« EelmineJätka »
bodily harm the offence having been perpetrated in a serious Orange disturbance. The learned judge who tried the case stated in sentencing the prisoner, who was convicted of common assault on the indictment, that the finding of the grand jury of a true bill for common assault only did not by one jot abate the severity of the sentence he pronounced-a statement which led to a letter of protest from the foreman of the jury to the learned judge which was published in the Press and answered by a brief acknowledgment of its receipt, written by the learned judge's registrar at his direction, declining to enter into any controversy on the subject.
Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday
Blyth, Friday, at 10.30
Bolton Wednesday, at 9.30
Bow, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday
Brackley, Tuesday, at 12
Bradford (Yorks), Tuesday, at 10 Brentford, Friday (J.S.), at 10.30 Bridgnorth, Thursday, at 10 Brighton, Wednesday (J.S., &c.),
at 11; Friday (J.S. at 11.30), at 10
Bromyard, Wednesday, at 10 Burnley, Thursday and Friday. at 10
Bury St. Edmunds, Tuesday Chard, Tuesday, at 11 Cheltenham, Thursday and Friday Chester, Thursday and Friday Chesterfield, Friday (R. By), at 11 Chorley, Wednesday, at 9.30 Cleobury Mortimer, Friday, at 10 Clerkenwell, Monday, Tuesday,
Wednesday, Thursday, and Fri-
Clitheroe, Friday, at 9.45
Crickhowell, Thursday, at 10.30
Cranbrook, Monday, at 10.45
Darlington, Wednesday, at 9
Daventry, Saturday, at 10
Dewsbury, Tuesday and Thursday Durham, Tuesday (R. By) Edmonton, Thursday, at 10 Faversham, Friday, at 10.30 Gainsborough, Wednesday, at 10 Glossop. Wednesday, at 10 Grantham, Friday, at 10.30 Great Driffield, Saturday Greenwich, Friday, at 10.30
Halifax, Friday (R. By at 10.30), at 9.30
Hanley, Wednesday and Thursday, at 9.30
Haslingden. Thursday, at 9.30
Hertford, Wednesday, at 10.30
Liverpool, Monday (By at 11),
Market Rasen, Monday, at 12
Newcastle-under-Lyme, Tuesday, at
New Malton, Friday
New Mills, Monday, at 10.30 Newport Pagnell, Friday, at 10 Northallerton, Saturday, at 11 Nottingham, Wednesday, and Friday (E.L.), at 10
Oakham, Thursday, at 12
Pontypool, Wednesday, at 10.30
Royston, Wednesday, at 11.30
St. Albans, Monday, at 10
Salisbury, Thursday, at 10
Sleaford, Thursday, at 10
Tavistock, Saturday, at 10
Tenbury, Tuesday, at 10
Thame, Monday, at 11
Thetford, Thursday, at 11
Walsall, Wednesday (J.S.) Walsingham, Friday, at 11 Waltham Abbey, Thursday, at 11 Warwick, Friday, at 10 Westbromwich, Friday
West Hartlepool, Friday, at 9.30 West London (Brompton) Monday. Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, at 10.30 Westminster, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday
Whitehaven, Thursday, at 9.30 Wigan, Tuesday (R. By at 11), at
Wimborne. Saturday, at 10
Other sittings are specially fixed if necessary.
STANDRING v. HILL AND SONS.
Workmen's Compensation Act-Injury arising "out of the Employment."
THIS case was heard by His Honour Judge Bradbury, at the Bury County Court, on the 18th Sept.
Acton, counsel for the applicant; Adshead Elliott, counsel for the respondents.
The facts appear from the judgment, which was given on the 2nd Oct.
His HONOUR. In this case the applicant, Edmund Standring, claims compensation for injuries which he alleges he received in his employment. on the 9th May last. Standring worked as a mechanic for the respondents, and on the 9th May he walked from Norden to the respondents' works at Heywood, a distance of three miles, carrying a bag of tools weighing 28lb. He was accompanied by another workman named McLeod, and McLeod carried the other tools, weighing 71lb. It was a hot day, and the road was up and down hill, but on the whole a slight descent. McLeod's evidence was that Standring seemed quite well all the way from Norden to the respondents' works and for a quarter of an hour after they arrived there, for which period they stood waiting to see the foreman. After the lapse of that quarter of an hour Standring went towards the gate and staggered a bit. He got worse, and had to be taken home, and paralysis set in. The medical experts were agreed that the staggering and subsequent paralysis were due to the rupture of a small blood vessel on the brain. They agreed that the arteries were in a diseased condition, and that the blood pressure was abnormally high. The medical experts called for the applicant were of opinion that the rupture of the blood vessel was caused by the exertion of carrying the tools. One of them-Dr. Laird-said that the man could have had this seizure at any time, working or not working. It appeared that in April 1910 the applicant went out for a walk, was seized with an attack of fainting or dizziness, and had to be brought home in a cab, and that this attack was due to the state of the arteries, but on that occasion there was no paralysis. The medical expert for the respondents stated that in his opinion it was impossible to say whether or not the exertion contributed to the burst artery. He said the rupture might have come at any time. The condition of the arteries was quite sufficient to cause the rupture without the exertion. On this evidence, the question for the court is whether the applicant has proved that the injury arose "out of the employment,' or, to put it in other words, "Has the applicant proved that the work caused or materially contributed to the seizure?" This is a question of fact, and the court has to be reasonably satisfied, after considering the whole of the evidence, that the applicant has proved his case. Several recent cases have decided it is not sufficient for the applicant to show that the work was a possible cause-the matter must not be left to surmise, conjecture, or guess (see Barnabus v. Bersham Colliery Company and Hawkins Powells Tillery Steam Coal Company Limited, 104 L. T. Rep. 365; (1911) 1 K. B. 993). Those cases were in some ways very similar to this case, and, although each case must stand by itself upon the facts, those cases are useful and instructive in showing the way After the Supreme Court judges have looked on this matter. carefully considering all the evidence, I am of opinion that the applicant has not discharged the burden of proof thrown upon him. The bursting of the blood vessel might have been caused by the work, or it might have been due simply to the diseased condition of the arteries. There is nothing which enables me to say definitely one way or the other-the balance of probability may be slightly in favour of the hypothesis that the work did in some degree contribute to the seizure; but, on the whole, the matter is left in such a state of doubt and uncertainty that I am unable to say the applicant has proved his case. Therefore my judgment must be for the respondents.
FOREIGN ENLISTMENT ACT 1870. THE following notice to shipbuilders and others has been issued by the Home Office :-
With reference to the war now in progress between Italy and Turkey, the attention of shipbuilders and others is called to the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 90), ss. 8, 9, and 23, which indicate their duties and liabilities in the matter of building and equipping ships which are intended to, or may, be used in the military or naval service of belligerents.
Sect. 8 provides that any person within His Majesty's dominions who without royal licence builds, commissions, equips, or dispatches any ship with intent or knowledge or having reasonable cause to believe that the same will be employed in the military or naval service of the belligerents, shall be liable to fine and imprisonment and the forfeiture of the ship and equipment.
Any person building or equipping such a ship in pursuance of a contract made before the commencement of the war shall not be liable to these penalties if
(i.) Forthwith upon a proclamation of neutrality being issued by His Majesty he gives notice to the Secretary of State that
he is so building, causing to be built, or equipping such ship, and furnishes such particulars of the contract and of any matters relating to, or done, or to be done under the contract as may be required by the Secretary of State : (ii.) He gives such security, and takes and permits to be taken such other measures, if any, as the Secretary of State may prescribe for ensuring that such ship shall not be dispatched, delivered, or removed without the licence of His Majesty until the termination of such war as aforesaid.
In any case in which overtures are made for the purchase or equipment of such ships by persons who do not satisfactorily disclose the ultimate destination of the ships, it would be the duty of all persons having knowledge of the fact to give notice to the Home Secretary in order that he might take the steps which he is empowered by the 23rd section of the said Act to take so as to ensure that such vessels should not be employed in contravention of the said Act.
APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE JOINT STOCK
Nonces OF APPEARANCE AT HEARING MUST REACH THE SOLICITORS BY 6 P.M. ON THE
BIPSINE (1910) LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard Oct. 17,
EMESTI SYNDICATE LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Nov. 18, to R. H. F.
GREAT BRIDGE PERMANENT MONEY SOCIETY.-Petition for winding-up to
GOSBERTON GAS COMPANY LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Nov. 6, to
MID-SOMERSET BENEFIT BUILDING SOCIETY.-Amended petition for continuing the winding-up subject to supervision of the court, to be heard Oct. 17, at Royal Courts of Justice. Woodcock, Ryland, and Parker, 15, Bloomsbury-sq, W.C., agents for Louch, Son, and Goode, Langport, sols. to pet. Notices of appearance by Oct. 16
POLLOCK AND CO. LIMITED.-Creditors to send in, by Oct. 30, to G. G. Poppleton, 26, Corporation-st, Birmingham. SOUTH SUMATRA RUBBER ESTATES LIMITED.-Petition for winding-up to be heard Oct. 17, at Royal Courts of Justice. E. Salaman and Co., 62, London-wall, E.C., sols. for pet. Notices of appearance by Oct. 16.
COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION. BUCKINGHAM (Frederick Thomas). Blofield. Oct. 16; F. W. Cooke, Registrar, Norwich County Court. Oct. 21; Registrar aforesaid,
CREDITORS UNDER 22 & 23 VICT. c. 35. LAST DAY OF CLAIM AND TO WHOM PARTICULARS TO BE SENT. BLACKETT (Sophia Elizabeth), North Shields. Nov. 3; G. Drury, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
BARRETT (Charles Henry), Guilford-st, Russell-sq. Nov. 8; A. P. W.
BRETT (James), Monkseaton. Nov. 20; H. and A. Swinburne, Gateshead.
Nov. 11; R. A. Willcock,
CREWDSON (Joseph), Llangefni. Nov. 4; W. T. Jones, Banger.
CRIPPEN (Cunigunda, otherwise Cora), otherwise known as Belle Elmore, Hilldrop-cres. Nov. 15; Roberts, Seyd, and Co., 312, Regent-st, W. CHANDLER (Matthew), Charlton and Kidbrook. Oct. 14; C. E. S. Mason, Blackheath.
CALDWELL (Rosamond Jane Marsh), Talke. Nov. 15; Barnard and Taylor, 47, Lincoln's-inn-flds.
DUMMER (Hannah), Redlynch. Nov. 1; Hodding and Jackson, Salisbury. Fox (John), Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Oct. 16; R. Strother Stewart, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
FRANKS (Herbert Nathan), Leeds. Nov. 1; Wise and Wise, Manchester. FINCH (Henrietta), Eltham. Nov. 4; Adams and Adams, 5, Clement'sinn, W.C.
FRUSHER (Daniel), New Barnet. Nov. 11; Starling and Wright, 9, Gray's-inn-sq, W.C
GREENFIELD (Anne), Little Carlton. Nov. 30; Hodgkinson and Beevor, Newark-on-Trent.
GILLOCH (Phillis), Muswell Hill, Nov. 8; W. H. Martin and Co., 15, King-st. Guildhall, E.C.
GIBSON (Katherine Jane), Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
Miller, and Turnbull, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
Nov. 13; Dickinson,
GILLMAN (James), Heigham. Nov. 2; W. N. Ladell, Norwich.
GAUNTLETT (Charles William Have), Balham. Nov. 16; Law and
HARRISON (Isabella), South Shields. Nov. 4; Dickinson, Miller, and Turnbull, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
HEPBURN (Mary Elizabeth), Hampstead.
Nov. 18; E. Hepburn, 27, Oct. 17; K.
HYDE (Benjamín Thomas Francis), Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
Strother Stewart, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
HAMILTON (James). Cannon-st. E.C., and Little Grosvenor-st. Oct. 24; A. R. Monks, 123, Cannon-st, E.C.
JOHNSON (George Walter), Ruscombe.
JAMES (John Russell), Ilford.
Nov. 9; M. J. Jarvis, 4, Fins
Nov. 9; F. A. S. Stern, Stratford, E. JONES (Thomas William), Cardiff. Nov 9; J. Morgan and Co., Cardiff KENTISH (James Charles), Holloway. Nov. 6; Dunkerton and Sen, 23, Bedford-row, Holborn, W.C.
KIESER (William), Great Bealings. Nov. 10; F. W. W. Gross, Wood-
MURPHY (Patrick Thomas), Birmingham. Nov. 6; A. R. O'Connor, Bir
MOULD (Leanira), Stoke. Nov. 4; Rundle and McDonald, Devonport.
NEILL (Mary Ann), Croydon. Nov. 1; Rowland and Hutchinson,
Orton and Son," at Nottingham. Nov. 10; Johnstone and Williams, Nottingham. OSBORN (Sarah Anne), South Woodford. Nov. 15; E. C. Rawlings and Butt, 2, Walbrook, E.C.
POULDEN (Emma Frances), Bickley. Nov. 14; Simpson and Bowen, 36, New Broad-st, E.C.
PRECIOUS (Ann Robinson), Royston. Claims of creditors, next of kin, and others. Nov. 7; Lawson and Lawson, 20, Finsbury-cir, E.C. PEACHEY (Charles Bernard), Eastbourne and Crowborough. Nov. 7; Walker, Son, and Field, 61, Carey-st, Lincoln's-inn. RAWSON (Frederick Percy), Sheffield. Nov. 30; Branson and Son, Shef field.
RICHARDS (Thomas Buchan Morrison), Mutley. Oct. 26; Prance and
RILEY (Emma), Dukinfield. Nov. 15; S. Holroyd, Oldham.
SELFE (Frederick Vander Horst), Old Jewry, E.C., and Watford. Oct. 26;
STOCK (Robert Albert), Henley-on-Thames. Nov. 10; Mercer and Blaker.
SLATER (Sarah Ann), Elson, Alverstoke. Oct. 28; Shield and Mackarness.
SHAW (William), Halifax. Nov. 11; W. H. Boocock and Son, Halifax. STRETCH (Knowles), Liverpool. Nov. 7; Tyrer, Kenion, Tyrer, and
SAHLGREEN (Emily), Bridlington. Nov. 6; A. M. Jackson and Co., Hull.
TAYLOR (Walter Wilberfor), Cheadle Hulme.
Oct. 28; Lancashire,
Dec. 1; Lynde and Nov. 11; Braikenridge and
VINCENT (Frederick Cardoza), Hove.
WHITE (Maria Louisa), Binstead, Ryde. Nov. 18; Andrews, Fawcus,
WALKER (Elisa), Clifton. Oct. 23: Meade-King, Cooke, and Co., Bristol.
WEBB (Alice Maud). Hunsdon. Nov. 30; M. L. Webb, 18, Theobald's-rd,
YOUNG (Dr. Charles Whitwick). Dartmouth. Nov. 20; Winter,
YOUNGS (George). Wortwell. Nov. 8; G. O. Lyus, Harleston.
In the literary world the MS. which is not typewritten receives scant editorial consideration. In private circles a good deal of prejudice against the typewriter has hitherto existed, but this is rapidly giving way under the realisation of its conveniences and the aesthetic value of "type" writing. Of the leading styles, the Yöst, perhaps, has done most to popularise the mechanical writer amongst private and professional people, by reason of the note of distinction always apparent in Yöst work. Not only are more satisfactory mechanical principles employed, but different styles of type are used-styles minus the stigma, if stigma, there be, which attaches to things commercial.
THE LAW SOCIETY.-PROVINCIAL MEETING. THE LAND TRANSFER "SCANDAL."
(Continued from p. 517.);
consensus of opinion against the trial of the experiment as dis closed by the list (appendix). One may well stand amazed that. with such a list before them the council ever gave their consent. It is safe to say that no other council in England would with such a list have dreamt of consenting to a more than doubtful experiment being compulsorily tried within their borders. (2) Since 1862 it has been open, as it is open to-day, to property owners in every part of England to register their titles. Apart from those who in London are compelled to do so, the number who register in the course of the year is practically nil. Sir Robert Torrens and Lord Halsbury are included in the number of landowners who, so far as they were personally concerned, did not see any advantage in registering their lands. (3) Innumerable representations have been made to the authorities against the continued operation of the system in London by many representative bodies, including the Coroporation of the City of London. I have never heard that its continuance has been asked for by a single known body. (4) The Royal Commissioners on Land Transfer took a step in July 1900 that is probably unprecedented. By that date they had examined all the witnesses tendered by the Land Registry, and some sixty witnesses in addition. The commissioners deemed it right, however, to publish and circulate a statement intimating that very little evidence had been tendered in favour of the registration system, and inviting anyone who desired to do so to give evidence. The county councils were amongst the bodies who were so invited.The circular failed to elicit a single favourable reply. One council after another refused to give evidence. Lord St. Aldwyn, the chairman of the commission, was present at the meeting of the Gloucestershire County Council, held in Oct. 1909, when it was decided unanimously not to tender evidence. In his own county the chairman thus received a definite expression of opinion against the system. This is another proof that the contention put forward in 1897 that the system met a public demand was absolutely unfounded.
The Opposition of the Local Authorities. Certain borough councils in London were severely called to account by the Lord Chancellor in the recent discussion. He complained that lately he had received from some of the borough councils in London a number of resolutions condemning the existence of the system of registration of title in London and asking that it should be undone. If he thought that the members of the borough councils had studied the meaning of registration of title, he would, of course, pay attention to what they urged, but it seemed to him to be regrettable that important public bodies should be induced without any inquiry to commit themselves to opposing a system which had been supported by so many very high authorities. I have had the privilege of being a member for many years of the Kensington Borough Council, one of the councils thus taken to task. I can testify to the close and continued interest the council has taken in the subject since 1897, when the London County Council first invited an expression of views from the local authorities. The report adopted by Kensington in reply clearly shows that all the evils that have resulted from the experiment were foreseen and pointed out, and the county council was strongly urged not to allow the experiment to be tried in London. When the report of the Land Transfer Commission was brought to the notice of the Kensington Council it was referred to its law committee for consideration. The mayor, the Hon. Sir Walter G. F. Phillimore, is one of the judges of the High Court, and amongst the councillors are many known professional men, including Mr. J. Brooke-Little, Mr. W. F. Craies, M.A., Mr. H. Curtis Bennett, J.P., Sir C. M. D. Cuffe, K.C.B., J.P., Sir James Home, Bart., Mr. A. G. McArthur, M.A., J.P., Mr. H. C. Malkin, M.A., J.P., Sir Cecil Trevor, C.B., M.A., Mr. J. V. Vesey-Fitzgerald, K.C., J.P., and Colonel R. F. Webb, M.A., J.P., D.L. It certainly shows a regrettable want of knowledge on the part of the Lord Chancellor to assume that the men I have named, and the many other able and independent men on the council, would adopt a report which they did not understand. The report was framed after due deliberation by the law committee, on which sat several representative laymen. When the report came before the council for adoption, its rejection was moved in a carefully prepared speech by Sir Henry Robson, an ex-mayor, and one of the most respected members. He, however, in the discussion that followed received no support, and in the result his motion was defeated by a large majority, only three voting with him, and about fifty against him. Our proceedings are closely watched from outside by ratepayers' associations and other bodies, to whom copies of the agenda are regularly sent and from whom communications are frequently read by our town clerk if anything appears on the agenda of which they do not approve. The working classes, too, are represented on our council by an intelligent and active section, who are fully alive to the interests of those they particularly represent and are not backward in expressing their views. The report can, therefore, be safely taken as embodying the deliberate conclusions arrived at by one of the foremost of the London borough councils. I feel sure that, owing to his multifarious duties, the Lord Chancellor has not been able to peruse the report. If he could find time to do so now, I venture to believe that as an honourable man he would deem it right to express his regret to our council for having referred to them in such disparaging terms. The probable explanation of the attack made on the London borough councils for repudiating the system is that the authorities were carrying their minds forward to the time when in the near future they intend to ask Parliament to deprive the county councils of the veto they at present possess to prevent the extension of the system. It is hopeless to ask a county council outside of London to accept the system, so, in furtherance of the object in view, it is necessary to show that the local authorities are not fit to be intrusted with the veto. The difficulty in proving this is immensely increased in view of the resolutions condemning the system passed by local authorities who live under it. certainly strange that our rulers should be prepared to tell Parliament that the people who from their personal experience have found the system an intolerable one are not to be trusted as they do not know what is good for themselves. It is equally strange that our highest legal authorities on both sides of the House should be able to persuade themselves that they may justly combine in order to override the views and wishes of those affected. If we are to be precluded from looking to our legal authorities to safeguard the principle on which representative government is founded, we may well ask in what direction we are to look for safety.
Public Objections to Register.
The objection of property owners to the registration system appears to be a never failing source of wonder to the authorities. That the objection exists is indisputable. We must, however, make every point clear to the most sceptical, so I will enumerate a few matters that will place the point beyond doubt. (1) When the consent of the London County Council was asked to allow the system to come into operation in London, the council invited the views of all bodies likely to be affected. The result was a crushing
Registration of Deeds.
I am happy to find myself in complete accord with the Land Transfer Commissioners on one matter. We are, I consider, behind almost every country in the world in not recognising the value of deed registries as a necessary coping stone to our convey ancing system. Such registries are in this country confined to the counties of Middlesex and Yorkshire, where they have existed for the last two centuries. I have for many years past advocated their establishment in every county in the kingdom, and the proposal formed a material part of my paper on Land Transfer Reform' that I read at our meeting at Birmingham in 1908. I earnestly urged my views on this point in my evidence before the commissioners. In say: their report the commissioners "The precedents made by Parliament in the cases of Middlesex and Yorkshire seem to point to registration of deeds as a proper subject. for local control. The value of a registry of deeds in preventing harm from the loss of deeds, or fraud by their duplication or concealment, and in avoiding trouble and expense in obtaining their production when required has been already referred to. Witnesses who strongly objected to a registry of title, including solicitors from Yorkshire with experience of the registration of deeds in that county, have supported the extension of registries of deeds, which are undoubtedly of special value in building areas. We recommend that county councils should be empowered to establish registries of deeds, either for their own county only or for an urban area in their county, or for a union of neighbouring counties, on the lines of the Yorkshire registries.' The work of recording deeds in registries is simple in the extreme and is more or less mechanical. The expenses of the office are consequently small, and the fees charged are small in proportion. The fees in Middlesex and Yorkshire for the registration of any document are limited to 7s. 6d., of which amount 2s. 6d. represents a Revenue stamp. Notwithstanding the smallness of the fees, the Revenue received by the registries, including fees for searches, &c., shows a profit of many thousands a year. In Yorkshire the county councils have the wisdom to secure these profits in aid of the rates.
The London County Council and the Land Registry. One of the strangest matters in connection with the fierce controversy that has raged since 1897 with regard to compulsory registration is the extraordinary way the London County Council has dealt with the subject. Anyone who has watched their action is driven to believe that certain occult influences have been and are still at work-When the Land Transfer Bill of 1897 was before Parliament, providing for a trial of compulsory registration in one County with the consent of its county council for a period to be limited it was understood to three years, it was announced that London would be the trial county. Who were the members or officials who thus promised in advance the council's consent? Individual members who have made efforts to ventilate the subject have invariably been outflanked by some power behind the scenes. The following are some of the matters that have occurred within the last twelve years that seem to prove conclusively the existence of this baneful influence: (1) While the Bill of 1897 was being considered by Parliament the council's consent appears to have been promised to the experimental trial of compulsory registration taking place in London as it was stated that the experiment would be tried in the county of London. (2) The council, in spite of the crushing consensus of opinion given in reply to the council's invitation by the local and other bodies (see list, appendix), gave on the 15th Feb. 1898 formal consent to the experimental trial. (3) In
giving its consent the resolution passed was expressed to be on the understanding that the system would be introduced progressively, so as to give the council an opportunity of estimating the value of the work as it proceeded and of watching generally the progress of the Act. Notwithstanding this resolution, the council never took any step to watch the progress of the Act. (4) The council refused to join in the protest that was made in 1900-the second year of the experiment—against the Bill brought in by the Government for erecting a permanent registry building in Lincoln's-inn-fields at an expense to the country of £265,000. (5) The council have spent some £10,000 in fees to the registry office in registering "possessory titles to lands acquired in connection with public works. This registration could never be of the remotest value, and was a pure waste of the ratepayers' money. (6) When the trial period of three years expired in Jan. 1901 the council took no step whatever to ascertain whether or not the system was working satisfactorily. (7) For many years after Jan. 1901 a large number of resolutions were from time to time sent to the council by various London borough councils and other important bodies pointing out how harshly the system was working and urging the council to take steps to bring the experiment to an end. These resolutions were all ignored. (8) The council stood studiously aloof when in 1903 the Corporation of the City of London and nineteen of the London borough councils approached Parliament with the view to bringing the experiment to an end (see list, appendix). (9) In Jan. 1908, when the council did at length pass a resolution in favour of an inquiry, their proposal was limited to an inquiry into the "working of the Land Transfer Act with a view to its amendment in such direction as may be found as the result of such inquiry to be desirable, and that a communication to this effect be made to the Lord Chancellor." The one vital question-the one to which all the representations to the council were directed-whether the system was a beneficial one and if its compulsory application should be ended was thus deliberately ignored. It seems clear that the resolution was really framed in the interests of the registry and not of the public. (10) The council originally arranged to give evidence before the Land Transfer Commission, but in the result they kept away. They thus abandoned their duty to place before the commission the innumerable representations they had received grievously complaining of the system. The circumstances of a representative council asking for an official inquiry and then when one is granted deliberately keeping away is probably unprecedented. (11) When the commissioners reported in February last that the system was defective" it was clearly the council's duty to have taken immediate steps with a view to relieving London property owners from the compulsory imposition of a defective system. The council have, however, entirely ignored this, their most obvious duty. (12) The council have time after time refused to deal with the resolutions sent to them by many of the London borough councils urging the council to follow the example of the Yorkshire county councils and to take steps, in conjunction with the Middlesex County Council, who were willing to join, to obtain in aid of the rates the profits, estimated at £15,000, in the Middlesex Deed Registry, now appropriated by the Land Registry.-I have, I think, said sufficient to suggest the question, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? The report of the Kensington Council issued in March last contained the following recommendations: "(b) That the London County Council and the Middlesex County Council be urged to claim in aid of the rates the fees received by the Middlesex Registry, estimated at £15,000 a year, thereby following the example of the Yorkshire county councils, who receive for the ratepayers the Yorkshire Registry fees; (c) that the London County Council be further urged to take action with a view to obtaining forthwith, in accordance with the recommendation of the commission, the extension to the whole of the county of London of the existing deed registry, and to secure for the ratepayers the resulting profits, estimated to produce an additional income of £12,000 per annum. The report brought from the statistical officer of the London County Council a letter stating that his estimate of the profits made in the Middlesex Registry and that would be made if a deed registry was extended over the whole county of London was far less than the £15,000 and £12,000, the sums at which the profits were respectively estimated by the Kensington Council. A statement was thereupon furnished to the London County Council showing how the estimates were arrived at. This statement (see appendix) I submit proves that the estimates are well founded. It seems clear that the council are sacrificing an income of £27,000 a year owing to the fact that on this point they are in the iron grip of some hidden authority. I may I hope be permitted to take this opportunity of once more urging the London County Council to take the matter into their own hands and to shake off the influences that have hitherto held them as in mortmain. The fact that the commission recommend that the deed registry fees should be payable to the county should surely embolden the council to take forthwith the necessary steps to secure the income which is of a surety theirs once they make up their minds to move in the right way and with the right heart.
Public Opinion and Registration.
Notwithstanding the proofs I have given that the system, so far from being desired, is universally distrusted, we are not unaccustomed now and again to meet with individuals who are prepared in their own person to testify to the value of the system." A few weeks back a London paper inserted a short statement by me on the House of Lords' debate. On the 29th July a paragraph appeared in the same paper headed in leaded type, Land Transfer
Act-Mr. R. Winfrey's, Tribute to its Value." It was stated that Mr. R. Winfrey, M.P., had furnished some striking instances of the value of the Land Transfer Act of 1875. Three Boston solicitors had reported that where the Act had been put in operation it had ignominiously failed and greatly increased the expense. Mr. Winfrey went on : In order to test this statement, i proceeded to register a small piece of land to demonstrate to the Boston lawyers what could be done under the Act. I went to the Land Registry Office, and in less than an hour I had, without the intervention of a solicitor, registered five acres of land in two parishes at a cost of £1 4s. 6d." Being desirous of eliciting more information that might be of use to me in my practice, I wrote to the paper asking Mr. Winfrey to kindly answer the following questions: " (1) What documents of title, if any, did he take to the Land Registry? (2) Were any of them kept at the registry? (3) What title- absolute,' qualified,' or possessory'-did he ask for? (4) What title did he actually obtain? (5) Was he personally known to the officials?" This question was, I explained, necessary, as I had never yet heard that the office issued titles on demand-indeed, it is wholly contrary to their rules and regulations. The paper did not insert the letter, and two letters I subsequently wrote to Mr. Winfrey remained unanswered. We must recognise we have to reckon with many men of Mr. Winfrey's type, amateur experts without technical knowledge, and with the fact that many effusions similar to the one he put in circulation appear from time to time in the papers. The Times fully recog nises the spreading danger of officialdom. Some time back it said: There is a perfect mania at present for meddling with every body's business, and handing over everybody's duties to some State official." Notwithstanding these views, the Times has undoubtedly taken a decided side in favour of officialdom in the present controversy, and has used its influence first in inducing the public to submit to the experiment and then in seeking to perpetuate the system. In 1897, when the Bill was before Parliament, it said: "If the Government measure passes, we shall watch an interesting experiment. If the experiment fails, few are so enamoured of the principle of registration of title as to refuse to retrace their steps." When the Act passed the Times urged that" for thirty years there has been theoretical discussion, suppose we have two or three years of actual trial." Later we are told: "If after a fair trial it is proved that it does not work satisfactorily and tends to increase rather than to diminish legal expenses, there will be no difficulty in reverting to the present state of things. This and much mor that was said at the time proves conclusively that in quarters generally considered the best informed there was then no thought that Parliament had accepted the principle of registration, or that the 1897 Act had been passed with any object but an experimental After the system had, unfortunately, come into compulsory operation in London, the Times went quite back on its earlier attitude. Although on one occasion, in a moment of expansive candour, it admitted that the system was "terribly complicated." it asserts from time to time that the system is a good one and has "come to stay," and presumes to lecture us on our continuel opposition. In February last, in commenting on the Land Transfer Report, the Times admitted that the inquiry had proved that our criticisms were justified, but that we had had a full and fair inquiry," and that it was now our duty to co-operate in amending the system so as to make it a workable one. I wrote to the Time at the time, pointing out the reasons why we could not be satisfied with the inquiry, and that, the experience of sixty years having proved that the system could not be made a workable one, it was impossible for us, with any regard to the interests of our clients, to join in another hopeless attempt to patch it up, and that even the commissioners themselves hardly appeared to have any belief in its ultimate success. The Times wrote that they hoped to find room for the letter, but later they returned it with an expression of regret that it could not be inserted. The Times' latest comment appeared on the 9th ult. Referring to the resolution passed the previous day at a special meeting of our council protesting against the views of the Lord Chancellor, the Times says:" The procedure under the existing Land Transfer Act is in many respects costly and inconvenient so much was proved at the recent inquiry. But it is useless to think of going back; the Law Society must give its aid to the promised Bill so that we go forward wisely. I for one must decline to waste time and temper even to please the Times in another hopeless effort to square the circle. It is idle to prop up structure erected on a quicksand. Some time back I met the editor of the Encyclopædia Britannica and pointed out that the article on land registration in the tenth edition was altogether misleading. He expressed his surprise as, he stated, the artic had been contributed by the registrar. I gave him some of my reasons for holding that the source was not an impartial one, and I pointed out how essential it was that an article from an independent quarter should appear in the next edition, then preparing for publication. This, he said, was not possible, as he was pledged to the registrar. I have noticed at times inspired articles in such publica tions as the Daily Mail and the Daily News Year Books, and r) doubt they have also appeared in many similar publications. Wha literature have we available to counteract this organised attemp to influence public opinion? Nothing-absolutely nothing. Som short time back a London firm of solicitors informed me that corr spondents of theirs in India had written that there was a talk of introducing a system of registration of title into that country, ani they had heard it had not been a success in England and ther asked for literature from which the facts could be learnt. The solicitors applied to me for copies of my papers, as they could not
I have for a long time past urged that the existence of the Land Registry is a standing menace to the country. Sufficient attention has, I consider, not been paid to this view. The system of compulsory registration has clearly either to be “ended or extended." It is impossible that London should have for all time a different system of conveyancing to the rest of the country. Our legal authorities on both sides of the House, being responsible for the active existence of the registration system, are probably not equal to bringing it to an end, and are therefore impelled to seek its extension. In this object they have a whole-hearted friend in the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Lloyd George, who has expressed his wish to see land registries at work in every county in the kingdom. Our rulers profess to rest their case for compulsion in connection with the transfer of property on the ground that it is in the highest interests of the public to encourage small ownerships and freedom of transfer. I must leave to others the task of explaining how this profession is to be reconciled with the glaring fact that they have recently deemed it right to double the stamp duties on transfers, and to impose new variegated taxes on property owners-taxes so bewildering that the authorities themselves appear to be as much in the dark on their bearing and incidence as we are ourselves. We must also take count of their boastful statements that what they have done is only the beginning of what they mean to do. The theory that perhaps best explains the phenomenon is that our rulers in the recesses of their minds are hatching a scheme of land nationalisation. With this goal in view, they are seeking to implant a general distaste for ownership, so that when the psychological moment comes for the necessary measures to be forced through, owners will be induced with the less difficulty to fall into line. The views our then rulers will hold as to what is right and just will doubtless decide whether or not the claim for compensation that may be made will be listened to or scouted. If the theory I have suggested is the right one, it will help to explain the anxiety the authorities show to extend the compulsory system of transfer throughout the land. It would appear to be part of their scheme to embarrass ownership. Certainly it would pass the wit of man to devise a system more reactionary, cumbersome, or oppressive than the official system that to-day is in compulsory operation in the county of London—a system that if the authorities obtain their way will, in the near future, be in operation throughout the whole country. The latest Frankenstein creations that the Government are busy in evolving are new departments requiring the services of a large body of officials in connection with their schemes of land valuation and taxation, and to which local registries of titles are to be affiliated. The danger of the position is obvious, as the creation of these registries will be considered and dealt with on purely party lines. In other words, the merits or value of registries of title will not come into the picture. We have it on high authority that there are no more dangerous persons than those who do wrong under the false persuasion that they are doing right. In these days Ministries insist upon their ideas being accepted, however crude, ill-conceived, and mis-shapen they may be. Criticism is all but forbidden. The party followers are put on their election to either acclaim every Ministerial measure or to quit the party. Partisan ties are so strong and overbearing that the Ministers can count with absolute confidence on surmounting every fence of logic, right, or justice that may stand in their way. Officialdom and compulsion are idols at whose shrine the Germans worship. The public being wholly disorganised, the strenuous efforts put forth by the authorities to force us to worship at the same shrine are year by year becoming more and more successful. The independence and self-reliance that in times gone by was our boast are now all but strangled by the State. I submit that the attempt that is being made to suppress the right of individuals to select duly qualified persons to do work that is purely personal is an encroachment on personal liberty that should be strenuously resisted. The prevalence to-day of socialistic ideas makes it more than ever necessary to combat the view that the State can do everything better for the people than the people can do it for themselves. There is, I venture to say, no body of men in the kingdom more painfully conscious of the legal shortcomings than solicitors. No section of the community deplore the position more deeply or has striven more earnestly than we have to point out the road to reform. It is a maxim with us that the interests of the public and our interests are absolutely identical. We alone are in complete touch with the public, and alone possess a knowledge of their needs. Our efforts for reform remain, however, fruitless. The reason is that we have not the slightest power to do anything. The power to introduce any reforms in law or practice rests practically with the Lord Chancellor for the time being, and unfortunately of later years our influence with those who have for many years past held that office has been nil. Our voice is not listened to. and it is impossible to nut a limit to the extent the public suffer in consequence. The facts I have set out in this paper, if considered impartially, go far, I submit, to support my contention. So long as our rulers when framing their legal measures ignore the views and advice of solicitors so long will the cry for law reform be heard in the land.
Under £100 £00
Scale under Lord Cairns' Act.
Additional on Registration.
Stamp Scale, 11%. Duty, 108.%.
Fers Tota'. Solicitor's Is 63. for Fee. £25.
1 1 U
0 0 5 V 0 20 0 0 1 1 0
1 10 0
1 16 0
2 2 0
5 0 280 211 0 25 2 17 0 23%
3 3 0 22
0 3 9 0 21
315 0 20
The solicitor's fee of £1 1s. referred to above was fixed by the Rule Committee apparently without knowledge of the labour and responsibility involved. The registry aims at keeping solicitors' fees as nominal as possible, so that it may be thought by the public that registration entails little outside work. The practice is really indefensible. Sir George Jessel, late Master of the Rolls, one of the ablest judges who has ever lived, was largely responsible for the order under Lord Cairns' Act of 1881 fixing the scale of solicitors' remuneration. A purchaser's solicitor is entitled to-30s.
per £100 for first £1000; 20s. per £100 for second and third £1000; 10s. per £100 for fourth and each subsequent £1000 up to £10,000; 5s. per £100 for each subsequent £1000 to £100,000. The registrar is forced to maintain that, on purchases of property already registered, charges must be made out in detail-a vicious system condemned by the Select Committee in 1878 and superseded in 1881 by Lord Cairns' Act. The fact that the registry is compelled to fall back on a method of remuneration detested alike by client and solicitor is striking proof of the reactionary nature of the registration system. Lord Cairns' views as to the system of charging by items being as bad as it can be will be found above.
The Land Registry have three sources of income-(a) registration fees, (b) Middlesex Registry fees, and (c) land charges. The figures of the two latter are not specifically distinguishable, as it answers the purpose of the office to adjust the figures so as to make the actual loss of the registry work appear far less than it is in reality. No explanation is suggested why the expenses of the Middlesex Registry and land charges should have increased from £2030 in 1900 to £10,678 in 1911. The explanation is to be found, it is suggested, in the anxiety to cover up the heavy loss incurred in the Land Registry Department.
3.-London County Council.-List of Bodies who in Feb. 1898 replied to the Council's Invitation to say whether or not they were in Favour of Registration of Title being tried in London.. In favour of the Act being applied to London : Vestries of *Battersea, Camberwell, *Hampstead, Shoreditch, St. George, Hanover-square, St. George-the-Martyr, St. George-in-the-East, St. Luke, and St. Pancras: Greenwich District Board, Limehouse District Board, St. Olave's District Board.
Against the Act being applied to London: Corporation of the City of London, Vestries of Chelsea, Clerkenwell, Fulham, Ham