MR. RYLANDS said, he thought the Committee were very much indebted to the hon. and learned Member who had brought the subject under the notice of the Committee, and who did it in a manner which showed he had devoted to it considerable attention. He was bound to say the hon. and learned Attorney General had entirely failed in justifying the expenditure which the Committee were now considering. The hon. and learned Gentleman told them, with perfect accuracy, what amount of business had been transacted, and he knew perfectly well that was not sufficient to employ anything like the staff for which salaries were charged. But the hon. and learned Gentleman told them that if certain things occurred possibly there might be more business in this Office; but he did not expect those things to occur. He said if registration were compulsory there would be more. No doubt, there would be; but this was not a question of compulsory registration; and he might remind the Committee this was a question which had gone on year after year. He thought the only way of dealing with these matters was to divide the Committee-that they should mark their sense of the extravagance of this Vote by proposing to reduce it. Of course, he was not going to move to reduce it to what he thought it might safely be brought down to, or he should move a reduction of £3,000 or £4,000, but he proposed to reduce it by £1,000; and he assured the Committee that if they would give him a majority in favour of reducing the Vote by £1,000, they would do more by that majority than by any amount of discussion. He agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), that these legal charges seemed to be those over which the House had the least control, and in thinking there were other cases quite as bad as this. He took blame to himself for having inadvertently omitted to take notice of an item just now which was covered up by other Votes, and was passed in No. 3. Legal officers were appointed who drew large salaries, and did no work for them; and if it happened that no notice was taken by a Member of the House the Vote was passed, although the matter might be one requiring the most careful attention. Something was said last year about certain legal officers, and he thought something ought to be done with them by the Government. He alluded to the Official Referees, and he would call the attention of the hon. and learned Attorney General to the discussion which took place last year on that subject. With regard to the Vote now before the Committee, he moved to reduce it by £1,000, and he trusted the Committee would support him, as an indication to the Government that they called upon them to make some substantial alteration. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,518, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Land Registry.”— (Mr. Rylands.) SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON hoped the Committee on this occasionwhatever they might do in the futurewould not agree to the reduction of the Vote. He could not help thinking the House was very much to blame when it passed Acts of Parliament necessitating expenses of this kind; although it was quite true that after the Acts were passed the expenses should be brought as low as possible. However, as to the Vote now before the Committee, they had been told by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General that a Report was forthcoming from the Select Committee. He thought it would be hardly courteous to that Committee if the House were to do that which might be directly opposed to its recommendations. It was possible the Select Committee might suggest a mode of throwing more work into the hands of those officers; but he deprecated a reduction of their salaries as long as they were allowed to remain as the administrative staff. He quite admitted that the expenses ought to be considered, and the Government had shown they had considered the question by the appointment of a Committee. Certainly, if that Report was in the sense of what they thought at present, some alteration in the Vote must take place another year. MR. WHITWELL said, the House had already experience of the result of attempting to improve this Office. A Bill was brought in by the Lord Chancellor some years ago and passed, and then they were pressed to continue this Vote because of the probability that the Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson) raised a discussion about the operation of it; and if the proposition they then made had been carried out, he felt certain that it would have largely increased the usefulness of this Office. They suggested that, after a certain number of years, a person might take his title off the register and get, at the same time, a declaration of title. He was certain that many persons had been prevented from registering their titles by the apprehension that if they wanted subsequently to cut up their properties the registration would be a great source of expense. With reference to the expense of this Office, another course might be adopted. They had in Middlesex a registry of deeds, while this Office merely registered titles, and he did not see why these two Offices should not be amalgamated. He must add, also, that the fact that this Office had not had any work to do was not the fault of the officials, according to his experience, for, whenever he went there, he was received with the greatest politeness and courtesy. there would be an increase in the work | the registry of titles also. In his opinion, of the Office under that Act. That Act the House itself was largely responsible certainly had produced some increase; for the failure of this Office. When but how much? Virtually nothing. the Land Transfer Bill was in ComFor the last 15 years they had been regis-mittee, he and his hon. and learned tering estates to the amount of £60,000 a-year, an amount which would only represent a comparatively few estates, and for that they had been paying in expenses for this Office £5,000 a-year, or at the rate of nearly 10 per cent on the full value of the estate registered. When this Office was established they were told that its expenses would be met by the fees from owners who went to it in order to validate their titles. In the face of that assertion, let the Committee notice that the amount of estimated extra receipts for 1878-9 was £6, and for 1879-80 it was the same amount, while the whole amount of registration fees was £793. An Office, in fact, which cost the country £5,400, was yielding something like £800, and the balance repaid what the country contributed for the benefit of those who availed themselves of the use of this Office. He did not think they should wait for the chance that a Report of a Committee now sitting upstairs might increase the work of this Office. No one could have said more for the continuance of the Office than the hon. and learned Attorney General; but he was sure the hon. and learned Gentleman must feel-as everyone who had listened to the debate must also feel -that the Office had not done the work which was expected of it; that the House made a mistake when it established it, and that this expenditure ought really to be stopped. MR. GREGORY thought the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had been a little unfair in his remarks about lawyers, and he claimed to speak in this matter on public grounds. It was not for him to anticipate the result of the Report of the Committee now sitting upstairs; but he thought it would be to throw a good deal more work upon this Office. If his clients were compelled to register their deeds, he certainly should advise them to register their possessory titles also, for one would be but very little more expense than the other, and would give owners all the advantages of a possessory title. For that reason, he believed that an increase in the registry of deeds would increase MR. CHILDERS desired that the Committee should thoroughly understand the question before it-namely, whether a body of gentlemen who had had for 10 years next to nothing to do should be continued without reduction in numbers. The hon. and learned Attorney General had practically admitted that these gentlemen had very little to do; but, on the other hand, they were told that a Committee which was about to report would probably make some recommendations which would give them something to do. He must say, in reference to that, that their practice in that House had not been to find work for public officers to do, but first to ascertain the work which required to be done, and then to see that officers were appointed to do it. The other system was putting the cart before the horse. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had given the officials of this department great credit for their affability and courtesy to him. But there was no wonder at that. The officials must have been delighted to see him, for he was one of those rare visitors at their office, a pro- | than some hon. Members seemed to fessional gentleman with something for suppose. During to the period for which them to do. It had been suggested the last Return was made, property that this Office should be merged in the Office for the Registration of Deeds in Middlesex; but he would remind the Committee that of all offices this was about the least satisfactory. The Registrarships were unqualified sinecures. In 1867, a Committee was appointed by Viscount Cranbrook to inquire into the working of that Office; but for 12 years nothing had been done to remedy its abuses. He had not heard anything to justify the expenditure on the present Office, which could be reduced without the faintest risk of mischief. MR. LOWTHIAN BELL seconded the Amendment. The formation of the Office seemed to have been a mistake; and, if so, as it was costing the country a great deal of money, it ought to be discontinued. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT did not think the arguments of the hon. Gentlemen opposite had at all touched the question at issue. They were asked to give the Office a fair trial, and they were told that the Select Committee would recommend some change. But then the hon. and learned Attorney General had told them himself that he was opposed to compulsory registration, so that work would not be found for the Office in that way. Then, again, an hon. Gentleman opposite had recommended the amalgamation of the Registry of Deeds with the Registry of Titles. But for a Registry of Deeds they did not require a Registrar at £2,500 a-year, and an Assistant Registrar at £1,500. For registration of titles a lawyer was necessary to examine the titles; but any clerk could undertake the management of an office for the registration of deeds. They were asked to give the Act a little longer trial; but he did not see why the money of the country should be spent on the hypothetical chance that some day this Office might be wanted. He would divide with the hon. Member for Burnley. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER) replied, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford was not completely exact in what he had said. He had not reported that this Office was really overwhelmed with work; but, at the same time, the Office did do a greater amount of work Mr. Childers was dealt with of the value of over £1,283,000. According to his own view, the registration of titles could be of no use unless that registration were made compulsory, which, under our present system, was impracticable; but, on the other hand, many of his hon. Friends took a more hopeful view of the matter, and had suggested alterations which they thought would make this Office more efficient, and would bring in a great deal more work than it had at present. If the registration of deeds, which at present existed in Middlesex, were extended to the rest of the Kingdom, undoubtedly a great deal more work would be thrown on this Office. It was proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) to lop the salaries of these clerks by £1,000 a-year, which, practically, meant that the officials should be made to suffer for the sins and omissions of Parliament. It would be a wise thing, and a politic thing, to see how the Act worked after the new changes, and then, if it failed, let them propose to repeal the Act; but do not let them visit the defects and failures of the system upon the officers, who were not responsible for these faults, and who had done their best to carry out the Act. en MR. LOWE said, last year a Committee was appointed to inquire into this subject, and during last Session and the present one it had taken a great deal of evidence. It had now closed that work; and, as he understood from the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), they were now gaged in considering their Report—if, indeed, they had not actually agreed upon it. He did not say what the Report of that Committee would be; but, under such circumstances, as a Member of that Committee, he must decline to to enter into the merits of the question now at issue. MR. RAMSAY had so much desire to see an effective system of land registration established in England that he should have very great hesitation in giving any vote which would do away with the system now in existence. But the statement now made showed that the system was wholly inoperative. Therefore, unless some assurance were given them that, after 16 years' experience of | he should give his support to the Amendthe present system of land registry, ment. there would be some attempt at a change and at an improvement, he should certainly vote for the rejection of the entire Vote. At present, there was simply a waste of money in this way to the extent of £5,400 a-year. SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON said, they were told that now that the Government had had their attention drawn to this matter it was their bounden duty to see that something was done. He would suggest that the proper time to consider that matter would be when the Committee, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe) had spoken, had sent in their Report. Then the House would be able to see what changes they recommended, and what alterations it was necessary to make. It certainly would not be fair for the Government to take the matter in hand before that time; nor did he think it would be fair either to turn round on these gentlemen and deprive them of their salaries because some hon. Members were of opinion that they had Lot sufficient to do. MR. MORGAN LLOYD reminded the hon. Gentleman that the issue left to the Committee was simply the Motion to reduce these salaries by £1,000; and the justification for that step was the fact that though all these gentlemen enjoyed large salaries they had, practically, nothing to do. It was not proposed to deprive them of their salaries, which would be most unfair, but only to lessen them by about 20 per cent. He opposed this Vote, for the reason that he opposed the Acts which constituted the Office. Even after their experience of the working of the first Registration Act, and of its failure, the Government secured the passing of a second Act, although he and other Members warned the House at that time that such an Act would be a failure, and that nothing could succeed but compulsory registration. He said at the time that this system would be merely an addition to the cost of transfer, and that they could not expect it to be generally adopted so long as it was permissive. It was far better to leave the system of conveyancing unaltered, unless the House was prepared to pass an Act providing for a compulsory registration of title. For these reasons, SIR HENRY HOLLAND was quite aware that the Office, as now constituted, had not sufficient work, and on that point he was entirely at one with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), and his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot). For all that, he trusted the Committee would not allow itself to be carried away by the youthful impetuosity of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). They must deal fairly with gentlemen who had given up the practice of their Profession and had taken important duties under the Act of Parliament. Although the Act had turned out ill, still they ought to give these gentlemen fair notice. They now heard that alterations were proposed which would give these gentlemen more work to do; and if those fell through, he certainly should be prepared to reduce the Vote in the next year. He certainly would do so himself in the next year, and he thought others would support him. But it did seem to him unfair to strike a sudden blow at these gentlemen, who had done all in their power to make the Act a success, and who certainly were not to blame if it had failed. MR. THOMSON HANKEY could not understand such an argument at all. They were asked to pass the Vote now, and were told that if that were done this year it would be a warning for the future. But that was what they were always told, and was a principle which would prevent the House from ever rejecting any Vote that was ever proposed. Of course, the rejection of the Vote might inflict some hardship on the individual; but it was the duty of the Government to redress that, and to see that no injury was done. He must protest against the view that, in common justice, they could not propose these reductions without doing some injustice to individuals. How, if that view were accepted, was the House ever to effect a reduction in the Votes? If they thought that the Office was not working satisfactorily, it was their duty as Members to vote against this Vote, and it was the duty of the Government to see how they could best provide for these gentlemen, who, if they were no longer employed in that Office, certainly might be em ployed in some other way. He remembered the discussion when this Office was first formed. They were then told that the Office was to be self-supporting, and that so much business would come in that the fees would pay all the expenses. But they found that that was not so; and the hon. and learned Attorney General made the matter still more melancholy by declaring that it never could be so. He declared that the Office could never pay unless registration of titles were made compulsory, and he then showed that compulsory registration of titles was impossible. If that were really the opinion of the Government, then the sooner this Office were abolished the better. SIR GEORGE BOWYER was of opinion that it would be very unjust to abolish these salaries at present. The gentlemen who received them held their posts under the authority of two Acts of Parliament. The Registrar and Assistant Registrar were both men of large practice. They were taken from them, and put into these Offices, the duties of which they thoroughly and efficiently performed. How, then, could they possibly deal in this way with them? No doubt the system of registration of titles was a failure. He said, when the first Act was proposed to the House, that it would fail; while, as to the second Act, which was proposed in order to give the Office something to do, he stated in the House that no such result could be hoped for from it. What he had said had turned out to be true, and it was what he had always expected, because no system of registration of titles ever could succeed. He was a Member of the Committee to which reference had been made, and he believed that its Report would shortly be ready. He believed the Committee would recommend, instead of a registration of title, a registration of deeds. In face of such a proposal, it would be a very rash thing to abolish this Office just at the very time when a change was to be proposed in the law, which would give it work to do. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT wished to know whether the Government intended to endorse the pledge of the hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland), that this Vote should not appear again in the Estimates in its present form, unless some change were made in the arrangements? Mr. Thomson Hankey SIR HENRY HOLLAND said, he did not pretend to give any pledge on behalf of the Government or the Party. He merely said that unless some change were made he should not himself support the Vote. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT had misunderstood the hon. Baronet. But he wanted to know what the House was sitting in Committee at all for, if salaries could not be altered? The duty of the Committee of Supply would be a farce if this argument were to apply. The argument was contrary to every principle upon which the Committee of Supply was founded; and he was surprised to hear his hon. Friend (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) endorsing it. The country had provided a regular system for dealing with cases where Offices were abolished by means of the Superannuation Acts; and, therefore, they might vote on this question without inflicting any hardship whatever on the gentlemen composing the Office. The reduction proposed, too, was not nearly so great as would take place if the officers were abolished. Question put. The Committee divided :-Ayes 88; Noes 140: Majority 52.-(Div. List, No. 102.). Original Question put, and agreed to. (11.) £18,690, Revising Barristers, England, agreed to. (12.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £11,673, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Police Courts of London and Sheerness." MR. CHAMBERLAIN said, this was one of those expenses which the whole country was called upon to bear, but which properly should be defrayed by the Metropolis. He had moved on a previous occasion to reduce another Vote as regarded the charge for the police at the Patent Office; but he did not press that matter because, after the discussion, he thought there was some reason to believe that that charge really was one for national purposes. On the other hand, it could not, in his opinion, be maintained that the Metropolitan Police Courts, |