The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1874-07-11 00:00:00

LAND TITLES AND TRANSFER BILL.

The Attorney-General, in moving the second reading of
this bW, traced minutely what has been done during the last
twenty years for simplifying the trawl-rot land and showed
how this bill was based on the Report of the Royal Com-
mission of 1070, and came down with the authority 01 lord
Cairns, Lord Selborne, and Vice-Chancellor Hall. The
bill establishes compulsory Registration after the lapse of
three years, through the medium of the present Registry%
but it also contemplates the establishment of district Regis-
tries when sufficient experience of the new system has been
gained The titles to be registered are of three qualities
—lndefeasible titles, titles indefeasible within a certain
limit of years, and simple possessory titles, and the interests '
to be registered are fee simple intereAs, leaqholds, .d
charges, including mortgages. For the purpose of carrying
out these improvements various changes are made in the
present law and practice of the Court the GO years' title is
reduced to 40 years, the recitals in deeds of more than 20
years old are made prized facie evidence of their contents,
there are provisions as to boundaries, and the Court is em-
powered to dispense with various technical diSculties

which the Registrar cannot dispose of The Attorney-
Oahe. al :t'so lictelly touched on the proviitons of the other
bill, which are ancillary to the trot.
•- - • --

Sic F. Goldmtia, its au amenoment to the Second Reading,
movid a L,teliition dadariug that the maesure will not
aba dt.qto the Trausier of Land. In support of
it lie went minutely into tile cleuses of the bill, mei:ending
that they would complicate our s stew of conveyancing, and
would increase Ike cost, and this last wnit he held to be
proved by the pros is, that compulsory reaistration should
nut apply to estates Wider £3OO.
Mr. Jackson, who seconded the amendment, obj,ted
chiefly to the compel. try ,diaraCter Of the bill, and criticised
the machinery of the measure as utterly inadequate to carry
out the pane iple, ti which, however, he entiiely approved,
with the reservation that it ought to be proposed is a tenta-
tive and permissive form. Ile believed land might be made
as salvable as shops or stocks, and the first step towards it
were the creation of an owner competent to deal con,
pletely with the land and a cadastral map.
Mr. Marten replied to the criticisms of Sir F. Goldsmid and
Mr. Jackson. Mr. 0. Morgan pleaded tor a postponement
until the next session when it could be discussed with greater
advantage : and Mr. Goblney canvassed various clauses
which he contended would lead to fraud, expense, and
delay. Ito characterized the bill as a muddle, and argued
that it would weaken rather than increase security of title.

The Attorney-General for Irelani.im the contrary. asserto
that the bill would lie a great gain and advantage to the
English proprietors, and his only doubt about it was whether
it went far enough.
Mr. Law took much the same view, and regretted that
registrath ai was confined tot sales. Mr. staveley Hill criticised
the imperfect draughting of the bill, and supported the
suggestion for delay and Sir 41 Bowyer maintained that
registration of title was impossible in this country, but
registration of deeds would effect all that was needed.
Sir J. Karslake warmly supported the bill, as containing
advantages which had long been desired by the public and
at a Wit all our greatest lawyers had aimed, though hitherto
unsuccessfully. As for the registration of deeds, recoil..
mended by sir G. Bowyer. that had been exploded years ago,
but the mode of registration proposed by the bill would
meet all cases, and in course of time he had no doubt the
grett er part of the land in the country would be on the
Register As to compulsion, sir John showed that it was of
livery mild character, and as all the other objections raised
could be best diseased in Committee, he urged the Moose to
give the bill a Second Beading without further delay.
- . . - •

- sir 11. James commented on the siltnee of the country
gentlemen and landowners during the debate. Ile approved
the principle of the bill, though he feared it would disap-
point the hopes of those who had clamoured for it, and that
it would do very little for the establishment of a perfect
registry. On the whole, he was inclined to wish that this
bill might be postponed, and might make its reappearance
as part of a greater measure dealing with the whole subject
of the tenure and devolution of land.

Colonel Corbett, responding to the challenge of Sir 11.
James, said the landowners had never clamoured for the
bill, and, speaking for himself, he did not care a straw about
it. The cry had proceeded from those who had no land.
and he believed that the greatest obstacle to the transfer of
land was the want of money to buy it.
Mr. Rathbone regretted the exemption winch was to be
given to properties under £3OO, because it would weaken the
inducement to working men to invest their savings in buying
their own dwelling-houses.
Sir w.li amend re-echoed the views of Sir 11. James with
regard to the Ma Ile did not oppose it, but it would dis-
appoint the hopes of its supporters, and it did not touch the
real evil-- the complexity of our laud tenure.
Mr. Whitwell and Mr. Serjeant Sherlock supported the
bill. the Attorney-rieneral said a few words in reply, and Sir
F. Golslamist having withdrawn his amendment the three
bills were read a second time.

THE sUPREME coLTRT OF JUDICATURE ACT (1973)
AMENDMENT BILL.

The Attorney-General next moved the second reading of
the Supreme court of Judicature Act Amendment Bill,
which has also been discussed in the Lords, and briefly ex-
plained that it has two main objects— to make provision for
re-hearing Scotch and Irish appeals, and to establish an in-
termediate Court of AppeaL
Sir U. Bowyer, who bad given notice of his intention to
move the rejection of the bill, postponed his opposition to
the next stage, and the bill was then read a second time.
The Court of Judicature (Ireland) Bill was also read a
second time.

Several other bills were fors :wiled a stage, and the 11 oll9t,
adjourned at twenty minutes past two o'clock.

IRE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) BILL,
In the Hot SE IF Colin°Ns, July 8, Mr. Mitehellilenry
gave notice that he would call attention to the circumstances
under which the second reading if the bill was taken the
previous night, at a time when no discussion could arise upon
it, and no report of the proceedings be sent to the Irish
people, who were much interested in the measure, and move
that the further progress of the bill he postponed until next
session. The hon. member also gave notice that he would
ask the Attorney-General for Ireland if he intended under
this 101 l that the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland should
become is pernintent office. to he held like other judicial
Olives during ;foist behaviour.

LEtal. PILtCrITIONERS IsILL.

Mr. Charley, in titeiving the second reading of this bill, des-
cribed it as an unpretending measure, but one of great social
importance as regarded legal reform. The first part tof it
proposed to supplement the proovisious of the existing law
relating to utopian fied or ignorant legal practitioners, and if the
law had been made sufficiently strung to punish medical quacks
why should not the legal quack be restrained front prey-
ing upon the unwary portion of the public? The bill provio led
nwansfor restrieting unqualified practitionerein the same way
as the present law acted upon unqualified medical men. The
last clause oif the bill was intended to protect persons in dis-
tressed circumstances train being induced to enter into bills
of sale enabling money lenders to break juts' the premises
and to carry away their furniture, without such persons un-
derstanding the real meaning of such documents, or receiv-
ing value for the timidx they were deprived of. Ile justified
the last clause by reference to certain notorious cases where
persons had borrowed money upon bills of sale, and great
wrong hobo been inflicted by subsequent proceedings.
The Solicitor-General did mot oppose the second reading of
the bill, but it scented to hint that the earlier part of the
bill was one that is ight receive the assent of the House, for
the present law was admittedly cumbrous and unwieldy.
Subject to some alteration in detail, this he con-
sidered a useful part of the loon, lout he could not agree
with the 3rd clause, with reference to the preparation
of deeds and instruments, as he thought it would
Inc an interference wills the liberty of the subject,
and he asked why an accountant or auctioneer should
toot be able to prepare papers in connection with oankrupt-
cies as well, if not better, than an attorney. With
reference to the clause relating to bills of sale, people who
entered into them generally knew what they were doing.
stool there was au necessity for such a provisien as this. Ile
woul4 not oppos, the second reading of the bill, lout when
it came into committee it would Inc desirable tu modify
certain clauses, or strike them out altogether.