies lodged with thought it would be a very great expense the registrar. In his (the Attorney Gencto the country. But if it were not used, ral's) view, the leaving of authentic eviit could not be a very great expense. dence with the registrar of the execution But he (the Attorney General) dissent- of deeds was essential. It was not suffied from the opinion, that, because not cient to register the mere description of compulsory, the court would not be re- the deeds, but it would be most important sorted to. There had long been growing that the title should be put beyond dispute up a preference for registered titles. The by the deposit of verified copies of the Encumbered Estates Act for Ireland, the deeds themselves. It might, in some cases, principle of which had lately been extended become the duty of the registrar to make to unencumbered estates in that country, reference to the deed itself, instead of to although voluntary in its operation, had a mere description. Moreover, by such been very largely used. Among those who a deposit of copies they guarded against went into the market to purchase land, the inconveniences resulting from a loss it would be found by experience that a of the originals. It frequently happened, preference for registered titles gradually that when persons were collaterally interarose; and as lands with such titles fetched ested in property, and litigation was in a higher price, or admitted, at least, of progress, it was most difficult for certain easier transfer, even those who were at first parties to the litigation to obtain a copy adverse to registration came at length to of some fundamental deed. That inconavail themselves of it. The Bill intro-venience would undoubtedly be obviated duced by the hon. and learned Member for Belfast in 1859 was voluntary, like the present measure. He had made no estimate of the cost of working this measure; but it would only require, at the outset at least, one registrar and one or two clerks to be appointed, and would be far more economical than the scheme of 1859. The measure had been subjected to much critiVOL. CLXVII. [THIRD SERIES.] On by the lodging of an official copy with K MR. ROLT said, that the thinness of the attendance was a proof that the measure was not receiving the attention that its importance deserved. In consenting to the second reading, he desired to affirm no more than the desirableness of establishing a registry of titles. He was, however, anxious that the Government should refer the Bill to a Select Committee, because the form, manner, and details of the Bill could not be properly discussed in Committee of the Whole House, and because, even if they could, the discussion, to be effectual, would occupy a much longer time than before a Select Committee. A sufficient reason for referring the Bill to a Select Committee was, that its provisions widely differed from the recommendations of the Royal Commission. His hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General could not but feel, that in defending the measure he had been arguing against the Report of the Royal Commission, which had the advantage of the assistance of the Speaker and two or three members of the present Government or individuals connected with it. Except in regard to the Lord Chancellor, he had not yet heard from any of the Commissioners that they had altered the opinion they expressed in their Report. The Commissioners had, in substance, pronounced a registry of assurances to be impracticable; and one of the main differences between the Bill and the Report of the Commissioners was, that the measure was, in effect, a registry of assurances. The Solicitor General had argued that it was not, but the Attorney General had justified it because it was. missioners, together with assistants; but the present Bill contained the simpler and far less costly arrangement of appointing a single registrar. The House would find that the title was, in the first instance, to be examined by the registrar; and if any question of doubt or debate arose, the matter might be referred to any judge of the Court of Chancery whom the Lord Chancellor might appoint. Except, therefore, that the officer was to be called a registrar, and that he was not to have so large a salary as a judge, he saw no practical difference between him and a judge, nor any reason to doubt that, subject to the appeal from his decision, a competent person might be very well obtained to fill this office. The objections made by the hon. and learned Member for Suffolk did not go to the entire rejection of the measure; but his hon. and learned Friend was somewhat severe in his objections, and hardly consistent. His hon. and learned Friend acknowledged that it would be desirable to obtain a Parliamentary title, but contended that this Bill contained no provision for the title obtained under this Bill being an indefeasible or assured title. A reference to the Bill itself would, he thought, dispose of that objection. But then, his hon. and learned Friend, changing his ground, complained that an instrument of such binding and conclusive efficacy should be allowed to proceed from the hand of the registrar. The one objection seemed to him a little inconsistent with the other. He could not but join in the hope that the Bill, having already received the able and careful consideration of a Select Committee of the other House, might be discussed, and he would even say critically examined, by hon. Members in Committee of the whole House; but that its passing during the present Session might not be imperilled by referring the measure to another Select Committee. MR. ROLT said, he did not rise to oppose the second reading of the Bill, but he was anxious to add his voice to that of his hon. and learned Friend in favour of referring it to a Select Committee. It was impossible to offer an objection to the second reading of a Bill brought in by the Government, the principle of which had been recommended by a Royal Commission appointed on the suggestion of a Committee of the House of Commons. An hon. MEMBER here moved that the House be counted; but notice being taken that 40 hon. Members were present― THE ATTORNEY GENERAL denied that he admitted it to be a registry of assurances. MR. ROLT said, however that might be, the Bill was, nevertheless, both a registry of titles and a registry of assurances. That it was the latter was evident from the 79th clause, though nobody seriously insisted on establishing a registry of assurances, which was condemned by the Committee which sat in 1853, as well as by the Report of the Commission. He earnestly trusted that the Bill would be sent to a Select Committee. The more it approximated to the Report of the Commissioners, the greater probability there would be of its being acted on and becoming a practical and useful measure. SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID said, there were two points in the Bill that would require very serious consideration. The one was with reference to the way in which an indefeasible title might be obtained. Certain notices and advertisements were to be given to the occupier of the land, but none to the owner of the adjoining land. Unless that were provided for, when an estate was sold a slice might be taken off the adjoining estate without the owner thereof knowing anything about it. The other point was that nowhere in the Bill was it stated what was to be the effect of a non-registration of deeds. These were two points that would require to be fully considered in Committee. MR. DUNLOP said, that in Scotland, where a system of registration had existed for 200 years, and where great value was attached to the additional security it gave, much surprise was felt at the difficulty which was experienced in introducing that system into England. He believed that the advantages of the present Bill would be so great that in a short time all the prejudice against it would be removed. Bill read 2o, and committed for Monday, 16th June. DECLARATION OF TITLE BILL. SECOND READING. [BILL NO. 102.] Order for Second Reading read. MR. ROLT, in moving the second reading of this Bill, stated, that its object was to enable every landowner having a good title to obtain a judicial declaration that his title was good and indefeasible. The declaration of indefeasibility of title was by no means necessarily connected with a registry of title, and registration of title might be very useful without any declaration that it was indefeasible. When a person had obtained judicial declara tion of title under the Bill now before the House, he might enter it upon the register under the Government Bill which had just been read a second time, or he might abstain from so registering it, at his discretion. If he wished to sell his land without registration, he had only to show that from the time of his declaration of title till the proposed sale nothing had been done affecting the title to the property. It was only after the lapse of a long time that he would need another judicial declaration of title. Every person who claimed to be an owner in fee-simple might apply for a judicial declaration, and this Bill would effect that object through the instrumentality of the Court of Chancery. It was not proposed therefore to create any new court, and it would, in the first instance at all events, entail no expense upon the country. It was introduced as an experiment; and if that experiment should be found to work successfully, a separate court might afterwards be formed, in case such a step was found expedient, for the purpose of extending its advantages. The mode in which the object of the Bill would be attained was as follows:-The person sceking to obtain a judicial declaration of title would make an application by petition to the Court of Chancery, in which he would state the title under which he held the property. If the Court, assuming his story to be true, came to the conclusion that a good title was shown, it would make an order for an investigation of the title. If upon his own showing there was no title, there would be no order. If upon investigation no title was proved, his petition would be dismissed. But if a title were established, the Court would make an order that a declaration should be made upon a future day, at least six months being given for the admission of objections. If upon the day fixed by that order no objector should appear, the Court would give orders for the issue of advertisements, and for the serving of notice of the order upon every person who in the opinion of the Court ought to be served. If objectors came in and sustained their objections, the order for a declaration previously made would be set aside; but if the objections failed, the order would be made absolute, and the applicant would be declared absolutely entitled. There would be liberty to appeal from the Vice-Chancellor to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. When an absolute declaration was made, the applicant might obtain one certificate or several certificates of title, as he preferred. The declaration of title would be conclusive in favour of any purchaser for value from the person whose title had thus been declared. The Bill would entail no expense upon the country, and this House and the country were greatly indebted to the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cranworth), who had prepared it with great consideration, and carried it through the other House. He understood that the Government did not intend to object to the second reading; but they proposed to embody the Bill with that which had just been discussed by the House. To this he should greatly object; he thought the Bill should be allowed to stand by itself; and he doubted not that it would be found | mittee, and to a Select Committee alone. a safe and valuable addition to legislation His hon. and learned Friend had spoken on a subject in reference to which every of the gravity and importance of the subattempt at change must, at the best, be ject requiring it to be discussed in a Select experimental. Committee; but not an hour previously, at the very crisis of the debate on this Bill, it was only by the exertions of the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Brand), whose energy was worthy of all praise, that the exact number of Members requisite to constitute a House could be brought together, and two-thirds of those had not heard any part of the previous discussion. He did not believe that the consideration of the Bill in Committee of the Whole House would save any time; on the contrary, he felt disposed to think that it would take up more days if that course were followed than it would if it were sent to a Select Committee. THE SOLICITOR GENERAL intimated that he had no objection to the Motion, stating that there was no difference in substance between the present measure and one introduced by the Lord Chancellor. He took the opportunity of adverting to a suggestion made in reference to the Bill last under consideration, and which applied likewise to the present Bill -namely, that it should be referred to a Select Committee. He was quite sure that that suggestion was made bond fide, without any view to obstruct the passing of the Bill; but his present impression was that the adoption of the measure in the existing Session was not likely to be attained by the course recommended. It was often convenient to send measures of inferior moment to a Select Committee; but with regard to a Bill dealing with a question of such great and general importance as that under consideration, a question which had been before the public for a series of years, and upon which it was desirable to legislate during the Session, he thought a Committee of the whole House would be much the more fitting tribunal. His hon. and learned Friends, he had no doubt, would feel it their bounden duty to give that close attendance upon a Select Committee which would be requisite, though great sacrifices would thereby be entailed upon them; but, all things considered, he believed the gravity and importance of the subject would be better consulted by considering the Bill in Committee of the Whole House. SIR HUGH CAIRNS said, the Bill was an admirable one; the only point in which it failed was in making the Court of Chancery the medium through which the declaration of title was to be obtained. The Judges of the court would certainly not be able to undertake the duty; and if it were left to conveyancers employed by them, the weight attaching to the authority of the court would no longer exist. Before the next stage of the Bill, he hoped the Government would reconsider their decision in reference to a Select Committee. Only one or two of the principal points had yet been pointed out, but at the proper time he would be able to show that in every clause of the Bill there was ample ground for referring it to a Select Com MR. VINCENT SCULLY said, the Bill was not fairly open to many of the objections made. It was not intended for the register of assurances, nor yet for the registration of titles. It was simply a Bill constituting the Court of Chancery the Encumbered Estates Court for England; though seeing that three judges were required to do the work in Ireland, at least a dozen Lord Chancellors would be requisite in England. Some of the clauses were borrowed from the Bill which he himself brought in, and which was read a second time in 1853. Bill read 2o, and committed for Monday 16th June. SECURITY OF PURCHASERS BILL. [BILL NO. 103.] SECOND READING, Order for Second Reading read. MR. ROLT said, he rose to move the second reading of the Bill. Its object might be shortly stated. It enabled evidence of the clear and indefeasible title of any landowner to be perpetuated without a register. The Bill proposed that any owner who had obtained a declaration of title should be at liberty to endorse his purchase deed on the certificate of title, and so every succeeding purchaser would be entitled to endorse his title on the conveyance of his grantor, and thus by a series of endorsements every dealing with the land would be shown. The Bill also provided that no deed not memorialized should be of any validity against a purchaser for value. The only difficulty would be as to the means of getting access to the deeds for the purpose of endorsing the memorial |