desire to advertise the imperfection of their titles, and the entry of a 'qualified' or 'possessory' title on a register which contained entries of indefeasible' titles would have that effect, although the discredited title might be perfectly safe, and little less than marketable. This objection, of course, applies with greatly increased weight if registration is compulsory.

It is generally agreed that if titles are to be registered as indefeasible, a stringent investigation must be made, in order to guard against mistake and fraud, before a title can be placed upon the register. Whether this be done through the medium of a Landed Estates Court, a Registrar, or an official examiner of titles, it must necessarily entail greater inconvenience and expense and more serious risk than the investigation now usual upon an ordinary sale. Under the Land Transfer Act, 1875, a person intending to register with an absolute title must not only submit to a most stringent investigation, but must give notices, by advertisement and otherwise, which practically amount to invitations to all persons interested in disputing or taking advantage of flaws in his title to come forward and assert dormant claims which might otherwise have been disposed of by the Statutes of Limitation. The same remarks apply to proceedings under the Act of 1875 for confirmation of qualified and possessory titles and confirmation of boundaries. Although the majority of titles are practically safe, few are absolutely free from objection, and an ordinary vendor can guard against defects by special conditions, while an ordinary purchaser is content to run risks which are often more theoretical than practical. But an official whose decisions will bar all hostile claims can run no risks. He must insist upon having every step in the title established by the strictest evidence. This has been forcibly pointed out in the able pamphlet recently published by the Bar Committee. The enormous risk, expense, and inconvenience incident to such an investigation are largely responsible for the failure of the Act of 1875.

Nor should it be forgotten that, upon the registration of any transfer of an indefeasible registered title, the Registrar must take extraordinary precautions (which cause inconvenience and expense) to guard against mistake and fraud, such as forgery and personation. Otherwise it is quite conceivable that two hostile claimants may have their names upon the register as indefeasibly entitled to the same land!

The Land Transfer Bill of 1889, while retaining the invidious distinction between absolute, qualified, and possessory titles, offered to a person registering an absolute title, not an indefeasible, but merely a GUARANTEED, TITLE. The registration might be vacated upon

the application of any person proving a better title to the land, and the disappointed registered owner was to receive compensation out of an insurance fund. In the colonial system the first bond fide registered owner and bond fide purchasers for value from him obtain practically indefeasible titles, while innocent registered purchasers from fraudulent vendors lose the land but receive compensation in money. So does a true owner who is deprived of his land by a mistaken first registration. This system is said to enable the Colonial Registrars to place good holding titles on the register, and to register transfers without taking the precautions hitherto considered necessary in England. But it may be doubted whether, having regard to the complicated estates and interests which exist in English land, a Registrar whose mistakes must be paid for out of an insurance fund supplemented by the public purse would, in this country, feel justified in acting upon a less stringent investigation or less certain evidence of identity than has been required under the Act of 1875. Moreover, there is all the difference in the world between an indefeasible and a guaranteed title to land. To take away consols or railway stock from an innocent purchaser, and to pay him the full money value thereof, might conceivably satisfy as well as surprise him; but to adopt a similar procedure in the case of a man who has bought a particular plot of land with a Government guarantee of title, and built a house upon it because he prefers it as a residence to any other spot of earth, would undoubtedly cause surprise unmixed with satisfaction.

To obviate the risk and expense incident to registration of indefeasible and guaranteed titles the alternative system of REGISTRATION OF PRIMÂ FACIE TITLES has been suggested. It is in essentials an old proposal, but, with certain modifications, it has received recent support from eminent authorities. The main feature is the compulsory registration of every estate in fee simple on the next transfer or devolution, without guarantee of title. It is proposed that there shall not be any official investigation of title, and that the effect of registration shall be to constitute the person registered, owner in fee simple, subject to the rights of the person in physical possession, and subject to any existing imperfections in the title prior to the date of registration. Registration of all future dealings is to be compulsory. The result will be to bring all titles on the register without great expense, and to render, every year, a shorter investigation of the prior title necessary. At the end of forty (or according to one proposal twenty) years the register alone would be conclusive; and the prior title would not be called for. Many purchasers would be satisfied to rely on the register alone, after a shorter interval.

Under the English Acts of 1862 and 1875 registration is voluntary. Under the colonial system it is compulsory, as to land held under Crown grants made subsequent to the Act, and voluntary as to other land. Sir R. R. Torrens suggests that it shall be made compulsory in England on the occasion of the next transfer of the fee simple for value. The Bill of 1889 proposed to give power to introduce compulsion, and this provision secured its rejection by the House of Lords. The provision in question was indeed open to serious objection:-It would inflict a heavy tax on present purchasers and devisees for the benefit of future owners. It would in many cases discredit titles by compelling the registration of perfectly safe holding titles as 'qualified' or 'possessory.' The effect of forcing upon landowners, at a time when land has considerably depreciated in value, what is an additional burden rather than a benefit, would be to check instead of to encourage alienation. Registration of prima facie titles would be free from these objections.

By the Act of 1862 an attempt was made to provide for the registration of all existing estates and interests, whether legal or equitable. The colonial system is on the same principle, except that in the case of a settlement by way of trust for sale the trustees are registered as owners, and equitable interests are protected by caveats and by the addition of the words 'No survivorship,' which preclude a surviving trustee from selling until a prescribed number of trustees has been filled up. With regard to many of the estates and interests noticed on the register, this system seems (like the English Act of 1862) open to the objection that it consists partly of registration of title properly so called, and partly of registration of what is supposed to be the effect of certain documents. To apply such a system to English land would cause great additional cost, and in difficult cases of construction it is scarcely conceivable that the persons interested would be satisfied to adopt the opinion of the Registrar. In advocating the adoption of Registration of Title in England, Sir R. R. Torrens proposes that (so far as compulsory) it shall be limited to estates in fee simple-presumably legal estates. The English Act of 1875 in terms provides for the registration only of legal estates in fee simple and absolute interests in leaseholds, although tenants for life of settled estates are in fact registered under it. It may be doubted whether this practice is authorised by the Act. Charges may be registered; but equitable estates and interests are merely protected by cautions and inhibitions. Certain specified burdens affect all registered land unless expressly excluded, while other specified burdens may be registered as 'restrictions.'

The Bill of 1889 proceeded upon the same lines, except that it

proposed to permit the registration, as limited owner, of a tenant for life of settled land, the effect of such registration being to vest an estate in fee simple in the registered owner and the other persons entitled under the settlement. The trustees were also to be registered, in order to show by whom a valid receipt for purchase money (when not paid into Court) could be given. The burdens which were to affect registered land without registration are land tax; tithes; public, customary, seignorial, and manorial rights; franchises; profits à prendre and easements existing prior to registration, and tenancies for short terms. The burdens capable of registration were in effect charges (whether for principal sums, including vendor's liens) or leases for lives, lites pendentes, annuities, judgments, executions, easements, profits à prendre and mining rights created after registration, restrictive covenants or conditions, estates in dower, and any such matter as may be prescribed' by general rules. Provision was made for registration of leaseholds for terms exceeding twenty-one years.

Whether or not copyholds were intended to be registered was an ingenious puzzle which, so far as the writer is aware, has never been satisfactorily solved.

Under the schemes for registration of prima facie titles it is proposed to register legal estates in fee simple. One suggestion is to enter all other estates and interests on the register as 'charges.' Another proposal is that all limited estates, and all estates and interests under settlements, should be by way of trust and be kept off the register. Under one scheme strict settlements would be dealt with practically in accordance with the Bill of 1889, while three separate additional registers are suggested for (a) incumbrances, (b) adverse rights (including easements, profits à prendre, restrictive covenants, and leases exceeding twenty-one years), and (c) reversions, as well as a separate index of incorporeal hereditaments. Under the other scheme tenants for life or trustees of a settlement would be registered as absolute owners, and remaindermen be protected by caveats, while a separate register of incumbrances and adverse rights is suggested.

Before leaving the subject of Registration of Title, mention must be made of two recent proposals. One is to the effect that there should be no Government or official registration, but that Registration of Title should be undertaken by a public Company who should guarantee registered titles, and be under liability to make compensation for error or fraud, similar to the present liability of the Bank of England in relation to registered Stock. It is well known that certain Joint Stock Companies have recently undertaken the business of guaranteeing or assuring mortgagees against

loss in consideration of a small premium; and the proposal, if carried out, would be an extension of this practice. It may be safely affirmed that titles would be registered by such a Company more speedily and at less expense than by an official Registrar, whether attached to a Government Department or not. The other suggestion is that properly qualified public examiners of title. should be appointed, that any landowner should be at liberty to submit his title to an examiner for investigation, and to deposit the abstract with the Examiner's opinion or certificate thereon, at the Registry, and that he should sell under a special condition that no title other than the Examiner's certificate should be required. Land would, doubtless, be bought under such a condition if the professional reputation of the Official Examiners was such as to command confidence. Under this system titles could, of course, be cleared up to date from time to time; and for the case of the subdivision into small lots of a large building or other property it would provide the advantages now obtained by registration under the Act of 1875 at a fraction of the cost. The chief difficulty would be to ensure that no material deeds had been suppressed by accident or design. The experience of conveyancers proves that the ordinary requisition as to incumbrances (although not now strictly admissible) occasionally leads to the disclosure of some previously forgotten deed.

The question to what extent any scheme of Registration would remove or mitigate the inconveniences and disadvantages which have been enumerated-or such of them as are still existing-and the discussion of other suggestions for amendment of the law must be reserved for a future article.

H. GREENWOOD.