*Lindsay, Hon. Col. J. *Locke, J. Seaham, Viscount *Seymer, H. K. Brand, Hon. H. Lucas, F. Luce, T. *Shafto, R. D. Shee, W. Mackenzie, W. F. Macgregor, James Mare, Chas. John Massey, W. N. *Maunsell, T. P. *Meagher, Thomas *Miles, W. Shelley, Sir J. V. *Sibthorp, Colonel Smith, Wm. M. *Smyth, J. G. *Spooner, Richard *Stafford, Augustus S. O'B. Stanhope, James B. Stanley, Lord Stanley, Hon. W. O. *Stephenson, R. *Strickland, Sir G. Montgomery, H. L. *Stuart, Lord D. *Moody, C. A. *Sturt, H. G. *Morris, D. *Sullivan, M. *Mullings, J. R. *Mundy, William *Muntz, G. Frederick *Murphy, F. Stack Murrough, J. P. *Naas, Lord *Napier, Right Hon. Joseph Newark, Viscount *Newdegate, C. N. North, Colonel Oakes, J. H. P. O'Brien, P. O'Brien, Sir Timothy *O'Connell, Maurice *Palmer, Robert Parker, R. T. Peacocke, G. M. W. *Peel, Colonel J. Pellatt, A. Percy, Hon. J. W. Taylor, Hugh *Thesiger, Sir F. Townshend, Capt. J. Tudway, R. C. Turner, C *Tyler, Sir G. Vance, J. Vane, Lord A.F.C.W. Vansittart, G. H. *Verner, Sir W. Villiers, Hon. Francis J. R. *Vyse, Rich. H. R. H. *Waddington, David *Waddington, H. S. Walcott, Adm. J. E. *Walmsley, Sir J. *West, F. R. *Whiteside, James Whitmore, Henry *Williams, William *Willoughby, SirH. P. Wise, J. A. Wyndham, Gen. H. Wynn, Herbert W.W. Wynne, W. W. E. *Yorke, Hon. E. T. Baring, Rt. Hon. Sir Bright, John Clifford, Henry M. +Cockburn, Sir A.J. E. Cowper, Hon. Wm. F. William E. Heathcote, Sir G. J. Heathcote, Gilbert H. Hervey, Lord Alfred Howard, Hn.C.W.G. Howard, Rt. Hon. Lord E. G. F. Hume, J. Irton, Samuel Jocelyn, Viscount Labouchere, Right Hon. H. Milner, W. M. E. Milnes, R. M. Mitchell, T. A. Molesworth, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Moncreiff, James +Monsell, William Montgomery, SirG.G. Mure, Colonel W. Noel, Hon. Gerard J. Norreys, Lord Olivera, B. Osborne, Ralph B. Ossulston, Lord Otway, A. J. Paget, Lord Alfred H. Phillimore, J. G. Robartes, T. J. A. Russell, Lord J. Who previously voted for, paired, or are in Foley, J. H. H. favour of the Bill. Inglis, Sir R. H. Jermyn, Rt. Hon. Earl Legh, G. C. Lemon, Sir C. Lewis, Rt. Hon. Sir Powlett, Lord W. J. F. Euston, Earl of Fergus, John Rich, H. Ferguson, Sir R. A. Roche, E. B. Rumbold, C. E. Forester, Rt. Hon. G. Stuart, H. Ewart, William Fortescue, C. S. Fuller, A. E. Galway, Viscount Atherton, W. Geach, C. Bailey, C. Berkeley, F. H. F. Gilpin, R. T. Baring, Hon. F. Booth, Sir R. G. Goddard, A. L. Baring, T. Brady, J. Bennet, P., jun. Gore, W. O.' Granby, Marquis of Hope, Sir J., Bart. Alexander, John No. 100. Arbuthnott, Hon. H. Barnes, T. Bentinck, Lord H. Berkeley, Sir G. H. F. Bernard, Viscount Bland, L. H. Brooke, Lord Browne, V. A. Burghley, Lord Burroughes, H. N. Chambers, M. Chelsea, Viscount Dashwood, Sir G. H. Dent, J. D. Devereux, J. T. Dod, J. W. Duncombe, Hon.W.E. Dunne, M. Esmonde, J. Filmer, Sir E. Fitzgerald, Sir J. F. Fitz-William, Hon. C. W. W. Fitz-William, Hon. G. W. Forster, C. Chandos, Marquess of Franklyn, G. W. 402 Division on Certificate Duty Bill.-Registration of Assurances' Bill. Moreton, Lord Morgan, C. R. Neeld, John Newport, Viscount Talbot, C. R. M. Lefevre, Rt. Hon. C.S. Tomline, G. M'Cann, James Magan, W. H. Mandeville, Viscount Manners, Lord G. J. Masterman, John Meux, Sir H., Bart. Milton, Viscount Traill, G. Tyrell, Sir J. T. BILL. HEADS OF LORD ST. LEONARDS' SPEECH. -REASONS AGAINST THE BILL. As already observed (ante, p. 369), the masterly speech of Lord St. Leonards upon the second reading of the Lord Chancellor's Bill, owing to accidental circumstances, was not fully reported, and it is feared may be considered to some extent as lost to the public. The numerous objections which Lord St. Leonards urged against the measure necessarily took some time to state and explain; but so many serious objections are not often propounded and illustrated in the course of a single speech, and perhaps, in modern debates, no instance could readily be pointed out in which the talent for compression was exercised with so much judgment and effect. The difficulty of making a concise analysis of a statement so suggestive, is considerable, but we believe the following are the main grounds stated by the noble and learned lord for dissenting from the second reading of the Bill as at present framed : Because the Bill as at present framed benefits no man's present title, and saves no man a shilling. Under the Bill the present proprietors of property will hold under two titles. The title deeds of property are taken by the Bill out of the control of the owners, who will have to pay for seeing their own deeds. The experiment of registering titles has already been tried and failed in Yorkshire, Middlesex, Scotland, and Ireland. The present Bill affords no additional security to purchasers. Two distinct titles of the same property may be registered under this Bill. The Bill does not make adequate provi SUMMARY OF THE VOTES FOR AND AGAINST Sion for the identification of property re gistered. Maps of property would be useless, as 219 the face of the country is subject to con. 167 stant changes. 4 26 86 Members absent who previously voted for, paired, or are in favour of the Bill Members absent who voted or paired against the Bill on former divisions Members who have not voted on any di vision. Seats vacant An index of names would be useless, proprietors of the same name are so nu merous. The Commissioners, to whom the matter If Lord St. Leonards could be induced to correct the newspaper report of his speech, so that it may be published in a cheap form for circulation, it would materially assist the due [3 members returned for Knaresborough] 655 consideration of the Bill, which seems even now to be ill understood. Registration of Assurances' Bill.—Suitors in Chancery Bill.—Bankruptcy Bill. was referred, decided that the Bill in its present shape could not work. The Bill is denounced by the solicitors, although its immediate effect will be to increase their emoluments. The Bill will increase expense without any corresponding benefit to the landed proprietors. The Bill does not assist titles in any respect. The Bill does not shorten the abstracts of titles by a single word. Under the present system important deeds are never suppressed. Under the proposed system a mistake in the name, by the registry clerk, would destroy a title. Deeds may be lost by the porters in the Registry Office. The injured parties to be indemnified out of the consolidated fund. The Bill will enormously increase the expense of small purchases. The Bill will produce unnecessary delays in the completion of purchases. Instruments registered will refer to a trust without showing what the trust is. The real transfer will appear on the registry when the real title will not appear on it. The purchaser will be deprived of the protection the law now affords him. The Bill does not simplify the law of property in any particular. If the purchase is not registered a mortgage may be enforced. The mortgagee, who knew the land was mortgaged, may find it has been sold. Clerks sent to register deeds may neglect so to do. A vast expense will be entailed by the proposed system of registration. The Bill affords great facilities for the forgery of deeds. There is no certainty afforded that the deed registered is a real deed, and not a forgery. The register compels a disclosure of the transactions of private life. It discloses the date, the names of parties, and the effect of a conveyance. It interferes injuriously with the equitable doctrine of notice. Such are the leading grounds which, in the judgment of Lord St. Leonards, justify an opposition to the Bill, and if any considerable proportion of those objections are well founded, the apprehension and disfavour with which the measure is regarded in professional circles, are sufficiently accounted 403 for. We would again remind those who oppose the Bill, however, that as the measure is now brought forward by the Lord Chancellor, as the organ of the Government, neither its intrinsic demerits, nor the lack of support it receives from the public, will retard its progress. It can only be defeated by an organised and united opposition, which it is hoped may be prepared by the time the Bill reaches the House of Commons. SUITORS' IN CHANCERY BILL. TAXES ON JUSTICE. THE 9th section of this Bill forms a retrograde movement after the Statute of last Session, 15 & 16 Vict. c. 87, s. 16, by which the salaries of the Lord Chancellor and other Equity Judges were properly transferred to the consolidated fund. The Bill now in the Select Committee of the House of Lords, proposed to empower the Lord Chancellor, when the fees of office are reduced as far as may be deemed expedient in the salaries of the Judges may be paid out of the due administration of justice, to direct that the Suitors' Fund, and the consolidated fund so far relieved! Surely this clause must have crept into the Bill by mistake. However this may be, we understand, if it should come out of the Select Committee, it will be resisted in all its stages, as it ought to be, in both Houses. BANKRUPTCY BILL. ATTORNEY-ADVOCATES. THE 39th section of this Bill proposes to prohibit solicitors from employing other solicitors as their agents in the Bankruptcy Courts, and in effect to repeal the 12 & 13 Vict. c. 106, s. 247, and the several previous Acts, by which solicitors were expressly authorised to "appear and plead, without employing counsel," as in fact had been the practice from time immemorial under the Bankrupt Laws. Surely such an enactment can never pass! The Judges of the Superior Courts, both of Law and Equity, are attended by solicitors and their agents, and the recent Acts have extended the jurisdiction at Chambers. Is it not monstrous that in a Court, comparatively inferior, and essentially dealing with insolvent estates, the creditor, or bankrupt, should be 404 Chancery Suitors' Grievances,—Remuneration of Solicitors. goods and materials supplied, and the stamp. And your Committee propose to show presently that the charges for what they have termed unskilled labour are high, out of all proportion either to the payment for professional skill (which is of a far higher order of merit), or to the real value of such services. In the meantime, whatever branch of law is selected, whether Common Law, Equity, or Conveyancing, it will be found that an attorney's bill always resolves itself into these three heads : compelled, nolens volens, to incur the expense we may fairly call unskilled labour, viz. the of briefs and fees to counsel, when their soli- copying and engrossing; and the rest for citors are fully competent from their familiar acquaintance with commercial accounts to advocate their clients' interests at a moderate expense? The learning and eloquence of the Bar are surely sufficient to secure their employment, whenever needed, without statutory enactments, which really will not mend the matter,—for if the creditors cannot obtain professional assistance in ordinary cases, without the costly aid of counsel, there will be a denial of justice. Not a brief more will result from this suggested legislation. CHANCERY SUITORS' GRIEVANCES. POWERS OF ATTORNEY. "The attorney's and his clerk's professional skill, time, and trouble. "Copying and engrossing. "Money paid for fees and stamps, &c., and materials supplied. "Your Committee think it cannot be doubted To the Editor of the Legal Observer. that the system of charging for every separate SIR,-Pray exert your influence again in step, and, as to documents, by the length, as they calling attention to the heavy payment obliged have described it, holds out to the practitioner the to be made for a power of attorney in the Ac- strongest possible inducement to multiply steps countant-General's Office for so small a cheque in the suit or other proceeding in hand, to as 201. The stamp still remains the same draw the greatest possible number of docu(viz. 30s.). In the late table of fees issued in ments and copies in the course of such suit or October, 1852, the fee for drawing the power proceeding, and to make such documents of of attorney and affidavit was reduced from the utmost length. This, they think, is the 5s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. If this latter sum is consi- natural and obvious tendency of the system; dered sufficient for the trouble taken, does it but they proceed to consider whether such a not seem hard that so large a sum must still temptation or inducement does in fact operate be deducted in consequence of the inability of to produce such effects; in order to which the party himself to attend to receive his they must justify their assertion as to the money? charges for copying and engrossing. E. C. REMUNERATION OF SOLICITORS. WE deem it expedient that our readers should be fully informed of the views entertained by the members of the Bar, or gentlemen practising under the Bar, who form the Special Committee of the Law Amendment Society on "the relation between the Barrister, the Attorney and the Client." We stated in our last Number some of the premises and conclusions of the Committee, and now extract some further remarkable passages from their report :— "The items charged for by an attorney are not like the items in a tradesman's bill, each of which consists of some useful article actually supplied; but in the attorney's bill, the several items are only the component parts of the useful whole required. The attorney charges in distinct sums for attendances, for drawing, for copying, for parchment, for engrossing, for stamp, and for stamping; and the whole results in the one useful article required, e. g. a lease. Among such charges, it will be observed, some are for skilled labour, viz. the attendances, drawing, &c.; some are for what "To estimate the value of a commodity, the usual and certainly only fair practice is to find out its market price.' The charges allowed on taxation will, of course, afford no criterion as to the value of copying and engrossing, inasmuch as the same sum is charged by all alike. There is, however, a simple method of discovering their worth when subjected to unrestricted competition' (which may now be per haps considered the universal law),- it is by consulting a list of the charges of the law stationers. And your Committee, on inquiry, find that a respectable London law stationer would charge as follows:-For fair copies of drafts, &c., 2s. per twenty folios; for engrossments on paper, 13d. per folio; ditto on parch ment, 2d. per folio; briefs and abstracts, per sheet, 1s. ; skin of parchment stamped, 3s. 6d.; unstamped, 3s. To compare these charges with those of the attorney, the following table is given, in which the latter are selected from Dax's New Book of Costs.' (London, 1847) : 1 We have been asked, what is the "market price" for signing a bill in Chancery, and have been told that a fee of half-a-crown has been accepted!-ED. |