upon a more complete footing, and to put | register kept that book until it was comthe means of ascertaining the particulars pleted; and he then sent it for the purpose of registration into a more easy form. of preservation to Edinburgh; and in that The system introduced in 1617 established way the whole of the records, whether two separate systems of registration registered in the particular or the General one, a general register to be kept at Edin. Registry, were kept in Edinburgh, and burgh under the control of an officer were there accessible for the purpose of termed the Lord Clerk Registrar; and the searching. The accumulation of these other a system of registration, not ac- records introduced a great difficulty. Uncording to a county arrangement, but in der the original statute the keeper of the certain specified districts, by means of register was only bound to record the which persons selling or burdening land deeds and make a minute of them; he was might register the conveyance deeds, the not bound to index them. But in the deeds of incumbrance, or other particulars commencement of the present century this requiring registration. That general and state of things was found so inconvenient particular registration was intended un- that very great efforts were made to supply doubtedly for the convenience of persons the want of an index, and a gentleman who residing in remote districts of Scotland at had charge of the registers, Mr. Thompthe time when communication between son, did actually prepare an index of the different parts of Scotland were much various records up to 1845. But in order to more difficult than it was at the present accomplish the work, it was necessary to time; and the result was obviously that make an abridgment of deeds and records, when persons wished to purchase land or giving the names of the particular buyers lend money on the security of landed or sellers of the land, and the place to estates, or when they wished to ascer- which the purchase or burden related, tain whether any burdens attached to any and from that abridgment a general index particular landed estate, they were obliged was made; but from the necessity of sendof necessity to search both in the General ing up the registers from the particular Registry at Edinburgh, and in the par- registries to Edinburgh only when the ticular registry in the district in which books were filled, those particular registhe land was registered; and it not only ters came up at intervals sometimes of a obliged them to look into the registry of year, sometimes two, and sometimes of one county; a deed respecting the con- three years, so that it was impossible to veyance of land or the burdens upon it make a general index of the records which might be registered in another county at all corresponded in period of time with than that in which the land was, and the contemporaneous registry of deeds consequently a great deal of trouble was itself. The object of this Bill was to do often given to the searcher. This state away with those difficulties, by concentraof things continued to exist, and at the ting the whole of the registries in Edinpresent day there were nineteen particular burgh, and thus to enable the officials to preregistries in Scotland in different districts, pare not merely a record of the whole of the and also the General Registry at Edin- registers for the counties in Edinburgh-so burgh. But there was another matter which that the whole records might be accessible in course of time came to be more import- at one time-but also so to arrange as to ant even than the expense of searching a have the records under one uniform superindouble register. Of course, the accumu- tendence, and under one staff of officers, and lation of records of this nature necessarily to have them indexed contemporaneously went on from year to year, and at last the with the registry itself; and, consequently, records became so great as to become al- that the person searching with reference most unmanageable, so that in the begin- to the records of any one particular year, ning of this century they got into a should be able to refer to the index of condition in which it was exceedingly that year in one volume in order to obtain difficult for persons to prosecute their the information that he required. That search. Though the deeds were registered was the general objects of this Bill. He in the particular registries in the districts, proposed to abolish the particular registhey were not actually kept there; but tries in the districts altogether. the Lord Clerk Registrar sent out from his whereas at present the records were head office in Edinburgh a book in which brought up to Edinburgh only at intervals the matters required to be registered were he proposed that they be brought up rerecorded. The keeper of the particular gularly, provision being made for indexing

those registries at the time. That this | They had been told, upon a former occawould be a great improvement for conve- sion, that the object of their Bill was to nience of search nobody would deny. The benefit professional men. He could not saving of expense might be judged from himself see how it would do so in any the fact that the present local registries way whatever. It would not alter the cost £12,000 a year, no part of which was employment of the conveyancer in any for the benefit of the public, it was solely manner; it would have no effect in respect for the benefit of the keepers of the regis- to the registration of the conveyance; but ters. On the other hand, the Registry this it would do, it would make the opeOffice in Edinburgh was not only a self- ration of searching for the record cheaper. supporting institution, drawing nothing And it was certainly a singular fact, that from the Government, its income being although it is suggested that it would £9,500 a year, but there was actually a benefit the profession in Edinburgh, the surplus of £5,000 a year, which found its discussion in which the Bill originated was way into the public Exchequer. The first raised by the profession at Glasgow, amount of business done in Edinburgh was and the fact that the advocates and writers represented by the registration of 5,700 to the Signet at Glasgow took up the quesdeeds a year, while the number of deeds tion and agitated in favour of the removal registered in the particular registries of the registries to Edinburgh showed at amounted only to 4,000 a year. It was least that they did not consider that the not only clear, therefore, that the present profession would be injured by it. The surplus would be continued, but it would result was that the Lord Advocate of Lord increase to a great extent. It might be Derby's Government did introduce a Bill said—and he admitted that there was some precisely the same in its object as the preforce in the observation-"You are taking sent; but the tenure of his office, and the away a most important office from the pressure of business, rendered it impossible localities, and you are taking away the to carry the Bill through. Since then, he patronage which attaches to the office (the Lord Advocate) had been pressed to which has previously been dispensed in take up the former Bill; but he thought the localities." He was not at all insen- it right not to proceed without a prelimisible to the importance or the weight of nary inquiry, and two Commissioners were that consideration; but the public inte- appointed who fully investigated the rest ought not to suffer from the continu- matter, and upon their Report he had ance of the present system, because pri- prepared the present Bill. vate interests might be involved. It would be said, in opposition to the Bill, that there was an advantage in having a registry in particular districts. He entirely denied that there was any advantage to any one from having the registries in particular districts, except to the keepers who benefited by the fees. He could quite understand that in former days, when it was necessary to travel to the towns where the registries were kept, it might have been important that people should have to travel only ten, twenty or thirty miles, instead of having to travel 100 or 150 miles to Edinburgh; but the whole state of affairs was changed. At the present day onehalf at least of the deeds are sent by post, and, of course, it was as easy to send to Edinburgh from Aberdeen, as it was from Perth or Dundee, or any other part of Scotland, and, it was moreover, just as safe to send by post from one place as from another. Therefore, it was quite vain to say that the breaking up of the local registries will be inconvenient to persons whose titles were to be registered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."(The Lord Advocate.)

MR. DUNLOP said, the House will perceive that there is a Bill in the paper standing in my name on the same subject. We differ only in the mode in which we seek to secure the same object-namely, a register and an index that will really facilitate persons who may use them. It certainly was not his (Mr. Dunlop's) fault that the learned Lord Advocate should meet with any opposition to his Bill. The House knew it was always the custom of the Scotch Members to treat business of this kind in such a manner as to avoid anything like the introduction of competing Bills. The learned Lord, however, did not think it right upon this occasion to summon the Scotch Members to give their opinion on the question, and when he called the attention of the Government to the fact, and suggested that both the Bills would be sent to a Committee so that their details might be examined and one mea

The evidence, moreover, was

sure agreed upon, his learned Friend en- | burgh. tirely objected. In the present instance stated to have been taken in a most cursory and insufficient manner; and as an instance of the haste with which the Report was drawn up, it was there stated that from 1856 to 1861 the registries were not entered up, or at least the indices were in arrear. Therefore, there was not the slightest foundation in the Report of the Commissioners whereon this measure could be based. Now, as to the Bills themselves. The Lord Advocate, in a former debate, described his (Mr. Dunlop's) as a Registrar Bill. The learned Gentleman is as little entitled to impute to me a Bill on behalf of registrars as he (Mr. Dunlop) was to impute to him a Bill in the interests of the Edinburgh officials and candidates. No doubt registrars had an interest, but not a pecuniary one, for the Lord Advocate's Bill gave them full compensation, and relieved them from work and responsibility for life. He (Mr. Dunlop) did not ask the House to pass his Bill unless he could show it was for the public interest. The onus of showing grounds for transferring whole district registers to Edinburgh after they have had an independent existence for 250 years, and dispensing with the services of all the present keepers, compensating them out of public funds, must lie on the Lord Advocate who proposes the change. In one thing he agreed with the Lord Advocatewhen he proposes to get rid of one of the two registers. The bother, annoyance,

they were driven to embark in a contest on the relative merits of the two Bills. At the same time, he must again express his willingness that they should both be sent to a Select Committee. The learned Lord had stated that the foundation of his Bill was a resolution of the Glasgow meeting in 1856, and the Report of the two Commissioners. It was quite true that the resolution referred to recommended a change in voting the sending of the registers to Edinburgh; but, on reference to the petitions presented from Glasgow, his learned Friend would find that much the greater number of the petitioners were in favour of his (Mr. Dunlop's) Bill as against that of the Bill of his learned Friend. On the last occasion when this matter was discussed, it was said that the object of his (Mr. Dunlop's) proposal was to subserve the private interests of professional gentlemen in the various towns where the particular registers were kept. Now, he begged to say that he was as free from wishing to support private interests at the public expense as the learned Lord. In point of fact, he had introduced this Bill after the fullest consideration, because he thought it was for the interest of the general public. The Bill of the learned Lord himself proposed to give them the fullest compensation for any loss they might sustain while he relieved them from all labour and responsibility. Not only so, but he and expense in our system had arisen from proposed actually to compensate gentlemen the General Registry. That being the who, by their own admission, were not chief evil, what was the remedy? What legally entitled to compensation, but were was wanted is a remedy co-extensive with bound to submit to any change that might the evil. Confessedly the weak point in be carried out. The House might be as- the system is the necessity of double search. sured he (Mr. Dunlop) would not ask them produced by the existence of the General to pass any Bill unless he was thoroughly Register, creating great expense and difficonvinced that it was for the public advan- culties by its scheme of merging together tage. The other basis on which the learn- deeds from all parts of the kingdom, withed Lord said his Bill was introduced was out order in the way of abridging, indexthe Report of the Commission. But he (Mr. ing, or searching. Now, both Bills conDunlop) would call the attention of this curred in this, that they abolished the House to the object for which that inquiry General Register. The learned Lord kept was instituted. The Commissioners were it up in name, but in substance he admitted directed to ascertain whether it would be the unsoundness of its principles. The Lord desirable to concentrate the local registries Advocate so far went with him (Mr. Dunin Edinburgh, but they were not directed lop), and he said to-night that he will abolish to inquire into the state of the General the General Register; but he proposed that Registry in that city. The evidence taken there should be a register for each county. by the Commissioners was taken in accord- That was exactly what he (Mr. Dunlop) ance with these instructions; and there- wanted. But he proposed another change, fore there was no evidence whatever as to which was to bring all these county registhe desirability of transferring all the re-ters to Edinburgh, and he (Mr. Dunlop) gistries to the General Registry in Edin. wanted to know what necessity there was

for that. The Lord Advocate alleges, in | salaries, and give the public the benefit of the first place, that the work will be bet- the reduction of fees at once. The next ter done. Now, what is the work? Co-point was with reference to the facilitating pying into books prepared, paged, and of indexes and abridgments. The cause marked, the deed to be registered, and of the past delay was anything but creditmaking up the minute-book in forms fur- able to Edinburgh management. They nished to order. What was required was commenced the work of making these attention, care, accuracy, intelligence, and abridgments with 1780 instead of keeplocal knowledge. Now, would this work ing up the current volumes, and the conbe done better by a great body of clerks in sequence has been that when they reach Edinburgh, though under the superintend- 1855 all previous to 1820 will have beence of the ablest man? But there was come useless; and the mass of arrears is no need to speculate about the matter-it constantly accumulating. The assertion was not alleged that there was any defi- that delay in sending up the records is ciency in the work. The Commissioners do the cause of abridgments being in arrear not hint such a thing. Then, as to cheap- is utterly groundless. The registers at ness, he acknowledged the great import- Edinburgh are to be kept by counties; ance of reducing the fees, but he denied and if the Register House will only rethat the work would be more cheaply gulate the size of the books to be sent done under the Lord Advocate's Bill. to the district registrars by the same rule The Commissioners estimated that the as they would be kept at Edinburgh they staff would cost £5,000, which, with would be filled up in the same time. the Keeper's salary £1,000, if not in- The volumes must be finished, whether creased, would be £6,000. This Estimate in Edinburgh or in the country; and the for the staff was undoubtedly too low. At only delay would be that of transmission present in Edinburgh, to record 5,721 by the mail. All this will be as well and deeds cost £4,527, which, deducting the quickly done under my Bill as under the Keeper's salary, left the staff of the Lord Advocate's. All the alleged reasons Office to cost £3,527. The whole writs for so great a change as his Bill proposes for Scotland were 14,405, more than two entirely fail. He (Mr. Dunlop) believed and a half times the present number in that the people of Scotland were perfectly Edinburgh. Multiplying £3,527 by two satisfied with the present system, proand a half gave £8,817, to which, adding vided that the fees were reduced and the Keeper's salary of £1,000, gives double searches abolished. By the pre£9,817; and if that be increased propor- sent system, when indexes and abridgtionally to the increasing work, the amount ments were sent out, they were able in would be at least £10,817. Now, this the country to bring up the search to any was not an Estimate, but a calculation on hour, and if in Edinburgh a day would the basis of the existing cost. That be lost. The Lord Advocate kept up a would double the Commissioners' Esti- separate register for inhibitions and adjumate, and nearly exhaust their estimated dications, and those were registers which saving. But now, keeping up particular it was necessary to search as well as the registers, the large cost at present arose, others. He (Mr. Dunlop) proposed to not from the difference of work in Edin- abolish them altogether, but the Bill of burgh and in the country-for labour the Lord Advocate retained them, and rewas cheaper there-but because the offi- quired a double search. Now, he (Mr. cials in Edinburgh were on salaries, while Dunlop) thought that it was of some imin the provinces they received the fees. portance in Scotland to keep up the status No doubt, in many cases the remunera- of country practitioners; but the Bill of the tion was far too large; but put the provin- Lord Advocate tended to draw all conveycial registrars also on salaries, and he ancing to Edinburgh and thus to lower the undertook that £8,000 a year would do the position of country writers. This involved whole, giving a yearly saving to be applied the question of the responsibility for blunin reduction of fees of £14,000 out of ders and inaccuracies, and that is a question £22,000, or nearly two-thirds. His (Mr. which requires to be settled. Was it to Dunlop's) Bill proposed to effect this as be retained or abandoned? And if retained the holders died out; but if the Govern what was the value of the responsibility ment would agree to give compensation of one man compared with that of twenty? for the difference of the emoluments he At present, if a blunder were committed, would agree that they should be paid by there was far greater security for covering

with that system. For his own part, he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Greenock. If centralization would achieve the object, it ought not to be a bugbear; but he did not think it would attain the object. With regard to the question as to whether this proposal was for the interest of one party or another, he utterly repudiated it. He was only taking the course which he now takes after the fullest consideration of what appeared to him most, desirable for the interests of the country

the loss than would exist if the Bill of the | for the last two and a half centuries, and Lord Advocate was passed. The burgh asks you to amend that system without registers are left. All the Commissioners' altering it. There was this advantage in reasons for having these apply to the his Bill, that they could try his system, suburbs of towns, which occasion by far and if they found it deficient, and not the greatest number of deeds. So strongly sufficiently economical, they could still go do they feel this, that they say that if on and adopt a centralizing system. In the engaged in establishing registers for the Report of the Commissioners, they said first time they would make them local in that, viewed as a whole, it was the most large towns; but as they have been local complete and practically useful system for 250 years, they will transfer them to which had yet been devised. That was the Edinburgh, chiefly because they think that point upon which he invited them to decide by the aid of their "search-sheet" which between the two Bills; he asked them to the Lord Advocate had rejected, they refuse to take the measure of the Lord Admight bring the burgh registers to Edin-vocate as one that did unnecessarily interfere burgh too. All the reasons they gave plead strongly for keeping the local registers, and the anomaly of one portion of the same town being local and the other Edinburgh was most objectionable. MR. CRAUFURD said, that when the question was last before the House, considerable discussion took place upon it; but of all the Members for Scotland present at that debate, with the exception of the Lord Advocate and his Colleague, the representative of Edinburgh, and the then learned Member for Bute (Mr. Mure), not-namely, the removal of that one defect, a single voice was raised in favour of the the defect of the large expenditure. The Lord Advocate's Bill, which by some was second reason given for the introduction of designated a centralizing Bill. On that this Bill was that it would save the exoccasion they had only one proposal-pense of the transmission and re-transthat of the Lord Advocate based, as he mission of the register books. But the said, on the Report of the Commission- expense of these transmissions are expenses ers. On this occasion they had the advan-paid entirely out of the pockets of the tage of having a converse proposition be- local keepers of the registrars. They fore us from the hon. Member for Greenock were paid by the people of the locality, (Mr. Dunlop)—that the system which had and therefore that argument fell to the existed in Scotland for the registration of ground. There was a curious fact conland rights for the last two and a half nected with the Report of 1856. One of centuries was as perfect as it possibly those who signed that Report was Mr. could be. That was a fact admitted by Bannatyne, one of the Commissioners. the Commissioners themselves; and which With all respect to Mr. Bannatyne, he was also admitted by the Lord Advocate must say that he went into that inquiry last Session, the only one defect being that with his mind made up, having signed the of registration. The question now at issue Report which advised the removal of all was a very narrow one-namely, which the registers to Edinburgh. Therefore, he of the systems proposed in the two Bills was not an unbiassed Commissioner. The now before the House was the one which other gentleman was an Edinburgh lawyer; would lead to the greatest saving of ex- it was, therefore, hardly to be expected pense, and was the best and most efficient that the inquiry would be conducted with plan. Now, in his opinion the Bill of the that fairness which such a question deLord Advocate was a revolutionary mea- manded. But, more than that, what was sure; whereas, that of the hon. Member the course that they described themselves as for Greenock removes the blots and de- having pursued? How did they conduct fects which existed, and which were the the inquiry? What did they do at Duncause of unnecessary expense, without dee? Did they ask the profession any dealing with the question in a revolu- questions? Not at all. Mr. Bannatyne tionary spirit. It treats the question in made a long speech to them, and then accordance with the habits of the people apologized for the haste with which he had