view taken by my hon. Friend on this side it implies a great deal of labour, and the of the House (Mr. H. H. Fowler), and by exercise of a great deal of conveyancing my right hon. Friend on the other side skill, and that the man who earns (Sir Henry Holland). I fail to see that £1,500 a-year in this way would be able because it is necessary that a particular to earn a great deal more at the Bar if Office should be carried on that, there- engaged in a similar vocation. But this fore, public faith with a public servant is not all. These 3,000 titles are irreshould be broken-and that is what the spective of a very large number of titles Government are proposing in pressing-possibly many more than that—which on this Bill. The late Government stood in no such position. They acted honourably with their servants, because the position of matters was then this. When the Marquess of Salisbury was in Office the position was this. The late Lord Chancellor had prepared (ready for bringing in) a Bill for the establishment of a new system of Land Transfer and Registry-I am repeating a public statement publicly made. From that it would appear that that Bill was ready to be brought forward in the House of Lords almost immediately; and pending the bringing forward of that matter, which was a matter almost of days, no one complained-I am quite sure the Assistant Registrar of the Land Registry Office would not complain-of the Assistant Registrar being required to perform the duties of Chief Registrar on the same footing as he was carrying on his own duties. But what does the present Government propose to do? They propose to put it in the power of the Lord Chancellor to require the Assistant Registrar to carry on the business of the Registrar's Office, in addition to what he undertook to do when he was appointed, for the same amount paid him when he originally accepted his Office, and to go on doing for an indefinite time all the duties for which the late Mr. Follett was paid the sum of £2,500 a-year. The hon. Gentleman's statement, I maintain, proves a great deal too much. My hon. Friend, I suppose, like myself, knew Mr. Follett very well. Does he mean to tell us that Mr. Follett was a man who would have taken £2,500 a-year for doing nothing? | Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen laugh. I find I am in a hot-bed of economy here. Does the House know what Mr. Follett did, and what the Office has been doing? The Office has been in existence 25 years, and during that period has registered over 3,000 titles. Laughter.] I am afraid, from the laughter of hon. Gentlemen, that they do not know what this implies. If my hon. Friends around me were hon. and learned also, they would know that Mr. Ince

have been looked into, and which have not been passed on account of irregularities of title. All this work has to be most carefully performed. I have tested the matter in another way, which will, perhaps, come home more to the minds of my hon. and economical Friends. The value of the estates of which the titles have been registered is between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000. And that is not all. In addition to that there have been between £7,000,000 and £8,000,000 of mortgage debentures dealt with in that Office. All this has involved an immense deal of inquiry into titles, and an immense deal of work. When the hon. Gentleman speaks of the staff of the Office-I think he spoke of the various supernumerary officials in the Registration Office-I would inform him that these officials are two clerks and a law stationer; so that, in fact, the whole of the real business of this Office devolves upon the Registrar and Assistant Registrar. The Assistant Registrar took his office 24 years ago, and the salary he was paid then and has been paid since has been £1,500 a-year. He was when appointed-and here I mention a matter which must be within the knowledge of many hon. and learned Members here, as it certainly is within my own-a gentleman of large knowledge and experience of conveyancing. He has been the working spirit of the Office, has drafted all the rules; and, in fact, the Office has mainly rested on his shoulders-of course, under the supervision of Mr. Follett. I say that a gentleman who has sacrificed his career to enter into an Office of that kind should be dealt with fairly; good faith should be kept with him; and if he should be asked to carry on more onerous dutiesfor the ultimate responsibility rested on Mr. Follett -I maintain it is neither just nor fair that he should be asked to carry them on for an indefinite time at a remuneration that was fixed when he was in the position of a subordinate. I am not going to suggest, though the idea may have crossed hon. Members'

minds, that the labourer is worthy of his | neration. I submit that the question is hire; but I must say that if you agree one the House is fully capable of dealto pay one salary for one class of work, ing with at once. It has all the facts and you put on the shoulders of the before it to enable it to deal with the man who receives it another and more subject, and I do not think the debate onerous class of work, the fact should should be adjourned. be taken into consideration in relation to salary. My hon. Friend, I am sure, does not want to do an injustice. As I am anxious to give him an opportunity of avoiding that, and to enable him to further consider the matter I will move the adjournment of the debate.

we should run any risks of serious mis- | to these-transfers, mortgages, and other takes being made by the Land Registry dealings-have to come under the Regiswhich would tend to draw discredit on try Office. There are a large number of the Registry system. I must say I think mortgages which involve a great deal of the Secretary to the Treasury and the work. I should not have risen to oppose right hon. Baronet the Member for the second reading of the Bill if it had Hampstead (Sir Henry Holland) have not been stated that all this work is to underrated the work that will have to be be put on the Assistant Registrar withdone by the Assistant Registrar if this out increasing his salary. If the Bill is Bill passes. It has been said that the read a second time, I shall certainly feel work of the Registrar is not merely it necessary in Committee to move a Ministerial, but hardly more than-I do clause by which it will become the duty not recollect the exact words used-the of the Lord Chancellor or the Treasury, work of a clerk, mere work of detail. when they assign these additional duties That is an entire misapprehension. The to the Assistant Registrar, also to assign work that has had to be done by the additional remuneration. Registrar, in many instances, has been THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Mr. judicial work requiring legal training CHARLES RUSSELL): I should like to say and knowledge, and entailing very great a word or two on the Main Question. responsibility. It involves judicial work The first Act which bears on this subas to the effect of titles and putting them ject of the registration of titles was an on the Register, and it is very onerous Act passed in 1862, and was followed by work, although it does not bring much the Act in question, which was passed public fame. There is not that honour in 1875, at the instance of the then Lord about it which falls to the lot of men Chancellor, the late Earl Cairns. I speak when they have to appear in public. in the hearing of a great many hon. and Everything is done in the Office. A learned Friends, and I speak the opinion great deal of painstaking is involved, of the Profession, when I say that and a large amount of scientific know- from beginning to end these two Acts ledge is necessary to enable the Regis- were signal failures-that they have cost trar to discharge his duties satisfactorily. this country a great deal more money With regard to the Assistant Registrar, than they are worth, and that they he has been holding office for the last have done little better than to establish 24 years. I am told, and I have every one or two not unimportant sinecures. reason to believe it to be the fact, that My hon. and learned Friend the Member when he accepted the office he gave up for East Islington (Mr. Ince) used an exvery lucrative work. I ask, is it right, pression which was a strong one to use, for the sake of cutting down the Esti- and which I think he entirely failed to mates, to do this injustice? Is it fair to justify. He accused the Government of put on the shoulders of a man who has a breach of faith, stating that when the been a subordinate these responsible late Government were in Office it had duties without increasing his remunera- been their intention to bring in a general tion? It has been said, and I know there Bill to deal with the whole question of is a curious notion prevailing, that there Land Transfer; and, as I understood is nothing to do in connection with the him, to provide for the Deputy RegisRegistry. It is true that, comparatively trar. That was intended to be a Bill speaking, there have been very few much wider than this; in fact, there is titles registered; but it must be remem- little connection between the two matbered that the titles registered have been ters; and I know of no pledge or promise accumulating for 24 years, and that there as to the Deputy Registrar in relation to are now 3,000 on the Register. I would it. My hon. and learned Friend saysask any Gentleman with any knowledge" Is it to be supposed that Mr. Follett at all on the subject whether it is not a would have taken £2,500 a-year for doing fact that when a title is once on the nothing?" In answer to that, I can only Register subsequent transactions under say that if the duty of receiving £2,500 that title have to come under the super-a-year for doing little or nothing is cast vision of the Registry Office to be dealt with by the gentleman who fills the post of Registrar? There are 3,000 titles registered, and all transactions in regard Mr. Ambrose

upon a man, most men will find it a very difficult thing to refuse the burden. There is very little real work to do in the Office; and the advantage the com

of new estates registered in this Office had "Within the past two half-years the number been six-two in one half and four in the other; so that this fact came out that the taxpayers of this country had to pay £1,000 for each new would see at once what a scandalous, extravaestate registered in this Office. Hon. Members gant, and wasteful expenditure of money there was in this Department."-(3 Hansard, [299] 744.)

munity has gained by it has been very | have been told that this Office is a sineslight. The case of the Deputy Regis- cure, and now it is said it is not. What trar is this-that he has been for many are the facts? Will the House allow me years acting in his present capacity at a to quote what was said by Mr. Arthur salary of £1,500; and it is suggested, or Arnold last year, who did not overstate implied, that he had a right to look for- the case? That hon. Gentleman said— ward to some advancement. Well, I entirely deny the suggestion that his acceptance of the Deputy Registrarship implied that the Office of Registrar was to be kept up for his benefit in case of a vacancy where the needs of the public service did not require it. I deny that any public servant who accepts a position accepts it under any such implied promise. I should be inclined to say that the question now under discussion is not germane to the Bill. The course suggested by the hon. and learned Gen-mitted for To-morrow. tleman opposite (Mr. Ambrose) as to inserting a clause in the interest of the Deputy Registrar may or not be regular; but it certainly would be most irregular to attempt to stop the second reading by arguments which in no sense go to the merits of the Bill.

MR. T. H. BOLTON: I do not wish to stand long between the House and a division, if there is to be one; because I am perfectly sure there will be but one result of the division. But I venture to say, as a man having some little knowledge of this Land Registry Office, that if there is one complete failure in connection with legal reform it is in

connection with this Office. Several

persons were appointed to positions in
which they had very good salaries, and
very little to do. Now, an opportunity is
afforded us of making alterations by
which we may reduce a thoroughly use-
less staff. To talk about 3,000 cases being
dealt with in 25 years requiring this staff
is absurd-about 120 cases a year, and
two and a-half a-week. I undertake to
say that any efficient and respectable firm

of solicitors would transact the whole of
this business for £1,000 a-year,
and con-
sider themselves exceedingly well paid.
And yet we find the Deputy Registrar
suggesting, through an hon. Member of
this House, that he should have addi-
tional remuneration. The whole thing
is absurd. I hope the House will, by a
unanimous vote, show they quite appre-
ciate the common sense of the Govern-
ment in supporting this Bill.

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF
STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. Os-
BORNE MORGAN): Year after year we

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and com

MOTIONS.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACTS. MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.

THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE

COUNCIL (Sir LYON PLAYFAIR): Mr.
Speaker, I beg to move that a Select
Committee be appointed—

dowed Schools Act, 1869, and the amending
"To inquire into the operation of 'The En-
Acts, and to consider and report how far it may
be expedient to amend the powers exercised
under them by the Charity Commissioners."
I only wish to remark that a Committee
sat last year upon Charitable Trusts,
and strongly recommended that a Select
Committee on "The Endowed Schools
Acts" be moved for this year. My right
hon. Friend the President of the Board
the Government, and my right hon.
of Trade (Mr. Mundella), on the part of
Friend opposite (Sir Henry Holland),
who preceded me in my Office, on behalf
of the late Government, recommended
the appointment of the Committee. I,
therefore, move that a Select Committee
be appointed.

Motion agreed to.

Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the operation of The Endowed Schools Act, 1869, and the amending Acts, and to consider and report how far it may be expedient to amend the powers exercised under them by the Charity Commissioners."-(Sir Lyon Playfair.)

RIVERS PURIFICATION BILL.

Purification of Rivers, ordered to be brought in On Motion of Mr. Hastings, Bill for the by Mr. Hastings, Sir Edward Birkbeck, Lord

Charles Beresford, Sir W. Guyer Hunter,
General Sir William Crossman, and Colonel GLEBE LOANS (IRELAND) ACTS CONTINU-
Sandys.